Food Safety Practices Assessment Tool: An

Innovative Way to Test Food Safety Skills

among Individuals with Special Needs
Elena T. Carbone, Stanley E. Scarpati, and Lori F. Pivarnik

Abstract: This article describes an innovative assessment tool designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a food safety
skills curriculum for learners receiving special education services. As schools respond to the increased demand for training
students with special needs about food safety, the need for effective curricula and tools is also increasing. A Food Safety
Education for High School and Transition Special Needs Students curriculum served as the basis upon which our assessment tool
was developed. The project was a collaborative effort by food safety and education professionals in Connecticut, Rhode
Island and Massachusetts. This USDA-funded initiative emerged from teacher-generated data that identified critical gaps
in food safety knowledge and skills among students with disabilities (SWD) receiving special education services. As an
adjunct to this curriculum, a Food Safety Practices Assessment Tool was developed to: 1) conduct observations of students
as they demonstrate food safety practices, and 2) use this information to design classroom-based learning activities that
are aligned with students Individual Education Plans (IEP). Pilot data suggest that the tool is valid and reliable for use in
a kitchen-based setting. This is the first known tool of its kind to test food safety skills of individuals with special needs
in a real-world environment. Further testing is needed to determine the usefulness of the tool for broader audiences.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) es-
timates that foodborne diseases cause approximately 48 million
illnesses, 130,000 hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths each year
(Scallan and others 2011a; Scallan and others 2011b). Federal agen-
cies such as the US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), and CDC have responded to this
public health issue by developing and implementing guidelines
and interventions to address the need for highly qualified food
safety workers. Education initiatives such as FightBac! (Partner-
ship for Food Safety Education 2009) and Be Food Safe (United
States Dept. of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service 2008)
have been developed for consumers and food service personnel to
increase knowledge about food handling practices that can reduce
risk of illness. While these initiatives reflect the critical impor-
tance of food safety knowledge through education and training
for the general public (United States Dept. of Health and Human
Services 2009), little is known about the effectiveness of train-
ing and testing programs on participants in general, and even less
among employees with unique learning characteristics. An often
over looked segment of this population are students with dis-
abilities (SWD), particularly high school and transition students
MS 20120551 Submitted 4/16/2012, Accepted 9/18/2012. Author Carbone is
with Univ. of Massachusetts, Dept. of Nutrition, 100 Holdsworth Way, Chenoweth
Lab, Amherst, MA 010039282. Author Scarpati is with Univ. of Massachusetts,
School of Education (Emeritus). Author Pivarnik is with Univ. of Rhode Is-
land, Nutrition and Food Sciences Dept. Direct inquiries to author Carbone
(Email: ecarbone@nutrition.umass.edu)
with special educational needs. For the purposes of this article,
students receiving special education services are identified as those
who have a disability based on either a state or federal definition
and for whom appropriate diagnostic and evaluation teams have
concluded that special education services are needed to make rea-
sonable academic progress in school (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act 2004). These students are placed on
Individual Education Plans (IEP) that guide their school activities
and identify the services they need to access the general school
curriculum. Transition students are those individuals receiving spe-
cial education services who have IEP objectives beginning at age
14 that specifically address the skills and services they will need to
be successful when they leave high school (Individuals with Dis-
abilities Education Improvement Act 2004). The food safety skills
used as the basis of the Food Safety Practices (FSP) Assessment
Tool described in this article are examples of IEP-based transition
objectives, specifically designed to meet industry-approved food
safety requirements.
Students with Disabilities (SWD) in Food Service
National data collected by the federal government (Sanford and
others 2011) point to the food service industry as a major player
in the employment success of post secondary SWD. Among this
group, 17% worked in food service, 11% worked as a skilled la-
borer, and 10% were employed as a cashier. Youth were signifi-
cantly more likely to work in food service than in most other types
of jobs (Sanford and others 2011).


