Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Study of the Test-retest Reliability of Ten Olfactory Tests

Doty, Richard L., McKeown, Donald A., Lee, W. William, Shaman, Paul·1995·Chemical Senses

Abstract

Ten tests of olfactory function (including tests of odor identification, detection, discrimination, memory, and suprathreshold odor intensity and pleasantness perception) were administered on two test occasions to 57 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 83 years. The stability of the average test scores was determined across the two test sessions for 14 measures derived from these 10 tests and for subcomponents of the Japanese T&T olfactometer threshold test. In addition, the test-retest reliability (Pearson r) of each test measure was established. With the exception of a response bias measure, the average test scores did not differ significantly across the two test sessions. Statistically, the reliability coefficients of the primary test measures fell into three general classes bound by the following r values: 0.43-0.53; 0.67-0.71; 0.76-0.90. Detection threshold values were more reliable than recognition threshold values; those based upon a single ascending presentation series were much less reliable than those based upon a staircase procedure. The relationship between test length and reliability was examined for several of the tests and mathematically modeled. For example, within the staircase series incorporating the odorant phenyl ethyl alcohol, reliability was related (R2 = 0.984) to the number of reversals included in the threshold estimate by a function derived from the Spearman-Brown formula; namely, reliability = 0.455* # reversals/[1 + 0.455 (# reversals - 1)]. Reversal location, per se, had little influence on reliability. Overall, this study suggests that (i) considerable variation is present in the reliability of olfactory tests, (ii) reliability is a function of test length, and (iii) caution is warranted in comparing results from nominally different olfactory tests in applied settings since the findings may, in some instances, simply reflect the differential reliability of the tests.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/chemse/20.6.645

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 331

Metadata

Authors
Doty, R. L., McKeown, D. A., Lee, W. W., & Shaman, P.
Venue
Chemical Senses
Published
1995
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
645-656
ISSN
  • 0379-864X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3553
OpenAlex
W2126271049
Cited by
331
References
0
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Study of the Test-retest Reliability of Ten Olfactory Tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/chemse/20.6.645
The paper
Doty, R. L., McKeown, D. A., Lee, W. W., & Shaman, P. (1995). A Study of the Test-retest Reliability of Ten Olfactory Tests. Chemical Senses. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/20.6.645

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.