Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products

Authors

Sugiyono Sugiyono, Department of Culinary and Fashion Education Faculty of Engineering Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Indonesia
Djemari Mardapi, Faculty of Engineering Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Indonesia
I Gusti Putu Suryadarma, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Indonesia

Keywords

physiological instrument, psychological instrument, sensory instrument

Document Type

Article

Abstract

The study investigated the constructs and characteristics of physiological, psychological, and sensory instruments. The data were collected by means of a questionnaire, physiological instrument, psychological instrument, and sensory instrument. The expert judgment conclusions were calculated by means of Aiken formula; the instrument construct validity was analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis by the goodness-of-fit test at the significance level of 0.05; the reliability estimate by generalizability with a G-study coefficient ‰¥ 0.7 and an ICC coefficient ‰¥ 0.7; and the instrument characteristics were analyzed by D-study. The results of the study are as follows: (1) the physiological instrument consisted of nine constructs: four constructs of psychological instrument and five constructs of sensory instrument; (2) three instruments had good face validity, content validity and construct validity, supported by the empirical evidence at p > 0.05; (3) the reliability estimate of the three instruments was good and the reliability estimate was supported by empirical evidence with G coefficients of > 0.7 and ICC coefficients of > 0.7, (4) the three instruments had characteristics that might be appropriate to be used by the university students of culinary program and the vocational high school students of culinary program.

Page Range

92-105

Issue

1

Volume

3

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940

Source

https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid/article/view/13940

Recommended Citation

Sugiyono, S., Mardapi, D., & Suryadarma, I. G. (2017). Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products. REID (Research and Evaluation in Education), 3(1), 92-105. https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940

References

Azwar, S. (2000). Sikap manusia: Teori dan pengukurannya (2nd ed.). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83(5), 762-765. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.762

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Brennan, R. L. (2006). Educational measurement (4th ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mardapi, D. (2008). Teknik penyusunan instrumen tes dan nontes. Yogyakarta: Mitra Cendekia.

Mason, R. L., & Nottingham, S. M. (2002). Sensory evaluation manual. Phitsanulok, Thailand: Naresuan University.

Murti, B. (2011). Validitas dan reliabilitas pengukuran. In Matrikulasi Program Studi Doktoral. Surakarta: Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Sebelas Maret.

Rakhmat, J. (2007). Psikologi komunikasi. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Shumate, S. R., Surles, J., Johnson, R. L., & Penny, J. (2007). The effects of the number of scale points and non-normality on the generalizability coefficient: A Monte Carlo study. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(4), 357-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340701429645

Stone, H., & Sidel, J. L. (2004). Sensory evaluation practices (3rd ed.). Waltham, MA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012672690-9/50013-5

Walgito, B. (1989). Pengantar psikologi umum (Rev. ed.). Yogyakarta: Andi Offset.

Watts, B. M., Ylimaki, G. L., Jeffery, L. E., & Elias, L. G. (1989). Basic sensory methods for food evaluation. Ottawa, Ontario: International Development Research Centre.