Cited by 58Food Safety and HygieneSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyOccupational Health and Safety Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Appreciation of Food Safety Practices Based on Level of Experience

Open access

Abstract

This study sought to determine if no experience, basic experience, or well-informed experience (defined as basic experience and formal food safety training) in a foodservice operation would influence attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control toward three important behaviors that can help prevent foodborne illness (handwashing, using thermometers, and sanitizing work surfaces). Results suggest that formal training increases respondents' appreciation of the importance of these food safety practices. Those with formal food safety training identified more attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control constructs than participants with basic experience or no experience in foodservice. Factors that help and impede employees in following proper food safety practices were identified. Foodservice operators and sanitarians can utilize these results to employ strategies to address the barriers preventing employees from applying food safety practices and to increase compliance with food safety regulations during individual inspections within operations, respectively.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15378020902910462

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Ajzen I., 1988, Attitudes, personality and behaviour
  2. Buzby J. C., 1996, Agricultural Economics Report, 741, 100
  3. Cotterchio M., 1998, Public Health Reports, 113, 353
  4. Kneller P., 1990, Journal of Environmental Health, 52, 292
  5. National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation, 2004, ServSafe coursebook
  6. Roberts K. R., 2003, Food Protection Trends, 23, 808

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 58

Metadata

Authors
Brannon, L. A., York, V. K., Roberts, K. R., Shanklin, C. W., & Howells, A. D.
Affiliations
Kansas State University (US)
Corresponding author
Shanklin, Carol W.
Venue
Journal of Foodservice Business Research
Published
2009-06-05
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
134-154
ISSN
  • 1537-8020 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-8039
OpenAlex
W2053720985
Cited by
58
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Foodservice Business Research (publishedVersion)
  • K-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Occupational Health and Safety Research
Keywords
food safety practices, food service workers, food safety training, foodborne illness prevention, hand washing, thermometers, surface sanitization, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, barriers to adherence, food safety inspection, employee experience

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review