Taha 2020
Taha 2020
Taha 2020
Food Control
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Food safety issues need careful attention from managers in foodservice establishments to minimize risks on
Food safety consumers’ health, tourism and the economy. The purposes of the current study were to appraise food safety
Training knowledge, attitude, commitment and behavior levels of food handlers in restaurants in Jebel Ali, Dubai, United
Foodservice establishments Arab Emirates and the influences of the food safety knowledge and attitude on employee commitment and,
Management
ultimately, on food safety behavior of food handlers. A paper-based survey questionnaire of food safety
Structural equation modelling
knowledge, attitude, commitment and behavior was completed by a total of 378 food handlers employed at 75
restaurants. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to evaluate the collected data for meaningful out-
comes. The results showed that the food handlers have very good food safety knowledge (89.5%), excellent
attitude (95.7%), commitment (91.9%), and behavior (93%).The relationships between food safety knowledge
and attitude with food handler commitment and the relationship between food handler commitment and be-
haviors were positive and significant.
Furthermore, a medium correlation between attitude towards food safety and resultant behavior of food
handlers was confirmed. Food handler commitment acts as a partial mediator in the relationships between each
of food safety knowledge, food safety attitude, and behavior. Management should focus on food handler com-
mitment drivers, to translate the knowledge and attitude into actual behavior and practice.
∗
Corresponding author. P.O. Box: 27272, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
E-mail addresses: tosaili@just.edu.jo, tosaili@sharjah.ac.ae (T.M. Osaili).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107431
Received 6 February 2020; Received in revised form 11 June 2020; Accepted 13 June 2020
Available online 15 June 2020
0956-7135/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Taha, et al. Food Control 118 (2020) 107431
foodservice establishments found that overall food safety knowledge of (questions) of the questionnaire were adapted from previous validated
food handlers is good (Taha et al., 2020a). In Jordan a study conducted questionnaires in the literature to measure food safety constructs
on fast food restaurants found that food handlers show fair knowledge (knowledge, attitude, commitment and behavior) of food handlers
about food safety concepts (Osaili et al., 2013), whereas food handlers using a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = disagree strongly and 7 = agree
show poor knowledge about food safety concepts in studies conducted strongly. The items of food safety knowledge (15 questions), and be-
in Malaysia (Woh, Thong, Behnke, Lewis, & Zain, 2016) and Slovenia havior (20 questions) of food handlers were adapted from (Sharif,
(Ovca, Jevšnik, & Raspor, 2018). Obaidat and Al- Dalalah, 2013), the items of attitude (10 questions) and
Food safety based on knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) ap- commitment (5 questions) of food handler were adapted from Bas et al.
proach which considers food safety knowledge as the antecedent that (2006) and Fatimah, Strohbehn, and Arendt (2014), respectively. Socio-
changes attitude and consequently influences the behavior was dis- demographic data of respondents (gender, age, years of experience and
cussed (Bas, şafak Ersun, & Kıvanç, 2006). Through a study conducted food safety training enrolment) was also included in the questionnaire.
in Malaysia (Sani & Siow, 2014) it was found that overall food safety The developed questionnaire was reviewed by 7 academicians, 3
knowledge, attitude and practices among food handlers were good. food safety researchers and 5 food handlers in foodservices establish-
These results showed food safety knowledge influenced attitude and ments. Their comments were examined, and the questionnaire was
subsequently practices. However, other studies showed that food updated accordingly. The questionnaire was pretested on 30 food
handlers with above average food safety knowledge have rarely applied handlers chosen randomly from 6 different restaurants and the re-
the knowledge during food handling (Clayton, Griffith, Price, & Peters, spondents’ comments were positive and the questionnaire completion
2002). Different relationships have been tested between knowledge of was achieved within 10–15 min.
food safety, attitude, and behavior. Baser, Ture, Abubakirova, Sanlier, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test of sphericity tests were
and Cil (2017) found a high, and a medium correlation between food performed to evaluate the variance adequacy of the items. The KMO
safety attitude and behavior, and between food safety knowledge and test is used to measure sampling adequacy and applicability to perform
attitude, respectively. However, it could not be concluded that food Factor Analysis to show the amount of variance among the variables.
