2.2. Evaluation Procedures

HUT Scales: Participants in the home-use test used a total of four different scales to evaluate the entrees described here. Question design and data acquisition were accomplished with Compusense^® Cloud (Guelph, ON, Canada) software.

A 7-point hedonic scale [13] was used to test the liking/acceptance of different sensory modalities: the overall liking; aroma; overall flavor; texture acceptance of the shrimp, chicken and sausage; and the overall liking.

A 5-point just-about-right (JAR) scale was used to test the spiciness and texture perception of each of the three meat components (shrimp, chicken and sausage).

A 3-point JAR scale about perception of the size of the jambalaya meal was asked at the end of the study. The scale ranged from 1 (=less than I would like) to 3 (=more than I would like). The participants were asked about their perception of the unit/tray size (250 g = 1 serving); the quantity of sauce; the quantity of vegetables; the size of the vegetables; the quantity of each of the meats, shrimp, chicken, and sausage; the level of saltiness; and their preference for tails off the shrimp.

Participants were also asked (open question) to describe the experience participating in the HUT. Comments were collected, revised and categorized into seven groups. The categories were validated by the agreement between two researchers of the study. The categories are the following: enjoyed experience with partner, HUT vs. in-lab evaluation, time flexibility, fun/positive experience, liking of the meals and willingness to pay for the meals.

Willingness to Pay Evaluation: In collaboration with the School of Economics, a complementary study, an online auction was conducted to measure product satisfaction by the willingness of participants to pay for the jambalaya samples. At each of the three evaluation time points (Weeks 2, 8 and 12), after the sensory evaluation component, the participants were asked to submit their bids (i.e., their willingness to pay) for a unit (equivalent to 9 oz-250 g) of each of the jambalaya sample tested. Compensation for doing the sensory evaluations as well as the online auction at each of the three evaluation points totaled $90.00 in cash mailed to the participants. Partners were not included for this component of the study.

The online auction followed a second price auction protocol. The protocol and the benefits of using this type of action to determine the willingness to pay are described by Lusk and Shogren (2007) [26].

The protocol followed in the present study is reported by Garrido et al. (2021) [24]. To determine the winner of the auction, the first step was to randomly select one of the jambalaya samples (control or MAPS). The winner of the auction was the participant who placed the highest bid for the selected sample. The winner received one meal unit of this meal, and in exchange, they had to pay the market price, or the second highest bid. This process was repeated at each of evaluation time points and was done after the sensory testing of the meals.

At the first evaluation time point (2 weeks of storage), no information about the two samples of jambalaya was provided before participants submitted their bids in the auction. The only information provided was the three-digit code or identification number for each meal. At the second and third evaluation time points, two pieces of information were disclosed to the participants before bidding. The order for receiving these two pieces of information was randomized among the participants. At the second time point (8 weeks of storage), the information about the name of the technology used to preserve each jambalaya sample (MAPS versus freezing) was provided to 25 participants. The information about the environmental impacts of the MAPS sample versus the frozen sample was provided to the remaining 25 participants. At the third time point (12 weeks of storage), the information disclosure was reversed. To avoid interfering with the participants’ ratings of the sensory attributes of the meals, the information about the name of the technology and the environmental impacts was disclosed after the sensory testing [24].

Participant Selection and Orientation: A semi-trained panel (n = 10; 8 females, 2 males, ages 23–46) also evaluated the sensory profile of the MAPS-jambalaya and the control with rate-all-that-apply (RATA) questions. All the members of the semi-trained panel had previous experience in conducting sensory evaluation and had participated in multiple descriptive panels conducted at the WSU Sensory Science Center [22].

These evaluations were also done at Weeks 2, 8, and 12 of storage. RATA methodology has been reported to be a valid and reliable sensory profiling tool suitable for semi-trained panels [22,27]. For each session, the control trays were thawed in water at room temperature for 1.5 h. Next, each jambalaya tray (250 g) was warmed at 45–50 °C for 30 min (15 min on each side, top and bottom) with a food warmer (Glo-Ray HATCO Corporation, Milwaukee, WI, USA). Then the trays were opened, and the jambalaya was carefully mixed. A total of 17–20 g of warmed jambalaya was then portioned into plastic cups; each sample was checked to ensure it contained all of the proportionally identical components of the jambalaya (sausage, shrimp, chicken). All samples were evaluated at 40 ± 1 °C. A 30 s break was given after the evaluation of each sample. Filtered water and unsalted crackers (Nabisco, NJ, USA) were provided as palate cleansers. Evaluations were conducted individually, in a discussion room, under white lighting.

RATA questions for the jambalaya were divided into six sections: aroma, appearance, taste/flavor, texture, mouthfeel, and aftertaste. As assessors evaluated six sensory modalities-aroma, followed by appearance, taste/flavor, texture, mouthfeel and aftertaste, they checked the terms they considered appropriate to describe the jambalaya samples (Figure 2). The list consisted of 4 to 17 terms, depending on the sensory modality. The terms used for each of the sensory modalities were defined based on pilot work. Assessors then rated the intensity of the selected terms, using a three-point structured scale (low, medium, and high). Answers were collected with a paper-based ballot. The jambalaya samples were coded with three-digit codes and presented in monadic sequential, randomized, balanced order.

List of the sensory attributes tested for the MAPS-jambalaya and the control with RATA questions.