Food Protection Trends - July/August 2021 - 392

FIGURE 1. Model of food safety
training evaluation adapted from the
Theory of Planned Behavior (1).
Figure 1. Model of food safety training evaluation adapted from the Theory of Planned Behavior (1).
The researchers developed questions that focused on
each aspect of the model. Questions included phrases or
keywords that were linked back to the model to ensure that
the researchers were assessing every area of the model (1).
The knowledge portion of the model was delivered during
the training program. The focus of this evaluation was to
assess the impact of knowledge acquisition on the attitudes,
intentions, and behaviors of the participants.
All evaluation questions focused on three general themes
that were incorporated throughout the training program.
Questions about attitudes toward food safety focused
on personal choices in relation to food and ingredients,
personal hygiene, and the preparation environment.
Subjective norm questions addressed whether the
participant agreed that coworkers, family, friends, health
inspectors, and their customers expected them to use safe
food practices. Perceived behavioral control questions
evaluated participants' personal ability to follow in their
personal operations certain food safety tasks that were
recommended in the training program. The final section
of the evaluation focused on the actual intention and
behavior of the participants. Evaluation forms were given
to participants after they signed a consent form before the
training program (pretest), immediately after the program
(posttest), and 6 to 8 weeks later (6- to 8-week follow-up
evaluation). Participant age, gender, and race information
was not collected. Demographic information was collected as
part of a prior needs assessment, and the researchers' focus
was on evaluating the participants' attitudes and behavior in
relation to the training, not on the participants themselves.
Participants used a Likert scale to respond to the questions
in the survey, where 1 indicated strongly disagree, 2 indicated
disagree, 3 indicated slightly disagree, 4 indicated slightly
agree, 5 indicated agree, and 6 indicated strongly agree.
392 Food Protection Trends July/August
Human subjects research approval
The protocols for human subjects research for analysis was
approved by the Institutional Review Board at Iowa State
University - [18-014]. The surveys and questionnaires were
reviewed by food safety experts at Iowa State University.
Statistical analysis
Answers were coded by response option, where 1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 =
slightly agree, 5 = agree, and 6 = strongly agree. Data were
analyzed and descriptive information about the constructs
was summarized using means and standard deviations.
An analysis of variance was used to determine whether
differences existed among groups. Analyses were performed
using SPSS version 25 (SPSS, IBM, Armonk, NY).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Descriptive statistics for pretest, posttest, and 6- to 8-week
follow-up are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In
all surveys (pretest, posttest, and follow-up), all constructs
except for attitude had a mean of 5 or higher. The questions
asked were within the constructs of behavior toward food
ingredients, preparation environment, personal preparation,
intention, perceived behavioral control, and social norms.
Attitude scores for all surveys had a mean score of 4 or higher,
indicating that participants had a slightly less positive attitude,
responding to the attitude question as " slightly agree. "
The results in Tables 3, 4, and 5 indicate that overall the
participants had a high mean response to the constructs;
all questions except those regarding attitude had a mean
of 5 or higher, and attitude had a mean of 4 or higher at all
testing times. Thus, participants had positive feelings about
behaviors toward food ingredients, the preparation

Food Protection Trends - July/August 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - July/August 2021