safety knowledge has any significant impact on food safety behavior Bartlett's test of sphericity is used to check if the correlation matrix is
through above studies. Lim, Chye, Sulaiman, and Suki (2016) found significantly different from the identity matrix. The results of the tests
that food safety knowledge negatively affected food safety behavior of were 0.908 (> 0.60) and significant (P-value 0.000), respectively, in-
the respondents, while attitude of food handlers affected their food dicating the availability of some relationships among the variables, and
safety behavior positively. absence of identity correlation matrix. After that, Exploratory Factor
Internal and external environment of the organizations influence Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted
food safety performance (Nyarugwe et al., 2020a; 2020b). Companies to extract and confirm the valid items for food safety knowledge, atti-
should create positive environment and have committed employees to tude, commitment, and behavior. The items loaded with a factor > 0.40
survive and be a strong competitor (Srivastava & Dhar, 2016). Com- were selected according to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010).
mitment is one of key elements to be considered in food safety culture Accordingly, 10 items were removed from the scale of knowledge, 5
(Nyarugwe, Linnemann, Hofstede, Fogliano, & Luning, 2016; 2018). items from attitude, and 15 items from behavior. The selected items of
Organizations need competent and committed employees to build and knowledge, attitude, commitment, and behavior had loading in the
implement their strategies as commitment directs employee behavior range of 0.917–0.676, 0.913–0.852, 0.969–0.585, and 0.995–0.510,
toward the planned direction (Suleiman 2002). Employees with high respectively (Table 1). The outcome of the CFA shows that the overall
commitment level have a strong belief to accept organization goals and measurements model fit is acceptable (Table 2).
values (Sharma & Dhar, 2016). Meyer and Allen (1991) extended the In order to verify the reliability of the items, Cronbach's alpha
commitment attributes into a three-group construct including affective, coefficients of food safety knowledge, attitude, commitment, and be-
continuance and normative commitment that affects the performance in havior were calculated and were found to be 0.893, 0.920, 0.879, and
the organization. Commitment found to be a strong antecedent to em- 0.893 (> 0.70), respectively (Table 1). To discount any possibility of
ployee performance (Sharma & Dhar, 2016) and shows extra role be-
havior as a sign of employee commitment to the organization (Dhar, Table 1
2015). A study conducted by Griffith, Livesey, and Clayton (2010) Factor analysis and reliability of the final instrument for food safety knowledge,
found food safety commitment might enhance food safety performance, attitude, commitment and behavior.
for example, compliance with food safety standards might decrease the
Construct Items Factor % of % of Cronbach's
risk of food poisoning. Employee work behaviors and performance can Loading Variance Cumulative Alpha
be influenced by management support (Cascio, Mariadoss, & Mouri, for Items Variance
2010; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006; Taha, Wilkins, Jouusola & Osaili,
Commitment C1 .969 45.417 45.417 .879
2020b). Management support would make employees more committed
C4 .968
to their job and organization (Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch, C3 .960
1998; Simosi, 2012; Wilkins, Butt, & Annabi, 2017). C2 .920
According to the authors’ knowledge there are no published reports C5 .585
in the literature that investigate the relationship between commitment, Attitude A3 .913 14.167 59.584 .920
A4 .881
knowledge, attitude, and resultant behavior of food handlers. Thus, the
A2 .875
objectives of this study were to investigate i) food safety knowledge, A1 .874
attitude, commitment and behavior of food handlers working in res- A5 .852
taurants in Jebel Ali Free Zone, Dubai, ii) the relationships between Food Safety K1 .917 9.469 69.053 .893
Knowledge K4 .885
food safety knowledge, attitude, commitment and behavior of food
K5 .850
handlers by the approach of structural equation modelling. K3 .832
K2 .676
2. Material and methods Behavior B4 .995 5.520 74.574 .893
B3 .985
B2 .574
2.1. Instrumentation
B5 .557
B1 .510
The survey instrument was a paper-based questionnaire. The items
2
S. Taha, et al. Food Control 118 (2020) 107431
Table 2
Goodness of fit indices for measurement model.
Fit indices Model value Accepted value Reference
Table 3
Fig. 1. Proposed conceptual model.
Discriminant validity test amongst constructs.
Constructs Knowledge Attitude Commitment Behavior
H2. Food safety attitude of food handlers positively influences food
Knowledge 0.608 handler commitment.
Attitude 0.09 0.732
Commitment 0.16 0.313 0.708 H3. Food safety commitment positively influences food handler
Behavior 0.291 0.372 0.608 0.624 behavior.
*Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values are in bold. H4. Food safety knowledge of food handlers positively influences food
handler behavior.
common method bias, the data was tested using Harman's one-factor H5. Food safety attitude of food handlers positively influences food
test and the results were negative as one factor explained 45.4% of the handler behavior.
variance of the 20 observed variables compared to 74.6% of variance
explained by the four factors (Table 1). H6. There is a statistically significant relationship between food safety
To ensure that the items of constructs are related to each other, knowledge and attitude.
discriminant validity test was conducted based on Fornell and Larcker H7. Food handler commitment acts as a mediating variable in the
(1981). Discriminant validity was achieved in the data as Average relationships between each of the food safety knowledge and attitude,
Variance was more than Shared Variance (SV) for respective constructs and behavior of food handlers.
