Food Protection Trends - May/June 2014 - 144

scale, respondents indicated their perceptions of the levels of
importance of each of 27 items (also compiled from review
of literature and researchers' past work Arendt et al. (2))
that might encourage them to handle food safely, such as
"being taught about food safety" and "a workplace that has
policies and procedures on food safety." Twelve demographic
questions were asked, using both multiple-choice and openended formats. The data collection tools and protocol were
approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board.
Pilot testing
Pilot testing involved 209 foodservice employees working
across the U.S., with at least 20 responding from each of
four identified age groups (18 - 25 years, n = 68; 26 - 39
years, n = 61; 40 - 60 years, n = 53; and over the age of 60,
n = 20). Spanish-speaking employees were recruited (n
= 25). Based on this feedback, minor modifications were
made to the questionnaire.
Study sample
The population targeted for the study was nonsupervisory
foodservice employees working in specific sectors of the
retail foodservice industry. A sample of 1,000 foodservice
employees nationwide was the goal of a recruitment effort
through the managers or directors at 100 foodservice
operations: 25 quick service restaurants, 25 college and
university dining operations, 25 school foodservices, and
25 fine and casual dining sites. Purchased mailing lists and
membership lists from professional organizations were used
to compile the database. A stratified random sample was
used in the selection of foodservice operations to facilitate
contacts with each relevant sector of the industry. Surveys
were color-coded for each type of foodservice operation.

Once identified from the database, campus and school
foodservice managers and directors were generally contacted
by email and restaurant managers by phone to secure
cooperation before a set of questionnaires were sent that they
in turn would distribute to hourly staff. Equal proportions
of operation types across the country were recruited, with
variation in number of survey packets sent based on number
of staff at those operations. Managers were overrecruited to
ensure an appropriate response rate. A total of 7,104 surveys
were distributed, with 1,412 responses, for a response rate
of close to 20%, similar to that in other national surveys of
retail foodservice staff (14). However, 309 respondents were
staff with supervisory responsibilities. Only responses from
nonsupervisory staff were analyzed (n = 1,103).
Data analysis
Data were analyzed initially using descriptive statistics.
Relationships between the predictor variables of respondents'
gender, age group, years of foodservice experience, type
of operation, use of the English or Spanish version of the
questionnaire, and the dependent variables of their reported
food safety practices, identified barriers, and key motivators
were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and
t-tests. Correlations between reported food safety practices
and barriers to following safe food handling behaviors and
between reported practices and motivations to practice safe
food behaviors were analyzed.
RESULTS
Profile of respondents

profile of the 1,103 employee respondents is shown
in Table 1. Fewer than 11% of respondents were from
quick service restaurants (6.2%) or casual dining restaurants

TABLE 2. Hourly foodservice workers' mean ratings of reported frequency of food
safety practices
N

Meana

Wash my hands

1,069

4.93

0.39

Keep work areas clean

1,076

4.84

0.46

Use sanitizer after cleaning

1,074

4.73

0.68

Make sure food is kept above
135°F or below 41°F

1,028

4.64

0.97

Take temperatures of foods

1,042

4.40

1.28

Have customers with food
allergies

1,042

3.56

1.35

Come to work if sick

1,046

2.33

1.36

Item

Rating scale: 1 = Never; 5 = Always

144

Food Protection Trends

May/June

Food Protection Trends - May/June 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - May/June 2014