Cited by 168Food Safety and HygieneOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation

Evaluation of the food safety training for food handlers in restaurant operations

Open access
Park, Sung-Hee, Kwak, Tong-Kyung, Chang, Hye-Ja·2010·Nutrition Research and Practice

Abstract

This study examined the extent of improvement of food safety knowledge and practices of employee through food safety training. Employee knowledge and practice for food safety were evaluated before and after the food safety training program. The training program and questionnaires for evaluating employee knowledge and practices concerning food safety, and a checklist for determining food safety performance of restaurants were developed. Data were analyzed using the SPSS program. Twelve restaurants participated in this study. We split them into two groups: the intervention group with training, and the control group without food safety training. Employee knowledge of the intervention group also showed a significant improvement in their score, increasing from 49.3 before the training to 66.6 after training. But in terms of employee practices and the sanitation performance, there were no significant increases after the training. From these results, we recommended that the more job-specific and hand-on training materials for restaurant employees should be developed and more continuous implementation of the food safety training and integration of employee appraisal program with the outcome of safety training were needed.

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 · 10.4162/nrp.2010.4.1.58

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Self-reported data are usually susceptible to social desirability bias, so respondents tend to overestimate their food safety practices.

    “However, this is contrary to expected, since self-reported data are usually susceptible to social desirability bias [112], i.e., the tendency of respondents to give socially desirable responses in such a way as to be viewed favorably by others [113]. Thus, respondents tend to overestimate their food safety practices as being higher than their actual practices deserve [38,66,114,115].”

    From A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Food Safety and Hygiene Training on Food Handlers (2020) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says the restaurant food handlers’ self-ratings support the possibility that they rated their practices higher than warranted; the Results likewise contrast high self-ratings with lower professional assessments. The paper does not identify social desirability bias as the cause, and its qualified finding in this group does not establish a general tendency among respondents. In the citing sentence, the social-desirability statement is attached to other citations. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For studies assessing practices through observations, evaluation was mainly done using a checklist.

    “For studies assessing practices thorough observations, evaluation was mainly done using a checklist [38,97,98,99,116].”
  • Studies indicate that knowledge is not necessarily automatically translated into behavior.

    “despite studies indicating that this is not necessarily true [37,38].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [5]Yoon JY Moon HK Job satisfaction and business attitude of restaurant owners - focused mainly in the Gyeongnam area - Korean Journal of Community Nutrition 2003 8 610 620
  2. [10]Kim ST Park JY Kam S Han CH Knowledge and attitude toward restaurant-related sanitation of new restaurateurs Journal of Korean Society for Health Education and promotion 1998 15 79 95
  3. [15]Noh JM Field assessment of microbiological quality of restaurant operations and development of a sanitation training manual (master's thesis) 2006 Seoul Yonsei University
  4. [16]Kim SJ Assessment of sanitation management and development of self-managed sanitation module for Korean food restaurants (master's thesis) 2005 Seoul Yonsei University
  5. [17]Choi JH An education and training cases study for the implementation of HACCP system for school foodservice operations (master's thesis) 2000 Seoul Yonsei University
  6. [19]Eo GH Ryu K Park SJ Kwak TK Need assessments of HACCP-based sanitation training program in elementary school foodservice operations based on sanitation knowledge test of Employees Journal of the Korean Diet Association 2001 7 56 64
  7. [24]Rivas KD Canter DD Effectiveness of talent for training school foodservice employee School Foodservice Research Review 1982 6 113

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Park, S.-H., Kwak, T.-K., & Chang, H.-J.
Affiliations
  • Imported Food Analysis Division Center for Food and Drug Analysis, Gyeongin Regional Food and Drug Administration, Incheon 402-825, Korea.
  • Yonsei University (KR)
  • Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Natural Science, Dankook University, Jukjeon-dong, Suji-gu, Youngin 448-701, Korea.
Venue
Nutrition Research and Practice
Published
2010
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
58
ISSN
1976-1457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2066466043
Cited by
168
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
13.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nutrition Research and Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Keywords
food safety training, food handlers, restaurant employees, food safety knowledge, food safety practices, sanitation, performance evaluation (human resources), food service establishments

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