(Table 3).
Updated list of foodservice establishments located in Jebel Ali Free The collected data in this study were analysed and interpreted using
Zone, Dubai, UAE was obtained from Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority. descriptive statistics and statistical analysis. Exploratory Factor analysis
Letter including the objectives of the study was sent to all licensed and (EFA), Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation
working restaurants requesting them to participate in the study. modelling (SEM) were conducted by using IBM SPSS Statistics and SPSS
Restaurants which agreed to participate in the study were visited to Amos (Version 23.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). SEM was used to test the
select establishments that meet the inclusion criteria of the study. proposed hypotheses, show the casual relationships between the stu-
Restaurants that have adequate operation facilities to produce different died constructs, explain the direct and indirect effects between them,
kinds of cooked food, dining hall and delivery services were selected. and measure the structural model fit. Statistically significant value was
According the above criteria, 75 restaurants out of 310 foodservice set as P < 0.05.
establishments were selected to participate in the study. The objectives
of the study were explained to food handlers in the selected restaurants.
3. Results
Food handlers who have a minimum of 1-year experience in the current
restaurant, their work requires direct contact with food (food pre-
3.1. Descriptive statistics
paration or service) and are willing to talk about their experience were
asked to participate in this cross-sectional survey and complete the
Table 4 shows that 78% of the participants are male and 58.2% of
questionnaire. From each restaurant, 3–7 food handlers were agreed to
the participants are above 40 years. About 60% of food handlers have
participate in the study and were asked to sign a consent form. Three
more than or equal to 12 years of experience in food services. About
hundred and seventy-eight food handlers participated in the study
half of the participants (47.9%) have elementary education. Three
which was conducting between March–May 2018.
quarters (75%) of the participants enrolled in food safety training
Considering the respondents’ abilities of writing and reading, re-
course(s). Table (5) presents question statements, mean and percentage
sponses were obtained through questionnaires answered either by the
of correct responses of food handlers. The mean and percentage of
respondents themselves or by structured interviews conducted by one
correct responses of food safety knowledge, attitude, commitment and
of the researchers.
behavior of food handlers were 6.3/7 and 89.5%, 6.7/7 and 95.7%,
6.4/7, and 91.9%, and 6.5/7 and 93%, respectively. The percentage
2.3. Model
scores among food safety knowledge items ranged from 88.9 to 90.4%.
The percentage scores among food safety attitude items ranged from 94
The conceptual model shown in Fig. 1 is proposed as framework for
to 97%. The percentage scores among food safety commitment items
analysis in this study. In summary, the following hypotheses were
ranged from 91 to 92.8%. The percentage scores among food safety
suggested:
behavior items ranged from 92.7 to 93.9% (Table 5).
Hypothesis (H) 1. Food safety knowledge of food handlers positively The results in Table 6 show respondents with higher education level
influences food handler commitment. had higher food safety knowledge (91%) significantly (P = 0.002) than
3
S. Taha, et al. Food Control 118 (2020) 107431
Table 4 Table 6
Socio-demographic characteristics of food handlers (n = 378) working in res- Association between total food safety knowledge score and socio-demographic
taurants in Jebel Ali Fee Zone, Dubai, UAE. characteristics of food handlers in restaurants in Jebel Ali, Dubai, UAE.
Variable Item Frequency Percentage Total food safety Total food safety P-value
knowledge score knowledge score (%)
Gender Male 295 78 Mean Mean
Female 83 22
Age < 30 years 60 15.9 Education Level
30–40 years 98 25.9 Elementary 6.1866a 88.38 0.002a
> 40 years 220 58.2 Middle School 6.3175 a 90.25
Education Elementary education 181 47.9 High School 6.342 a 90.60
Middle school 51 13.5 Higher education 6.3749 b 91.07
High school 122 32.3 (> 12 years)
> High school 24 6.3 Age
Training Have training in Food 283 74.9 < 30 years 6.1633a 88.04 0.012a
Safety 30–40 years 6.2204 a 88.86
Have no training in 95 25.1 > 40 years 6.3155 b 90.22
Food Safety Experience
a
Years of experience in food < 6 years 58 15.3 < 6 years 6.1690 88.12 0.011a
a
handling 6–11 years 95 25.1 6–11 years 6.2105 88.72
≥12 years 225 59.6 ≥12 years 6.3156 b
90.22
Gender
Male 6.2732 89.61 0.543
Female 6.2434 89.19
those with education levels of elementary, middle school, and high
school education (88, 90, and 90%, respectively). A Significantly a
Means with different letters in the same column are significantly different
(P = 0.12) higher food safety knowledge (90%) was found among re- at < 0.05.
spondents with age > 40 years than those with age < 40 years (88%).
