Comparison of Knowledge and Attitudes Using Computer‐based and Face‐to‐Face Personal Hygiene Training Methods in Food Processing Facilities
Open accessAbstract
ABSTRACT: Computer‐based training is increasingly favored by food companies for training workers due to convenience, self‐pacing ability, and ease of use. The objectives of this study were to determine if personal hygiene training, offered through a computer‐based method, is as effective as a face‐to‐face method in knowledge acquisition and improved attitude toward food safety. Employees from four food processing facilities ( n = 94) were randomly assigned to a control group, a face‐to‐face training group, or a computer‐based training group. Evaluation instruments consisted of a pretest and a posttest to measure knowledge gain, a step scale to measure attitude after training and retrospectively before training, and a brief set of interview questions. Results for both treatments and the control group indicated increases in knowledge. Analysis of the posttest scores, when controlling for the pretest scores, indicated the difference was significant ( P ≤ 0.05); however, post hoc analysis did not indicate which treatment was superior. There was a significant increase in attitude scores for both groups using paired t ‐tests, although the difference between groups was not significant when controlling for attitude scores before training. Issues that may limit application of the technology used in this study include low literacy and language barriers among employees, and time constraints within companies. These and other variables should be taken into account in future research studies addressing comparisons of training methods. This study is the first to demonstrate the effectiveness of computer‐based training aimed at food handlers who work in food processing establishments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Most studies reporting an increase in knowledge also reported an increase in attitude.
“According to our findings, most studies reporting an increase in knowledge also reported an increase in attitude [9,97,105,106].”
From A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Food Safety and Hygiene Training on Food Handlers (2020) · cites this paper as [9]
Both studies [9,95] reported similar improvements in attitudes with face-to-face training or computer-based instruction.
“Both studies [9,95] reported similar improvements in attitudes, either with face-to-face training or computer-based (CB) instruction.”
From A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Food Safety and Hygiene Training on Food Handlers (2020) · cites this paper as [9]
Attitude was assessed in 12 out of 31 studies, most assessing one intervention, some two, and some three.
“Attitude was assessed in 12 out of 31 studies, most of them assessing one intervention while some studies evaluated two [9,95] or three interventions [87].”
From A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Food Safety and Hygiene Training on Food Handlers (2020) · cites this paper as [9]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Insfran-Rivarola, A., Tlapa, D., Limon-Romero, J., Baez-Lopez, Y., Miranda-Ackerman, M., Arredondo-Soto, K., & Ontiveros, S. (2020) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods9091169 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
“…video, and hand washing training RCT; n = 22; TL = 1.5 h; FU= 2 weeks Knowledge score Control 8.00 (3.2); Intervention 15.80 (1.3); (p < 0.05) Fenton et al. (2006) [9] Food processing facilities, USA Face to face training RCT; nc = 28, ni = 31; TL= 1 day Knowledge score Control Pre 15.1…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMeta-analysis of food safety training on hand hygiene knowledge and attitudes among food handlers
SOON, J. M., BAINES, R., & SEAMAN, P. (2012) · Journal of Food Protection · doi:10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-502 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Food safety training and evaluation of handwashing intention among fresh produce farm workers
Soon, J. M., & Baines, R. N. (2012) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.08.012 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Nieto-Montenegro, S., Brown, J. L., & LaBorde, L. F. (2008) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2007.07.005 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Fenton, G. D., LaBorde, L. F., Radhakrishna, R. B., Brown, J. L., & Cutter, C. N.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cutter, Catherine N.
- Venue
- Journal of Food Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-07
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 45-50
- ISSN
- 1541-4329 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025812694
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Food Science Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Education › E-Learning and COVID-19
- Keywords
- computer-based training, face-to-face training, food safety, food handlers, food processing plant, knowledge acquisition, employee training effectiveness, literacy barriers, language barriers
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