Cited by 20Food Safety and HygieneHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationE-Learning and COVID-19

Comparison of Knowledge and Attitudes Using Computer‐based and Face‐to‐Face Personal Hygiene Training Methods in Food Processing Facilities

Open access
Fenton, Ginger D., LaBorde, Luke F., Radhakrishna, Rama B., Brown, J. Lynne, Cutter, Catherine N.·2006·Journal of Food Science Education

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1541-4329.2006.00001.x

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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