Higher mean score percent (90%) was also found (P = 0.011) among Table 7
respondents with work experience ≥ 12 than those with work experi- Association between training enrolment and food safety knowledge score of
ence 6–11 and < 6 years work experience (88%). The association food handlers in restaurants in Jebel Ali Free Zone, Dubai, UAE.
between gender and overall food safety knowledge was not significantly
Score mean % score mean P-value*
hinted.
The respondents enrolled in food safety training course (s) had Training Enrolment/Knowledge
significantly (P = 0.032) higher total food safety knowledge score No Training 6.1916 88 0.032*
percent (90%) than those who did not enrol in training (88%). Clearly, With Training 6.2919 90
Training Enrolment/Attitude
the association between enrolment in food safety course (s) and food
No Training 6.7053 95.8 0.921
safety attitude and behavior score of the respondents was not sig- With Training 6.7004 95.7
nificant (Table 7). Training Enrolment/Behavior
No Training 6.4547 92.2 0.095
With Training 6.5442 93.4
3.2. Structural model
*P value < 0.05 is significantly different.
To test the proposed Hypothesis, a full structural model of variables
of knowledge, attitudes, commitment and behavior was created (Fig. 2). Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.943, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was
The structural model results show that data has a good fit with the 0.933, Incremental Fit Index (IFI) was 0.943, and Root Mean Square
proposed model, χ2 of the model was 333.2 with 162 degree of freedom Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.075 (Table 8).
(df) (χ2/df = 2), Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) was 0.021,
Table 5
Descriptive statistics (question statements, means and percentage) of correct responses of food handlers working in restaurants in Jebel Ali Free Zone, Dubai, UAE.
Construct Item Code Question statement Mean SD % correct answers
Commitment C1 I follow food safety rules because it is my responsibility to do so. 6.4974 0.50132 92.8
C4 Food safety is a high priority to me. 6.4021 0.49163 91.4
C3 I follow food safety rules because I think they are important. 6.4392 0.49760 92
C2 I am committed to following all food safety rules. 6.4656 0.50014 92
C5 I keep my work area clean because I care about food safety. 6.3704 0.49505 91
Attitude A3 Using cap, masks, protective gloves, and adequate clothing reduces the risk of food contamination. 6.7037 0.46931 95.8
A4 It is important to know the temperature of the refrigerator to reduce the risk of food safety. 6.5926 0.51380 94
A2 Foodservice staff with abrasion or cuts on fingers or hands should not touch unwrapped foods. 6.7302 0.46835 96
A1 Raw foods should be kept separately from cooked foods. 6.7937 0.45519 97
A5 Improper storage of foods may be hazardous to health. 6.6878 0.48697 95
Food Safety Knowledge K1 The correct method for thawing frozen meat is to keep them overnight at room temperature. 6.2328 0.45986 89.0
K4 Vegetables should be placed on higher shelf in refrigerator than meat and poultry. 6.2275 0.43281 88.9
K5 Cooked food leftover should be re-heated thoroughly. 6.3333 0.56493 90.4
K3 Contacting ready to eat food with bare hands cause food contamination with food poisoning 6.2434 0.46588 89.1
pathogens.
K2 Keeping food at refrigerator temperature helps to prevent food poisoning. 6.2963 0.46931 89.9
Behavior B4 Using gloves when touch or distribute unwrapped foods 6.4868 0.56123 92.7
B3 Using a mask when touch or distribute unwrapped foods 6.5344 0.53109 93
B2 Wearing a cap when touch or distribute unwrapped foods 6.5079 0.55178 93
B5 Washing hands before using gloves 6.5714 0.53736 93.9
B1 Washing hands before touching unwrapped cooked foods 6.5079 0.52206 93
4
S. Taha, et al. Food Control 118 (2020) 107431
Fig. 2. Structural model of food safety knowledge, attitude, commitment, and behaviors.
Table 8 safety behavior and between food safety attitude and food safety be-
Goodness of fit indices for structural model. havior (Table 10).
