IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i5p1323-1338.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: A Multi‐Item Rasch Scale for the Measurement of the Safety Efficacy of Domestic Food‐Handling Practices

Author

Listed:
  • Arnout R. H. Fischer
  • Lynn J. Frewer
  • Maarten J. Nauta

Abstract

To reduce consumer health risks from foodborne diseases that result from improper domestic food handling, consumers need to know how to safely handle food. To realize improvements in public health, it is necessary to develop interventions that match the needs of individual consumers. Successful intervention strategies are therefore contingent on identifying not only the practices that are important for consumer protection, but also barriers that prevent consumers from responding to these interventions. A measure of food safety behavior is needed to assess the effectiveness of different intervention strategies across different groups of consumers. A nationally representative survey was conducted in the Netherlands to determine which practices are likely conducted by which consumers. Participants reported their behaviors with respect to 55 different food‐handling practices. The Rasch modeling technique was used to determine a general measure for the likelihood of an average consumer performing each food‐handling behavior. Simultaneously, an average performance measure was estimated for each consumer. These two measures can be combined to predict the likelihood that an individual consumer engages in a specific food‐handling behavior. A single “food safety” dimension was shown to underlie all items. Some potentially safe practices (e.g., use of meat thermometers) were reported as very difficult, while other safe practices were conducted by respondents more frequently (e.g., washing of fresh fruit and vegetables). A cluster analysis was applied to the resulting data set, and five segments of consumers were identified. Different behaviors may have different effects on microbial growth in food, and thus have different consequences for human health. Once the microbial relevance of the different consumer behaviors has been confirmed by experiments and modeling, the scale developed in the research reported here can be used to develop risk communication targeted to the needs of different consumer groups, as well as to measure the efficacy of different interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Arnout R. H. Fischer & Lynn J. Frewer & Maarten J. Nauta, 2006. "Toward Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: A Multi‐Item Rasch Scale for the Measurement of the Safety Efficacy of Domestic Food‐Handling Practices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1323-1338, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:5:p:1323-1338
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00813.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00813.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00813.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baker, Gregory A. & Crosbie, Peter J., 1993. "Measuring Food Safety Preferences: Identifying Consumer Segments," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(2), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Joye Gordon, 2003. "Risk Communication and Foodborne Illness: Message Sponsorship and Attempts to Stimulate Perceptions of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1287-1296, December.
    4. Chris Fife-Schaw & Gene Rowe, 2000. "Research Note: Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological considerations," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 167-179.
    5. Arnout R. H. Fischer & Aarieke E. I. De Jong & Rob De Jonge & Lynn J. Frewer & Maarten J. Nauta, 2005. "Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 503-517, June.
    6. Bjarke B. Christensen & Hanne Rosenquist & Helle M. Sommer & Niels L. Nielsen & Sisse Fagt & Niels L. Andersen & Birgit Nørrung, 2005. "A Model of Hygiene Practices and Consumption Patterns in the Consumer Phase," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 49-60, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José Alberto Martínez-González & Vidina Tais Díaz-Padilla & Eduardo Parra-López, 2021. "Study of the Tourism Competitiveness Model of the World Economic Forum Using Rasch’s Mathematical Model: The Case of Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Gülbanu Kaptan & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Lynn J. Frewer, 2018. "Extrapolating understanding of food risk perceptions to emerging food safety cases," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(8), pages 996-1018, August.
    3. Maarten J. Nauta & Arnout R. H. Fischer & Esther D. Van Asselt & Aarieke E. I. De Jong & Lynn J. Frewer & Rob De Jonge, 2008. "Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Effect of Consumer Risk Information on Human Disease Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 179-192, February.
    4. Vanessa Yanes-Estévez & Ana María García-Pérez & Juan Ramón Oreja-Rodríguez, 2018. "The Strategic Behaviour of SMEs," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Adenilma da Silva Farias & Rita de Cassia Coelho de Almeida Akutsu & Raquel Braz Assunção Botelho & Wilma Maria Coelho Araújo & Izabel Cristina Silva & Karin Eleonora Sávio & Renata Puppin Zandonadi, 2020. "Food Safety Conditions in Home-Kitchens: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Federal District/Brazil," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-12, July.
    6. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    7. Carol Byrd-Bredbenner & Jacqueline Berning & Jennifer Martin-Biggers & Virginia Quick, 2013. "Food Safety in Home Kitchens: A Synthesis of the Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    2. Xiaowei Wen & Sangluo Sun & Lin Li & Qinying He & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Avian Influenza—Factors Affecting Consumers’ Purchase Intentions toward Poultry Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Maarten J. Nauta & Arnout R. H. Fischer & Esther D. Van Asselt & Aarieke E. I. De Jong & Lynn J. Frewer & Rob De Jonge, 2008. "Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Effect of Consumer Risk Information on Human Disease Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 179-192, February.
    4. Marcel Kornelis & Janneke De Jonge & Lynn Frewer & Hans Dagevos, 2007. "Consumer Selection of Food‐Safety Information Sources," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 327-335, April.
    5. Maarten Nauta & Bjarke Christensen, 2011. "The Impact of Consumer Phase Models in Microbial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 255-265, February.
    6. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    7. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    8. Clara Cardone-Riportella & María José Casasola-Martinez & Isabel Feito-Ruiz, 2014. "Do Entrepreneurs Come From Venus Or Mars? Impact Of Postgraduate Studies: Gender And Family Business Background," Working Papers 14.04, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Financial Economics and Accounting (former Department of Business Administration), revised Sep 2014.
    9. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    10. Ruijie Zhu & Guojing Zhao & Zehai Long & Yangjie Huang & Zhaoxin Huang, 2022. "Entrepreneurship or Employment? A Survey of College Students’ Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    11. Alsalem, Amani & Fry, Marie-Louise & Thaichon, Park, 2020. "To donate or to waste it: Understanding posthumous organ donation attitude," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 87-97.
    12. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    13. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    14. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.
    15. Jacqueline Ruth & Steffen Willwacher & Oliver Korn, 2022. "Acceptance of Digital Sports: A Study Showing the Rising Acceptance of Digital Health Activities Due to the SARS-CoV-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Jariyasunant, Jerald & Carrel, Andre & Ekambaram, Venkatesan & Gaker, David & Sengupta, Raja & Walker, Joan L., 2012. "The Quantified Traveler: Changing transport behavior with personalized travel data feedback," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt3047k0dw, University of California Transportation Center.
    17. Brown, Philip & Roper, Simon, 2017. "Innovation and networks in New Zealand farming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(3), July.
    18. Teodora Roman, 2009. "Study regarding entrepreneurial intentions among students," THE YEARBOOK OF THE "GH. ZANE" INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCHES, Gheorghe Zane Institute for Economic and Social Research ( from THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY, JASSY BRANCH), vol. 18, pages 87-94.
    19. Messele Kumilachew Aga, 2023. "The mediating role of perceived behavioral control in the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Ethiopia," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    20. Kristin Thomas & Evalill Nilsson & Karin Festin & Pontus Henriksson & Mats Lowén & Marie Löf & Margareta Kristenson, 2020. "Associations of Psychosocial Factors with Multiple Health Behaviors: A Population-Based Study of Middle-Aged Men and Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:5:p:1323-1338. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.