Food Protection Trends - July/August 2021 - 396

TABLE 9. Mean ± Standard Deviation (scale 1-6) based on all participant answers
between pre-test, post-test, and 6-8-week follow-up, with in constructs of the
evaluation, P < 0.05
Construct Evaluated
Behaviors Towards Food Ingredients
Behaviors Towards Preparation Environment
Behaviors Towards Personal Preparation
Intention
Perceived Behavioral Control
Social Norms
Attitude
(*) indicate significance at the 0.05 level
played a key role in predicting food handlers' intentions and
understanding of their effect on participants' behaviors (23,
26, 28). For example, participants in the present study were
asked whether " using a three-compartment sink to wash,
rinse, and sanitize my [their] dishes and utensils is possible
for me [them] to do. " Although some participants may
have had a three-compartment sink, others may not, and an
understanding of their control with regard to achieving this
practice is important. Participants may have felt prior to the
training session that use of a three-compartment sink was
not possible for them due to space concerns or because their
kitchens may have had only one or two sink compartments.
However, after the training in which educators discussed
alternative options to " create your own three-compartment
sink, " participants may have felt that using an alternative was
something that they could achieve and control.
Results in Table 9 are the mean ± standard deviation for all
participant responses. Significant differences were observed
between pretest and posttest within the constructs of behaviors
toward the preparation environment (F = 3.45, dfbetween = 2,
dfwithin = 125) and perceived behavioral control (F = 5.74,
dfbetween = 2, dfwithin = 125). Between the pretest and posttest,
mean responses rose by 0.21 (P = 0.03) for behaviors toward
the preparation environment and by 0.31(P = 0.00) for
perceived behavioral control. All other constructs and testing
time responses were not significantly different.
For all participant responses (Table 9), significant differences
were observed within the constructs of preparation
environment and perceived behavioral control. Preparation
environment refers to sanitizing, cleaning, using food grade
materials, excluding pets, and the overall state of the kitchen
where food is being prepared. The response differences again
suggest that participants had an increase in positive responses
to the construct after receiving the training. These results are
not surprising because of the focus and amount of material
presented to participants in these areas. Several chapters
(modules) of the training program were dedicated to the
396 Food Protection Trends July/August
proper methods for preparing the kitchen for making food.
The training program identified practices within commercial
and retail food manufacturing facilities that are difficult for
home-based food operators to achieve in the home setting
and provided alternatives or solutions for incorporating those
same large-scale practices into the home operation, such as
use of the three-compartment sink example.
However, no significant differences were found for the
other constructs, and no differences were found between the
6- to 8-week follow-up and the pretest and posttest responses
in the constructs for which significant differences were
found (Table 9). This finding suggests that the long-term
positive outlook that the participants had immediately after
the training session was not maintained for a longer period.
Redmond and Griffith (25) mentioned that targeted food
safety interventions could result in short-term improvements
in consumer food safety behaviors. These improvements
could be due to the lack of strong attitudes among participants
but also could be due to persuasion appeal or the halo
effect, where attitude change is observed " immediately after
message presentation " (20, 25). These statements reflect
what the results of the present study indicate: immediately
after the information was presented in the training session,
the positivity of the responses increased.
CONCLUSION
Results of the needs assessment indicated that the food
safety training program should focus on Iowa state laws
directed toward exempt home food operations and home
bakeries in Iowa and on food safety basics and the unique
food safety implications of the residential kitchen. The
program evaluation based on attitude revealed that although
some significant differences were found in participants
responses between groups and among all participants
immediately after the training session, many of the changes
were not long term across many of the constructs. Educators
and researchers should aim to increase scores for the positive
Pre-test (n = 49)
5.66 ± 0.70
5.63 ± 0.46*
5.49 ± 0.75
5.71 ± 0.84
5.40 ± 0.52*
5.80 ± 0.39
4.57 ± 0.60 (n = 48)
Post-test (n = 51)
5.91 ± 0.22
5.84 ± 0.34*
5.76 ± 0.52
5.81 ± 0.63
5.71 ± 0.43*
5.91 ± 0.24
4.66 ± 0.69
Follow-up (n = 28)
5.85 ± 0.31 (n = 29)
5.70 ± 0.42
5.71 ± 0.44
5.84 ± 0.36
5.46 ± 0.50
5.75 ± 0.37
4.39 ± 0.48
Food Protection Trends - July/August 2021

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