Fit indices Model value Accepted value Reference
4. Discussion
χ2/df 2 χ2/df ≤ 2 Ullman (2001)
χ2/df ≤ 5 Schumacker and Lomax (2004)
RMR 0.021 RMR ≤ 0.05 Steiger (1990)
Food safety represents a critical concern to consumers, government
RMR ≤ 0.08 Browne and Cudeck (1993) health sector, food business management due to the adverse effects on
CFI .943 > 0.90 Byrne (2010) trade, tourism and public health (Taylor et al., 2015). Incorrect food
TLI .933 > 0.90 Bentler (1990); handling practices was indicated in several studies as foremost cause of
IFI .943 > 0.90 Bentler (1990);
the foodborne illnesses in food services establishments (Greig, Todd,
RMSEA 0.075 < 0.10 Bentler (1990);
Bartleson, & Michaels, 2007; Sabbithi et al., 2017).
In the current study, the general food safety knowledge of food
Tests were conducted to examine whether there are statistically handlers was found to be very good (89.5%), which is similar to results
significant relationships between food safety knowledge, attitude, reported in Brazil (88%) (Reboucas et al., 2017) and higher than results
commitment and behavior of food handlers. SEM testing results in- reported in UAE (70%) (Taha et al., 2020a), Kuwait (70%) (Al –
dicate that all hypotheses are supported (Table 9). Therefore, each of Kandari, Al- abdeen, & Sidhu, 2019), Jordan (67.1%) (Osaili, Al-
food safety knowledge and food safety attitude has a positive re- Nabulsi, & Allah Krasneh, 2018); three European Countries (70.5%)
lationship with food handler commitment. Food safety attitude has (Smigic et al., 2016), Portugal (56.5%) (Gomes – Neves, Araujo, Ramos,
stronger influence on food handler commitment than food safety & Cardoso, 2014) and Austria (76%) (Pichler, Ziegler, Aldrian, &
knowledge. Each of food safety knowledge, food safety attitude, and Allerberger, 2014).
food handler commitment has a positive relationship with food safety The findings presented that food handlers with excellent attitude
behavior of food handlers. The results show also a direct relationship (95.7%), which is similar to results presented in Kuwait (94%) (Al-
between food safety knowledge and attitude of food handlers as a Kandari, Al-abdeen, & Sidhu, 2019) and Brazil (96.6%) (Rebouças
medium correlation was found (β = 0.37, P < 0.001) (Table 9). et al., 2017), and higher than results presented in Ghana (63%)
The results indicate that food handler commitment acts as a partial (Kunadu, Ofosu, Aboagye, & Tano-Debrah, 2016). Food handlers have
mediator in the relationships between food safety knowledge and food an excellent behavior (93%), which is higher than results reported in
Kuwait (82%) (Al- Kandari et al., 2019), Brazil (76%) (Reboucas et al.,
Table 9
Hypothesis test results of food safety knowledge, attitude, commitment and behavior.
Hypothesis Standardized estimate Standard error Critical ratio Result
5
S. Taha, et al. Food Control 118 (2020) 107431
Table 10
Mediation test results (with food handler commitment as the mediating variable).
Standardized direct effect Standardized indirect effect Mediation result
** = P < 0.01.
2017), and Ghana (52%) (Kunadu et al., 2016). Food handlers show requirements and how to do food safety (Griffith, Jackson, & Lues,
excellent food safety commitment (91.9%), which is similar to a result 2017; Yiannas, 2009).
presented in USA (93.4%) (Fatimah et al., 2014). Differences in the Food safety knowledge in this study has a significant influence on
results of the current study with previous studies may be due to the food safety behavior; this result is inconsistent with previous findings
variances of the questions in the survey, survey protocols and demo- (Lim et al., 2016; Woh et al., 2016; Baser et al., 2017) that indicated
graphic characteristics of respondents. that food safety knowledge has not a significant influence on food safety
It is necessary to assess food safety knowledge level among the food behavior. On the other hand, a study conducted by Meer and Misner
handlers because for instance, food handlers with a lack of information (2000) indicated that the food safety knowledge had a small, positive
of correct hand washing technique would contaminate the prepared influence on food safety behavior. Differences in the results of the
food. Furthermore, attitude is a fundamental psychological factor that current study with previous studies maybe due to the differences in
influences food safety behavior of food handlers (Kraus, 1995). Food respondents' attitude as it is a fundamental factor that translates food
safety knowledge, attitude and practice of food handlers are critical handlers’ knowledge into hygienic behavior if food handlers have a
factors in possible food poisoning occurrence (Sharif & Al- Malki, positive attitude (Zanin, Cunha, Rosso, Capriles, & Stedefeldt, 2017).
