18 16 Number of Observed Tailgaters No use 14 Incorrect use Correct use 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 KSU NCSU TAMU UNL VT University FIGURE 6. Post-intervention observed thermometer use at each study location (n = 39) TABLE 3. Self-reported food thermometer frequency of use post-intervention Post-intervention participants (n = 39) Always Usually Occasionally Rarely 100% 70-99% 40-69% < 39% n % n % n % n % 9 23 10 26 9 23 11 28 collection. This may give insight as to why participants were underrepresented in the follow-up study. Another source of underrepresentation may be the time of day when the tailgate occurred and the weather during the event, because grilling at tailgates is less common in the earlier hours of the day and in unfavorable weather. Finally, a portion of the follow-up data was observational, and there is a chance that tailgaters who were using their food thermometers during the event were not using them at the time of observation. DISCUSSION The results of this analysis give insight into the use of food thermometers at five similar temporary settings in different geographic regions of the United States, specifically during tailgates, and the efficacy of an in-person intervention. The assessment survey results support the hypothesis that the majority of people at these specific events do not use food thermometers while grilling. The information further illustrates that even those who already do use food thermometers use them on only certain food products. January/February Food Protection Trends 15