Animal contact in public settings for both leisure and work increases the odds of infectious diseases. This circumstance is exacerbated by inadequate understanding of the connection between exposure to animals and food safety risks. The purpose of our research was to develop a survey for assessing adults\u27 perceptions of food safety risk from exposure to animals. Results of our study suggest that the survey has acceptable internal structure and reliability. It may prove useful to Extension professionals who are assessing the need for associated programming or seeking to track progress toward relevant outcomes

Cater, Melissa

Xu, Wenqing

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

Journal of Extension Volume 56 Number 3 Article 9 6-1-2018 Perception of Food Safety Risk from Animal Contact Questionnaire for Extension Audiences Melissa Cater Louisiana State University Wenqing Xu Louisiana State University Recommended Citation Cater, M., & Xu, W. (2018). Perception of Food Safety Risk from Animal Contact Questionnaire for Extension Audiences. Journal of Extension, 56(3). Retrieved from https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol56/iss3/9 This Research in Brief is brought to you for free and open access by TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. June 2018Volume 56Number 3Article # 3RIB4Research In BriefPerception of Food Safety Risk from Animal Contact Questionnairefor Extension AudiencesAbstractAnimal contact in public settings for both leisure and work increases the odds of infectious diseases. Thiscircumstance is exacerbated by inadequate understanding of the connection between exposure to animals and foodsafety risks. The purpose of our research was to develop a survey for assessing adults' perceptions of food safetyrisk from exposure to animals. Results of our study suggest that the survey has acceptable internal structure andreliability. It may prove useful to Extension professionals who are assessing the need for associated programming orseeking to track progress toward relevant outcomes.Keywords: perceived food safety risk, animal contact, questionnaire  IntroductionAnimal contact in public settings for both leisure and work increases the odds of infectious diseases (Damborg etal., 2016; Klous, Huss, Heederik, & Coutinho, 2016) and has become a public health concern (Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, 2011). Extension educators commonly use teaching methods involving human–animalinteraction to increase public awareness of agriculture and develop science knowledge and life skills in youths(Campbell, Wilkinson, & Shepherd, 2014; Cummins & Nash, 2014; Luckey, Murphrey, Cummins, & Edwards,2013; Meunier, Talbert, & Latour, 2000). One way to prevent or reduce the risk of associated infection is throughfood safety education (Diehl, Pracht, Forthun, & Simonne, 2010; Van Metre & Morley, 2015). More specifically,research has suggested that increasing awareness of food safety risk from exposure to livestock or pets improveshand-washing behavior (Conrad, Stanford, Narvaez-Bravo, Callaway, & McAllister, 2017; Xu et al., 2017). In lightof these circumstances, we undertook research to develop a survey for assessing adults' perceptions of foodsafety risk from exposure to animals.MethodParticipantsThe target population for our study was adults who come in contact with animals or who have children who maycome in contact with animals. The accessible population included adults at parks, petting zoos, and livestockMelissa CaterAssociate Professorand ProgramEvaluation Specialistmcater@agcenter.lsu.eduWenqing XuAssistant Professorand Consumer FoodSafety SpecialistWenqing.Xu@Agcenter.lsu.eduLouisiana StateUniversity AgCenterBaton Rouge,Louisianashows in a state in the southeastern United States, and a nonprobability sample of adults was recruited. Wechose an a priori sample size of 140 respondents to ensure a ratio of 20 responses for each item on our surveyinstrument. At parks and livestock shows, we distributed paper surveys to and collected responses from 231adults. We oversampled to ensure that we received enough complete responses. Survey participants ranged inage from 18 to 76 years (M = 35.2, SD = 13.2) and were primarily female (f = 128, 57.1%) and White (f = 157,69.2%). The sample also included 42 (18.5%) Black, 4 (1.8%) Hispanic/Latino, 18 (7.9%) Asian, and 6 (2.6%)other-racial-group or mixed-race respondents. Seven people did not report gender, and four did not reportracial/ethnic group. Consent was obtained before survey completion. The study was approved by the LouisianaState University AgCenter Institutional Review Board (HE 16-5).Survey DevelopmentWe developed the survey items by observing food safety risk behaviors at petting zoos and livestock shows. Theseven items represented the risk behaviors we observed, and a 6-point Likert-type response scale having theresponse options strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly agree wasused.Data AnalysisWe analyzed the data using exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency reliability analysis. Exploratoryfactor analysis is used when a new instrument is developed to examine how well the items cluster together toform a latent construct. Internal consistency reliability is used to determine how well a set of items measure thesame thing. We used principal axis factoring with promax rotation for the exploratory factor analysis (Tabachnick& Fidell, 2007) and Cronbach's alpha for reliability