2010). In the current study, food safety attitude has a significant positive
In the current study, the relationship between gender of food influence on food safety behavior. This result is consistent with the
handlers and overall food safety knowledge was not significant, which results of Abdul-Mutalib et al. (2012), Baser et al. (2017), and Buccheri
is similar to the findings in studies that were published recently. (Taha et al. (2010) who have found a significant positive relationship between
et al., 2020a; Alqurashi, Priyadarshini, & Jaiswal, 2019; Carbas, food safety attitude and behavior. Providing food handlers with
Cardoso, & Coelho, 2013; Gruenfeldova, Domijan & Walssh, 2019; training science – based only or even not providing training would not
Kunadu et al., 2016; Who, Thong, Behnke, Lewis, & Zain, 2016). assist to overcome barriers such as time constraints and lack of re-
This is because respondents either male or female work in the same sources that might face them during food preparation. This because
environment as food handlers. Nevertheless, it was found that educa- food safety knowledge received through such training would not be
tion and overall food safety knowledge were significantly associated. adequate to deal with such barriers and knowledge would not be
Similarly, there was a significant association between each of food translated into hygienic behavior (Howells et al., 2008). When em-
handlers' age, experience and overall food safety knowledge. Food ployee has a positive attitude on certain behavior, it will be a better
handlers with considerable level of relevant education can obtain food opportunity to practice that behavior complying with standards
safety knowledge fully and smoothly during training sessions and from (Pilling, Brannon, Shanklin, Howells, & Roberts, 2008). Therefore,
food inspectors during inspection visits. Food handlers over 40 years training behavior – based including food safety knowledge education as
old showed more commitment to learn to have food safety knowledge part of restaurants culture required to be adopted (Neal, Binkley, &
from their practical experience. Likewise, food handlers over 12 years’ Henroid, 2012, pp. 50322–52864).
experience may have enrolled in courses of food safety and enhanced A direct correlation between knowledge of food safety and attitude
the knowledge of food safety to a desired level. was supported as the Hypothesis proposed. This result is consistent with
These results were consistent with Taha et al. (2020a) and Osaili previous results reported by Abdul-Mutalib et al. (2012), Baser et al.
et al. (2018) on food handlers in foodservices in UAE and Jordan, re- (2017), Ko (2013), Lari, Soodbakhsh, and Lakzadeh (2010), which also
spectively. put forward a medium correlation between knowledge of food safety as
Likewise, Taha et al. (2020a) and Osaili et al. (2018) pointed that well as attitude. Abdul- Mutalib et al. (2012) indicated that positive
food handlers obtained training on food safety have significantly higher attitude and hygienic behavior could generate from good level food
overall food safety knowledge than those without training of food safety knowledge. However, Lim et al. (2016) found no positive cor-
safety. Such result assures the importance of training in increasing food relation between food safety knowledge and attitude. This suggests that
handlers knowledge on food safety, assisting in attitude building then other factors such commitment that may affect attitude should be
translating knowledge into hygienic practices. The variances in the considered in training programs.
level of food safety knowledge in the aspects studied amongst food Attitudinal commitment and behavioral commitment are two as-
handlers maybe due to training efficiency and effectiveness. pects of employee commitment. Hence, employees with ability to
Selective, comprehensive, continual, and on-job training would achieve work efficiently would be behaviourally committed and would
build a positive culture of food safety to promote knowledge, attitude consequently form attitudinal commitment to the organization. The
and behavior of food handlers toward proper hygiene practices in a way complementarity of attitudinal and behavioral commitment was in-
to eliminate the potential risk of food poisoning (Ungku Fatimah et al., tegral in Meyer and Allen's (1991) conceptualization of a multi-
2014; Vashisht, 2018). dimensional model of organizational commitment.
The food safety attitude in the current study has stronger influence A study conducted by Baser et al. (2017) indicated that attitude has
on food handler commitment than food safety knowledge. Prevailing mediating influence on the relationship between knowledge and be-
food safety training that focuses on knowledge/competency and in- havior, whereas this study found that commitment has a mediating
formative based does not often yield the desired work outcomes. influence (partial) on the relationships and outcomes between knowl-
Adopting varied strategies beyond using lectures and training could be edge and behavior; and between attitude and behavior as well. A sa-
more transformative as employees would be able to incorporate safe tisfied employee may continue in his organization even with confronted
food handling practices when they are motivated (McIntyre, Vallaster, challenges such as uncomfortable working environment. Having
Wilcott, Henderson, & Kosatsky, 2013). Food handlers should be com- knowledge through training, high salary or high position in the orga-
municated of the reasons for and the importance of the food safety nization may not make employee more committed to the organization,
6
S. Taha, et al. Food Control 118 (2020) 107431
7
S. Taha, et al. Food Control 118 (2020) 107431
Kassa, H. (2001). An outbreak of norwalk-like viral gastroenteritis in a frequently pe- Control, 37, 210–217.
nalized food service operation. Journal of Environment and Health, 64(10), 9–13. Scallan, E., Hoekstra, R. M., Angulo, F. J., Tauxe, R. V., Widdowson, M. A., Roy, S. L.,
Ko, W. H. (2013). The relationship among food safety knowledge, attitude and self-re- et al. (2011). Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens.
ported HACCP practices in restaurant employers. Food Control, 29, 102–107. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 17(1), 7–15.
Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the Scholl, R. (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a mo-
empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 927–930. tivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 589–599.
Kunadu, A. P. H., Ofosu, D. B., Aboagye, E., & Tano-Debrah, K. (2016). Food safety Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modelling (2nd
knowledge, attitudes and self-reported practices of food handlers in institutional ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
foodservice in Accra, Ghana. Food Control, 69, 324–330. Seaman, P., & Eves, A. (2010). Perceptions of hygiene training amongst food handlers,
Lim, T., Chye, F. Y., Sulaiman, M. R., & Suki, N. M. (2016). A structural modeling on food managers and training providers - a qualitative study. Food Control, 21, 1037–1041.
safety knowledge, attitude, and behaviour among Bum Bum Island community of Shanock, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships
Semporna, Sabah. Food Control, 60, 241–246. with subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support,
Martins, R. B., Hogg, T., & Otero, J. G. (2012). Food handlers' knowledge on food hygiene: and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695.
The case of a catering company in Portugal. Food Control, 23, 184–190. Sharif, L., & Al-Malki, T. (2010). Knowledge, attitude and practice of Taif University
McIntyre, L., Vallaster, L., Wilcott, L., Henderson, S. B., & Kosatsky, T. (2013). Evaluation students on food poisoning. Food Control, 21, 55–60.
of food safety knowledge, attitudes and self-reported hand washing practices in Sharif, L., Obaidat, M., & Al-Dalalah, M. (2013). Food hygiene knowledge, attitudes and
FOODSAFE trained and untrained food handlers in British Columbia, Canada. Food practices of the food handlers in the military hospitals. Food and Nutrition Sciences,
Control, 30(1), 150–156. 4(3), 245–251.
Meer, R. R., & Misner, S. L. (2000). Food safety knowledge and behavior of expanded food Sharma, J., & Dhar, R. L. (2016). Factors influencing job performance of nursing staff.
and nutrition education program participants in Arizona. Journal of Food Protection, Personnel Review, 45(1), 161–182.
63(12), 1725–1731. Simosi, M. (2012). Disentangling organizational support construct: The role of different
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organiza- sources of support to newcomers' training transfer and organizational commitment.
tional commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. Personnel Review, 41(3), 301–320.
Neal, J., Binkley, M., & Henroid, D. (2012). Assessing factors contributing to food safety Smigic, N., Djekic, I., Martins, M., Rocha, A., Sidiropoulou, N., & Kalogianni, E. (2016).
culture in retail food establishments. International Association for food protection The level of food safety knowledge in food establishments in three European coun-
ARTICLES 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines. IA 50322-52864. tries. Food Control, 63, 187–194.
Nyarugwe, S. P., Linnemann, A., Hofstede, G. J., Fogliano, V., & Luning, P. A. (2016). Srivastava, A. P., & Dhar, R. L. (2016). Impact of leader member exchange, human re-
Determinants for conducting food safety culture research. Trends in Food Science & source management practices and psychological empowerment on extra role per-
Technology, 56, 77–87. formances: The mediating role of organisational commitment. International Journal of
Nyarugwe, S., Linnemann, A., & Luning, P. (2020b). Prevailing food safety culture in Productivity and Performance Management, 65(3), 351–377.
companies operating in a transition economy - does product riskiness matter? Food Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estima-
Control, 107, 106803. tion approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.
Nyarugwe, S., Linnemann, A., Nyanga, L., Fogliano, V., & Luning, P. (2018). Food safety Suliman, A. M. T. (2002). Is it really a mediating construct?: The mediating role of or-
culture assessment using a comprehensive mixed-methods approach: A comparative ganizational commitment in work climate‐performance relationship. The Journal of
study in dairy processing organisations in an emerging economy. Food Control, 84, Management Development, 21(3), 170–183.
186–196. Taha, S., Osaili, T. M., Saddal, N. K., Al-Nabulsi, A. A., Ayyash, M. M., & Obaid, R. S.
