Cited by 6Food Safety and HygieneSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Development of a safe food handling knowledge questionnaire: psychometric properties and acceptability among consumers

Charlesworth, Jessica, Mullan, Barbara, Preece, David·2023·Nutrition & Food Science

Abstract

Purpose Foodborne illness remains high globally, with the majority of cases occurring in the domestic environment. Research in the safe food-handling domain is limited by the absence of an up-to-date and suitable measure of safe food-handling knowledge for use among consumers, with previous measures limited by questionnaire design features that increase participant burden and burnout and a lack of alignment with current safe food-handling guidelines. The purpose of this study is to develop a safe food-handling knowledge measure to capture a comprehensive understanding of consumers’ safe food-handling knowledge while minimising participant burden and burnout. Design/methodology/approach Items were developed and evaluated prior to administering them to participants. Data was collected among 277 participants who completed the measure online. Findings Results indicated that the measure had good acceptability among participants in the sample (mean = 5.44, SD = 0.77, range = 2.42–7) and that the measure had acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.60), item discrimination and item difficulty. These findings suggest that the safe food-handling knowledge measure would be suitable for use in future studies examining consumer safe food-handling. Originality/value This study provides an updated, acceptable and suitable safe food-handling knowledge measure for use among consumers to better understand consumers’ understanding of safe food-handling practices. Use of this measure in future…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/nfs-12-2021-0365

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The study's questionnaire selection was based on a review of existing literature on food safety at home and guidelines from global health organizations.

    “The selection of the questions was based on a review of existing literature on the development of questionnaires to evaluate food safety at home [19–21] as well as guidelines provided by global health organizations [22,23].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Charlesworth, J., Mullan, B., & Preece, D.
Affiliations
Curtin University (AU)
Venue
Nutrition & Food Science
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2022-04-07
Volume
53
Issue
1
Pages
1-18
ISSN
0034-6659 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4224115386
Cited by
6
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nutrition & Food Science (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (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
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
safe food handling, food safety knowledge, questionnaire development, psychometric properties, consumer acceptance, participant burden, food poisoning, food safety guidelines

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