| Abstract: | Three data collection procedures, sorting and two forms of projective mapping (PM), were compared for ease-of-use and the ability to produce meaningful spatial maps when analyzed using Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) or Coordinate Averaging (CA). Eighteen commercially available snack bars were evaluated for similarity-of-use by two panels of 24. MDS of the sorting data and Procrustes analyses of PM data collected on unlabeled axis grouped the bars according to function and provided a meaningful spatial relationship in one dimension. However, MDS analysis of these PM data grouped the bars by similarity-of-use and provided a meaningful spatial interpretation in two dimensions. The CA analysis was not effective in separating the bars by similarity-of-use but did provide an indication of liking. A comparison of spatial configurations using RV coefficients showed moderate correlations between the methods. A panelist survey showed no significant differences in the ease-of-use, task interest or level-of-satisfaction with the final arrangement between the sorting and the PM data collection methods, but panelists did find it easier to change their minds using the PM procedure. |