Nyarugwe, S., Linnemann, A., Ren, Y., Bakker, E., Kussaga, J., Watson, D., et al. (2020a). (2020a). Food safety knowledge among food handlers in food service establishments
An intercontinental analysis of food safety culture in view of food safety governance in United Arab Emirates. Food Control, 110, 106968.
and national values. Food Control, 111, 107075. Taha, S., Wilkins, S., Juusola, K., & Osaili, T. M. (2020b). Food safety performance in food
Osaili, T. M., Al-Nabulsi, A., & Allah Krasneh, H. (2018). Food safety knowledge among manufacturing facilities: The influence of management practices on food handler
foodservice staff at the universities in Jordan. Food Control, 89 167-117. commitment. Journal of Food Protection, 83(1), 60–67.
Osaili, T. M., Jamous, D. O. A., Obeidat, B. A., Bawadi, H. A., Tayyem, R. F., & Subih, H. S. Taylor, J., Garat, J. P., Simreen, S., & Sarieddine, G. (2015). An industry perspective: A
(2013). Food safety knowledge among food workers in restaurants in Jordan. Food new model of food safety culture excellence and the impact of audit on food safety
Control, 31(1), 145–150. standards. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 7(1), 78–89.
Osaili, T. M., Obeidat, B. A., Hajeer, W. A., & Al-Nabulsi, A. A. (2017). Food safety Thompson, S., De Burger, R., & Kadri, O. (2005). The Toronto food inspection and dis-
knowledge among food service staff in hospitals in Jordan. Food Control, 78, closure system: A case study. British Food Journal, 107(2), 140–149.
279–285. Ullman, J. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick, & L. S. Fidell (Eds.).
Ovca, A., Jevšnik, M., & Raspor, P. (2018). Food safety practices of future food handlers Using multivariate statistics(4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
and their teachers, observed during practical lessons. British Food Journal, 120(3), Vashisht, A. (2018). Food safety culture: An underling cause for success and failures of food
531–548. safety management systems. Master's ThesisUSA: North Dakota State University.
Pichler, J., Ziegler, J., Aldrian, U., & Allerberger, F. (2014). Evaluating levels of knowl- Velusamy, V., Arshak, K., Korostynska, O., Oliwa, K., & Adley, C. (2010). An overview of
edge on food safety among food handlers from restaurants and various catering foodborne pathogen detection: In the perspective of biosensors. Biotechnology
businesses in Vienna, Austria 2011/2012. Food Control, 35(1), 34–40. Advances, 28, 232.
Pilling, V. K., Brannon, L. A., Shanklin, C. W., Howells, A. D., & Roberts, K. R. (2008). Walker, E., Pritchard, C., & Forsythe, S. (2003). Food handlers' hygiene knowledge in
Identifying specific beliefs to target to improve restaurant employees' intentions for small food businesses. Food Control, 14, 339–343.
performing three important food safety behaviours. Journal of the American Dietetic Wilkins, S., Butt, M. M., & Annabi, C. A. (2017). The effects of employee commitment in
Association, 108, 991–997. transnational higher education: The case of international branch campuses. Journal of
Rebouças, L. T., Santiago, L. B., Martins, L. S., Menezes, A. C. R., Araújo, M. P. N., & de Studies in International Education, 21(4), 295–314.
Castro Almeida, R. C. (2017). Food safety knowledge and practices of food handlers, Woh, P. Y., Thong, K. L., Behnke, J. M., Lewis, J. W., & Zain, S. N. M. (2016). Evaluation
head chefs and managers in hotels' restaurants of Salvador, Brazil. Food Control, 73, of basic knowledge on food safety and food handling practices amongst migrant food
372–381. handlers in Peninsular Malaysia. Food Control, 70, 64–73.
Sabbithi, A., Reddi, S. L., Naveen Kumar, R., Bhaskar, V., Subba Rao, G., & Rao, V. S. World Health Organization (WHO) (2015). WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne
(2017). Identifying critical risk practices among street food handlers. British Food diseases. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Journal, 119, 390–400. Yiannas, F. (2009). Food safety culture: Creating a behavior-based food safety management
Samapundo, S., Cam Thanh, T., Xhaferi, R., & Devlieghere, F. (2016). Food safety system. New York, NY: Springer.
knowledge, attitudes and practices of street food vendors and consumers in Ho Chi Zanin, L. M., Cunha, D. T., Rosso, V. V., Capriles, V. D., & Stedefeldt, E. (2017).
Minh city, Vietnam. Food Control, 70, 79–89. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers in food safety: An integrative
Sani, N. A., & Siow, O. N. (2014). Knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers on review. Food Research International, 100(1), 53–62.
food safety in food service operations at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Food