Food Protection Trends - July/August 2018 - 268

Figure 1. Pre-test/post-test experimental control group design (RA = Random assignment)

regression, selection, mortality, and interactions), as proposed by Campbell and Stanley (12). A fixed and short
time interval between pre- and post-tests for both treatment
and control groups helped to minimize interaction and
maturation threats to internal validity. An interval of three
weeks was used to permit travel and visits to all 17 farms.
The first module of the training covered basic food safety
and sanitation as they applied to small cheese producers,
while the second module covered personal hygiene and
included a step-by-step demonstration on proper handwashing. The training was delivered to the treatment groups using
a counter-top flip-chart format (24, 27). The training was the
same for both treatment groups, except that for participants
in treatment group 2, a video vignette was shown before
the training. The counter-top training tool was designed as
a flip-chart with photos and illustrations on the side facing
the trainees and text to be read on the side facing the trainer
(26). Trainees were instructed to interrupt the session at any
time if they had any questions. The delivery of the training
alone (disregarding the video vignette in ×2) usually took
between 45 min and one hour, depending on the questions
and discussions with participants.
The video vignette, used before the delivery of the training
to treatment group 2 (×2), consisted of a mock news excerpt
describing a foodborne listeriosis outbreak involving cheese.
The script for the video vignette was based on a real outbreak involving a cheese company in Kenton, DE (5). In the
vignette, a journalist covering the news interviews a physician
to ask about the disease listeriosis, and a food safety specialist discusses the causes of the outbreak and what could
have been done to avoid it. The video/screenplay had a total

268

Food Protection Trends July/August

run time of six minutes and 34 seconds and was shown just
before the counter-top training was delivered.
For farms in treatment groups 1 and 2, the pre-tests (E1)
and trainings (×1 and ×2) were done on the same day. The
first part of the assessment involved the handwashing skill
evaluation, in which participants were asked to wash their
hands while being recorded for later assessment. After the
skill recording, participants filled out the survey, answering questions on demographics as well as on food safety
knowledge, behavior, and attitudes. After the participants
completed the survey, the training was delivered as described
earlier. On the visit for the post-tests (E2 and E3), the same
sequence (skill assessment, followed by post-survey) was
carried out, without the demographic portion of the survey
or the training. Similarly, participants in the control group
followed the same steps on visits for pre-test (E4) and posttest (E5), but no training was delivered at either visit. For the
surveys and the handwashing recordings (via a smartphone),
a coded system was used to avoid identification of participants. Results from the surveys were compiled using Microsoft Excel® 2013, and responses were transformed into scores
or percentages, where appropriate. All the methodology
applied received approval from Penn State Office of Research
Protection (PSU-IRB #2291).
Questions in the pre- and post-test were built on the basis
of the methodology described by Witkin and Altschuld (38)
to assess cheesemaker knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors
regarding food safety and sanitation. The survey was
reviewed by Penn State faculty and by Extension specialists
for grammar, clarity, and time required for completion.
Based on the feedback, questions were revised, with the final

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - July/August 2018