Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products
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 mean...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Sugiyono Sugiyono [verfasserIn] Djemari Mardapi [verfasserIn] I Gusti Putu Suryadarma [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Research and Evaluation in Education - Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2016, 3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:3 ; year:2017 ; number:1 ; pages:92-105 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ004238559 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ004238559 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240414045131.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230225s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ004238559 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJcd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a Sugiyono Sugiyono |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a 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. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a physiological instrument | |
| 650 | 4 | |a psychological instrument | |
| 650 | 4 | |a sensory instrument | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Education | |
| 653 | 0 | |a L | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Djemari Mardapi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a I Gusti Putu Suryadarma |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Research and Evaluation in Education |d Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2016 |g 3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105 |w (DE-627)1760647047 |w (DE-600)3072811-3 |x 24606995 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:3 |g year:2017 |g number:1 |g pages:92-105 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/cd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid/article/view/13940 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2460-6995 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 3 |j 2017 |e 1 |h 92-105 | ||
| author_variant |
s s ss d m dm i g p s igps |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:24606995:2017----::eeoigsesetntuetfrhsnoycet |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2017 |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| allfields |
10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 doi (DE-627)DOAJ004238559 (DE-599)DOAJcd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sugiyono Sugiyono verfasserin aut Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. physiological instrument psychological instrument sensory instrument Education L Djemari Mardapi verfasserin aut I Gusti Putu Suryadarma verfasserin aut In Research and Evaluation in Education Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2016 3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105 (DE-627)1760647047 (DE-600)3072811-3 24606995 nnns volume:3 year:2017 number:1 pages:92-105 https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/cd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 kostenfrei https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid/article/view/13940 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2460-6995 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 3 2017 1 92-105 |
| spelling |
10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 doi (DE-627)DOAJ004238559 (DE-599)DOAJcd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sugiyono Sugiyono verfasserin aut Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. physiological instrument psychological instrument sensory instrument Education L Djemari Mardapi verfasserin aut I Gusti Putu Suryadarma verfasserin aut In Research and Evaluation in Education Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2016 3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105 (DE-627)1760647047 (DE-600)3072811-3 24606995 nnns volume:3 year:2017 number:1 pages:92-105 https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/cd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 kostenfrei https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid/article/view/13940 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2460-6995 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 3 2017 1 92-105 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 doi (DE-627)DOAJ004238559 (DE-599)DOAJcd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sugiyono Sugiyono verfasserin aut Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. physiological instrument psychological instrument sensory instrument Education L Djemari Mardapi verfasserin aut I Gusti Putu Suryadarma verfasserin aut In Research and Evaluation in Education Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2016 3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105 (DE-627)1760647047 (DE-600)3072811-3 24606995 nnns volume:3 year:2017 number:1 pages:92-105 https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/cd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 kostenfrei https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid/article/view/13940 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2460-6995 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 3 2017 1 92-105 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 doi (DE-627)DOAJ004238559 (DE-599)DOAJcd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sugiyono Sugiyono verfasserin aut Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. physiological instrument psychological instrument sensory instrument Education L Djemari Mardapi verfasserin aut I Gusti Putu Suryadarma verfasserin aut In Research and Evaluation in Education Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2016 3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105 (DE-627)1760647047 (DE-600)3072811-3 24606995 nnns volume:3 year:2017 number:1 pages:92-105 https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/cd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 kostenfrei https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid/article/view/13940 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2460-6995 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 3 2017 1 92-105 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 doi (DE-627)DOAJ004238559 (DE-599)DOAJcd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sugiyono Sugiyono verfasserin aut Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. physiological instrument psychological instrument sensory instrument Education L Djemari Mardapi verfasserin aut I Gusti Putu Suryadarma verfasserin aut In Research and Evaluation in Education Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2016 3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105 (DE-627)1760647047 (DE-600)3072811-3 24606995 nnns volume:3 year:2017 number:1 pages:92-105 https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/cd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 kostenfrei https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid/article/view/13940 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2460-6995 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 3 2017 1 92-105 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Research and Evaluation in Education 3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105 volume:3 year:2017 number:1 pages:92-105 |
| sourceStr |
In Research and Evaluation in Education 3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105 volume:3 year:2017 number:1 pages:92-105 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
physiological instrument psychological instrument sensory instrument Education L |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Research and Evaluation in Education |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Sugiyono Sugiyono @@aut@@ Djemari Mardapi @@aut@@ I Gusti Putu Suryadarma @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1760647047 |
| id |
DOAJ004238559 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ004238559</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414045131.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ004238559</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJcd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sugiyono Sugiyono</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">physiological instrument</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">psychological instrument</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sensory instrument</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">L</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Djemari Mardapi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">I Gusti Putu Suryadarma</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Research and Evaluation in Education</subfield><subfield code="d">Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760647047</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)3072811-3</subfield><subfield code="x">24606995</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:3</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:92-105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/cd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid/article/view/13940</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2460-6995</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">3</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">92-105</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Sugiyono Sugiyono |
| spellingShingle |
Sugiyono Sugiyono misc physiological instrument misc psychological instrument misc sensory instrument misc Education misc L Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products |
| authorStr |
Sugiyono Sugiyono |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1760647047 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
24606995 |
| topic_title |
Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products physiological instrument psychological instrument sensory instrument |
| topic |
misc physiological instrument misc psychological instrument misc sensory instrument misc Education misc L |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc physiological instrument misc psychological instrument misc sensory instrument misc Education misc L |
| topic_browse |
misc physiological instrument misc psychological instrument misc sensory instrument misc Education misc L |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Research and Evaluation in Education |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1760647047 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Research and Evaluation in Education |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1760647047 (DE-600)3072811-3 |
| title |
Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ004238559 (DE-599)DOAJcd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 |
| title_full |
Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products |
| author_sort |
Sugiyono Sugiyono |
| journal |
Research and Evaluation in Education |
| journalStr |
Research and Evaluation in Education |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2017 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
92 |
| author_browse |
Sugiyono Sugiyono Djemari Mardapi I Gusti Putu Suryadarma |
| container_volume |
3 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Sugiyono Sugiyono |
| doi_str_mv |
10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products |
| title_auth |
Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products |
| 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. |
| abstractGer |
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. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
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. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 https://doaj.org/article/cd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42 https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid/article/view/13940 https://doaj.org/toc/2460-6995 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Djemari Mardapi I Gusti Putu Suryadarma |
| author2Str |
Djemari Mardapi I Gusti Putu Suryadarma |
| ppnlink |
1760647047 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T22:43:58.243Z |
| _version_ |
1803599623761166336 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ004238559</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414045131.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ004238559</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJcd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sugiyono Sugiyono</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Developing assessment instruments for the sensory acceptability of food products</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">physiological instrument</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">psychological instrument</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sensory instrument</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">L</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Djemari Mardapi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">I Gusti Putu Suryadarma</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Research and Evaluation in Education</subfield><subfield code="d">Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">3(2017), 1, Seite 92-105</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760647047</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)3072811-3</subfield><subfield code="x">24606995</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:3</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:92-105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v3i1.13940</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/cd7bab724c19477e954acb5d9490db42</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/reid/article/view/13940</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2460-6995</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">3</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">92-105</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399703 |