analysis. We used principal axis factoring to find the smallestnumber of latent constructs accounted for by item correlations. While we intentionally developed aunidimensional scale with all items addressing perceived food safety risk, we used promax rotation to allowcorrelation between constructs in case more than one construct emerged. We inspected item communalities, theproportion of item variability explained by the construct, for values close to 0.5 as indicators that the sample sizewas large enough for factor loading accuracy and stability (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009; MacCullum,Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999). To establish the sufficiency of between-item correlation, we looked for asignificant p-value on Bartlett's test of sphericity and a value of 0.6 or higher on the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)measure of sampling adequacy. When inspecting between-item correlations, we confirmed that values did notexceed 0.9. Values exceeding 0.9 suggest that multicollinearity is an issue and that one of the items is redundant(Field, 2009). We used parallel analysis to test for and retain significant constructs (Franklin, Gibson, Robertson,Pohlmann, & Fralish, 1995).ResultsWe established that the sample size was large enough by collecting 33 responses for every item and by meetingour criteria for acceptable communalities within the 0.5 range (Mdn = .537, M = .507, range = .277–.617).Sufficient correlation among items was established by both a significant Bartlett's test of sphericity (χ2(21) =871.79, p < .001) and a KMO measure of sampling adequacy value of .81. Item correlations ranged from .306 to.792, suggesting that multicollinearity was not an issue. After extraction, a single factor explaining 50.69% of thevariance was returned (see Table 1). Parallel analysis confirmed that this was the only significant factor. TheCronbach's alpha was 0.88. Values on the "Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted" table ranged from 0.839 to 0.877,Research In Brief Word Cloud Analysis of Early Adopter No-Till Farmer Interviews JOE 56(3)©2018 Extension Journal Inc 1suggesting that every item contributed to the scale (see Table 1).Table 1.Exploratory Factor Analysis Factor Matrix with Communalities (h2) and Effect of Item onCronbach's Alpha for the Perception of Food Safety Risk from Animal ContactQuestionnaireItemFactormatrix h²Cronbach'salpha if itemdeletedPetting farm animals with your hands is a foodsafety risk..739 .546 .854Other physical contact, other than hands, withfarm animals is a food safety risk..729 .532 .855Caring for farm animals is a food safety risk. .747 .558 .853Physical structures in a livestock barn, like fencesor bleachers, are a food safety risk..733 .537 .854Eating while working around farm animals is afood safety risk..694 .482 .860Drinking beverages while working around farmanimals is a food safety risk..785 .617 .849Biting your finger nails is a food safety risk. .527 .277 .877Discussion and ConclusionsResults of the study suggest that the Perception of Food Safety Risk from Animal Contact Questionnaire (seeappendix) may be used to assess individuals' perceptions of food safety risk associated with animal contact. Priorresearch has suggested that increasing a person's perception of the food safety risk associated with animalcontact improves hand-washing behavior (Conrad et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2017). The Perception of Food SafetyRisk from Animal Contact Questionnaire may be used by Extension professionals for both needs assessment andoutcome assessment. As a needs assessment tool, it may be used to evaluate the magnitude and distribution ofthe need for associated programming. Magnitude refers to the number of people who experience a need;distribution describes the degree of difference among subpopulations. The results may first be used to determinewhether programming is necessary. If the perception of risk is low, educational programming may improve hand-washing behavior in the identified audience. Needs assessment results also may be used to select a targetaudience given the distribution of need among subpopulations (e.g., parents of young children, urban audiences).When educational budgets are tight, it is important to target the subpopulation with the greatest need. Forexample, if urban audiences were to have a low perception of risk and hands-on agriculture exhibits were beingused to educate urban audiences, the need for food safety risk programming would be greater for this audiencethan for other subpopulations with higher risk awareness. Finally, changes in attitude from before to afterparticipation in educational programs about food safety risk from animal contact may be tracked in order toassess the outcomes of such programs.Research In Brief Word Cloud Analysis of Early Adopter No-Till Farmer Interviews JOE 56(3)©2018 Extension Journal Inc 2ReferencesCampbell, B., Wilkinson, C., & Shepherd, P. (2014). Agricultural awareness days: Integrating agriculturalpartnerships and STEM education. Journal of Extension, 52(2), Article 2TOT8. Available at:https://www.joe.org/joe/2014april/tt8.phpCenters for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Compendium of measures to prevent disease associated withanimals in public settings, 2011: National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, Inc. Morbidity andMortality Weekly Report, 60, 1–24.Conrad, C., Stanford, K., Narvaez-Bravo, C., Callaway, T., & McAllister, T. (2017). Farm fairs and petting zoos: Areview of animal contact as a source of zoonotic enteric disease. