Food Protection Trends - January 2009 - 23

and the researchers’ contact information were sent to all operations approximately five days prior to the initial telephone call. The research protocol was approved by the Kansas State University Institutional Review Board. Instrument development The questionnaire was developed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TpB) (1), which can be used to identify beliefs that prevent individuals from performing behaviors. In this study, the behavior in question is the offering of food safety training to employees. The TpB posits that a person’s behavioral intention is based upon three antecedents: his or her attitude, the values of important referents (subjective norm), and one’s ability to perform the behavior (perceived behavioral control) (5, 18). An elicitation study to determine what antecedents or beliefs about offering food safety training were most important to restaurant managers was conducted with a convenience sample of 20 restaurant managers. The elicitation study identified the commonly held beliefs that provided the basis for constructing the questionnaire. Examples of responses for each of the constructs included: behavioral beliefs (increase employee satisfaction, time to conduct food safety training), normative beliefs (employees, customers, health inspector), and control beliefs (time and money). The initial questionnaire developed from the literature review and elicitation study was then reviewed by five graduate students and faculty familiar with food safety to ensure face validity. Major wording changes were made to the questionnaire and to the telephone scripting based on this review. A pilot study was conducted with 50 operations drawn from the sample. Restaurant managers were sent an advance letter approximately one week prior to calling. Managers were then contacted by trained undergraduate research assistants; if there was no answer or if the manager was unavailable, the manager was contacted again at a later time. To track the time, date of each call, and the number of overall attempts to reach a manager, a call tracking form was used. Restaurants were contacted six times prior to being labeled as a “no response.” A total of 19 of the 50 operations completed the questionnaire, for a 38% response rate. The pilot test did not yield any questions or wording that needed changing. The final version of the instrument included 85 questions to measure the components of the TpB and demographic information. Part I included nine questions to measure operational demographic information such as seating capacity, number of employees, types of food safety training offered, etc. Part II collected direct and indirect measures of the TpB. Direct measures of attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, and behavioral intention were measured on a 7-point scale. Therefore, direct measures range on a scale from 1 to 7, with higher numbers indicating more positive attitudes and subjective norms or higher perceived control and intention. Attitudes were measured on a set of five semantic scales: good/bad, worthless/valuable, difficult/easy, unpleasant/pleasant, and unimportant/important. Subjective norms were measured by asking managers to rate if their important referents would approve or disapprove of offering food safety training to their employees. For example, “Most people who are important to me think that I should offer food safety training to my employees within the next year.” Perceived behavioral control was measured by two questions: “I am able to send my employees to food safety training if I choose” and “It is my choice whether I offer food safety training to my employees within the next year.” Intention was measured with three items: “I will try to offer,” “I intend to offer,” and “I plan to offer” food safety training within the next year. For all three measurements, a 7-point disagree-agree scale was used anchored by (1) strongly disagree and (7) strongly agree. Indirect measures included behavioral, normative, and control beliefs and ranged on a scale from -21 to 21. Measures represent the mean of the belief multiplied by the evaluation of that belief. Nine behavioral beliefs identified in the elicitation study were measured by asking the respondent to rate the strength of his/her belief on a 7-point scale from (1) extremely unlikely to (7) extremely likely. These beliefs included (1) increasing customer satisfaction, (2) ensuring safe food, (3) ensuring food quality, (4) reducing food waste, (5) increasing employees’ food safety awareness, (6) maintaining the operation’s reputation, (7) employee satisfaction, (8) reducing the likelihood of lawsuits, and (9) improving food safety practices of employees. Outcome evaluations were measured by asking respondents to rate how good or bad each of the beliefs were to them on a 7-point scale from (-3) extremely bad to (3) extremely good. The bipolar scoring (-3 to +3) is used in TpB research to reflect unfavorable evaluations as a negative score and positive evaluations as a positive score. Overall belief score was then calculated by multiplying the behavioral beliefs scores by the outcome evaluation to compute a total behavioral belief score. Normative beliefs, or beliefs of how important referents (district managers, peer managers, etc.) view the behavior, are an important determinant of one’s behavior (5). The managers’ supervisor, long-term employees, short-term employees, customers, health inspectors, and vendors were identified through the literature review and elicitation study as important referents (normative beliefs). The strength of their beliefs was measured by asking respondents to rate the likelihood that each referent group/individual would think that food safety training should be offered to employees. A 7-point scale from (-3) extremely likely to (3) extremely unlikely was used. The motivation to comply with those normative beliefs was evaluated by asking respondents how much they care what the referent group/ individual thinks on a 7-point scale from (1) not at all to (7) very much. A total normative belief score was calculated by multiplying the individual normative beliefs by the motivation to comply to derive an overall belief score that was summed across all evaluations. Employee availability, managers’ time, financial resources, lack of off-site food safety training availability, lack of on-site food safety training availability, lack of targeted training materials, employees not following what they learn from food safety training, and the time commitment required for food safety training were identified as control beliefs from the elicitation study. Control beliefs are those beliefs that can inhibit the performing of the behavior (5). These were measured by asking managers’ to rate their agreement with the belief that it makes food safety training difficult on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (-3) to strongly agree (3). Perceived power was measured by asking respondents to rate how often not having the item affects their offering employee food safety training JANUARY 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 23

Food Protection Trends - January 2009

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - January 2009