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 14(2), 59–73.Cummins, M., & Nash, S. (2014). Urban youth develop life skills raising livestock. Journal of Extension, 52(5),Article 5IAW7. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2014october/iw7.phpDamborg, P., Broens, E., Chomel, B., Guenther, S., Pasmans, F., Wagenaar, J., . . . Guardabassi, L. (2016).Bacterial zoonoses transmitted by household pets: State-of-the-art and future perspectives for targeted researchand policy actions. Journal of Comparative Pathology, 155, S27–S40.Diehl, D., Pracht, D., Forthun, L., & Simonne, A. (2010). Food safety for 4-H youth: A survey of interests andeducational methods. Journal of Extension, 48(4), Article 4FEA5. Available at:https://www.joe.org/joe/2010august/a5.phpField, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.Franklin, S., Gibson, D., Robertson, P., Pohlmann, J., & Fralish, J. (1995). Parallel analysis: A method fordetermining significant principal components. Journal of Vegetation Science, 6(1), 99–106.Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice-Hall.Klous, G., Huss, A., Heederik, D., & Coutinho, R. (2016). Human–livestock contacts and their relationship totransmission of zoonotic pathogens, a systematic review of literature. One Health, 2, 65–76.Luckey, A., Murphrey, T., Cummins, R., & Edwards, M. (2013). Assessing youth perceptions and knowledge ofagriculture: The impact of participating in an agventure program. Journal of Extension, 51(3), Article 3RIB3.Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2013june/rb3.phpMacCullum, R., Widaman, K., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. PsychologicalMethods, 4(1), 84–99. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84Meunier, R., Talbert, B., & Latour, M. (2000). Creating agriculture awareness through an interactive learningexperience: Incubators in the classroom. Journal of Extension, 38(1), Article 1IAW1. Available at:https://www.joe.org/joe/2000february/iw1.phpTabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.Research In Brief Word Cloud Analysis of Early Adopter No-Till Farmer Interviews JOE 56(3)©2018 Extension Journal Inc 3Van Metre, D., & Morley, P. (2015). Zoonotic diseases—Fostering awareness in critical audiences. Journal ofExtension, 53(6), Article 6FEA7. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2015december/pdf/JOE_v53_6a7.pdfXu, W., Cater, M. Gaitán, A., Drewery, M., Gravois, R., & Lammi-Keefe, C. (2017). Awareness of Listeria andhigh-risk food consumption behavior among pregnant women in Louisiana. Food Control, 76, 62–65.AppendixPerception of Food Safety Risk from Animal Contact QuestionnaireInstructions: Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements byfilling in the appropriate circle.StronglyDisagree DisagreeSlightlyDisagreeSlightlyAgree AgreeStronglyAgreePetting farmanimals with yourhands is a foodsafety risk.○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○Other physicalcontact, other thanhands, with farmanimals is a foodsafety risk.○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○Caring for farmanimals is a foodsafety risk.○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○Physical structuresin a livestock barn,like fences orbleachers, are afood safety risk.○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○Eating whileworking aroundfarm animals is afood safety risk.○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○Drinking beverageswhile workingaround farmanimals is a foodsafety risk.○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○Research In Brief Word Cloud Analysis of Early Adopter No-Till Farmer Interviews JOE 56(3)©2018 Extension Journal Inc 4Biting your fingernails is a foodsafety risk.Note: Coding for the responses is 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = slightly agree, 5= agree, 6 = strongly agree.Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property ofthe Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational ortraining activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scaledistribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical SupportResearch In Brief Word Cloud Analysis of Early Adopter No-Till Farmer Interviews JOE 56(3)©2018 Extension Journal Inc 5

Perception of Food Safety Risk from Animal Contact Questionnaire for Extension Audiences

© 2018 Extension Journal Inc. Animal contact in public settings for both leisure and work increases the odds of infectious diseases. This circumstance is exacerbated by inadequate understanding of the connection between exposure to animals and food safety risks. The purpose of our research was to develop a survey for assessing adults\u27 perceptions of food safety risk from exposure to animals. Results of our study suggest that the survey has acceptable internal structure and reliability. It may prove useful to Extension professionals who are assessing the need for associated programming or seeking to track progress toward relevant outcomes

Louisiana State University

Perception of food safety risk from animal contact questionnaire for extension audiences

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1610&context=joe

Perception of Food Safety Risk from Animal Contact Questionnaire for Extension Audiences

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints

Louisiana State University