c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists
doi: 10.1111/j.1541-4329.2012.00161.x Vol. 12, 2013 r Journal of Food Science Education 7
Food safety practices assessment tool. . .
Since food service is among the most viable employment op-
tions for SWD, handling foods safely is a critical pre-employment
skill. Demonstration of knowledge as a preventive strategy for
reducing foodborne illness risk is also fundamental to the FDA
Food Code (United States Dept. of Health and Human Services
2009). Since 1997, the FDA Food Code has required demon-
stration of knowledge of foodborne disease along with food han-
dling procedures determined to reduce the risk of food related
illnesses.
Given the special learner characteristics of SWD, reliance on
traditional paper and pencil evaluations might not provide use-
ful information about certain skills (Elliott and Thurlow 2006).
Real-life demonstrations of safe food handling practices can result
in more beneficial assessment data of student skill development
(Stiggins 1987).
A Food Safety Education for High School and Transition Special
Needs Students curriculum served as the basis upon which our
assessment tool was developed (Madaus and others 2010). The
project was a collaborative effort by food safety and education pro-
fessionals in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. This
USDA-funded initiative emerged from teacher-generated data that
identified critical gaps in food safety knowledge and skills among
students with disabilities (SWD) receiving special education ser-
vices. As an adjunct to this curriculum, the FSP Assessment Tool
was developed to: 1) conduct reliable observations of students
as they demonstrate food safety practices and 2) use this infor-
mation to design classroom activities that are in keeping with
students IEPs. This is the first known tool of its kind to test
food safety skills of individuals with special needs in a real-world
setting.
Performance Assessment and Food Safety Skills
Validity of the FSP Assessment Tool was based on observing
students demonstrating what they know or what they can do.
In contrast to assessments that limit how students respond by re-
quiring them to select a response in a multiple choice or true
or false fashion, performance assessments require students to con-
struct their responses while they are active participants in the assess- Meal #2
ment process. Students are therefore responsible for constructing
their responses and creating an answer or a product rather than
simply filling in a blank, selecting a correct answer from a list, or
deciding whether a statement is true or false. The focus of per-
formance assessment is on measuring students learning as part of
real kitchen-based activities representing cooking situations that
demand attention to safe food handling practices. The appeal of
performance assessment is that it is criterion-referenced. This ap-
proach illustrates how well students are performing on specific
goals or standards, rather than how their performance compares
to a norm group of students nationally or locally, and is there-
fore intended to show individual growth and inform instruction.
Finally, using performance assessment with SWD when handling
food refers to their specific skills and competencies in relation to
a continuum of agreed upon standards of proficiency or excel-
lence and requires professional rater judgment in its design and
interpretation (Haney and Madaus 1989; Stiggins 1987).
Information gathered on the FSP Tool not only provides cri-
terion performance indicators, or benchmarks, of what students
know (and need to improve upon), but it can also provide useful
insights into instructional design needs, materials development,
and define opportunities for success. For example, hand washing
involves several steps; therefore, a student may successfully demon-
strate all or a portion of those steps. A benchmark for adequate Figure 1Observed lunch menu items
8 Journal of Food Science Education r Vol. 12, 2013
performance is established. In this case, it would assume to be set
at 100%.
Methods
Once the study was approved by the Univ. of Massachusetts
(UMass) Institutional Review Board and a setting with high school
SWD was selected to pilot test the tool, an observation study was
designed in three phases. In phase I, an Observation Template
was created to establish a framework against which all observed
data were compared. Design of the template adhered to the philos-
ophy and guidelines of what is commonly referred to as Universal
Design for Learning (UDL) (Hehir 2009). UDL assumes all learn-
ers have unique cognitive learning styles and that a one size fits
all approach ignores these differences and is incapable or inflexible
of meeting the individual needs of many students, especially those
with disabilities. The template was also designed in consultation
with the Culinary Arts Manager around four existing lunch meals
to reflect a variety of foods prepared by the students (see Figure 1).
Organization centered around the four core practices for safe food
handling established by Fight Bac!: 1) Clean, 2) Separate, 3) Cook,
and 4) Chill (Partnership for Food Safety Education 2009). Using
these four general categories, specific safe food handling skills were
identified and, for each of the four meals selected for inclusion in
the pilot test, the possible opportunities for these behaviors to be
demonstrated were recorded. After consulting with the Culinary
Arts Manager, we knew for example, if using a cutting board was
part of the preparation process and how many times it should
be used for each particular meal selected. In this way a realistic
Meal #1
Egg salad sandwich with lettuce, tomato and mayonnaise
Celery with Ranch dip
Cole slaw with carrots
Canned pear halves
Brownie with peanut butter chips
Chicken noodle soup
Fish tenders with tartar sauce
Onion rings
Tossed salad
Fresh pineapple
Fruit sherbet
Meal #3
Clam chowder
All white meat chicken nuggets with dipping sauce
Greek tortellini salad
Dinner roll
Apples
Oatmeal raisin cookie
Meal #4
Beef tacos with salsa
Fat free sour cream
Green salad
Brown rice
Peaches
Apple strudel
Available on-line through ift.org
Food safety practices assessment tool. . .

baseline was obtained, against which future observations could be Table 1Principles and practices informing data collection.
compared. The draft template was sent to the project Advisory
Principles Practices
Committee for review and comment.
Observation procedures should Clearly describe the observation
After the template was revised, the next step (Phase II) was not be a distraction from procedure.
to establish an observation system. Safe food handling behaviors instruction.
were observed and recorded using both a time sampling and an Observation should not take Clearly define the behavior/s to
interval recording system. Intervals are pre-established time seg- undue time away from be observed.
ments during which each of the four food safety behaviors were instruction.
likely to be demonstrated. We established a 5 to 10 minute time Data collection should provide a Establish a scoring and recording
frame for the intervals once the template was designed and the learning experience for system.
students.
possible opportunities for each behavior to occur were identified.
A time sampling methodology was used to collect data about the Results should lead to frequent Create an opportunity for
changes and improvements in observers to learn and practice
degree to which students demonstrated the selected food safety instructional process. the observation technique.
skills (Primavera and others 1997). Because this approach involves
The process should not create Establish a behavioral recording
intermittent observation, the observer is able to study a behavior undo anxiety for students. system that is best suited to
without having to set an amount of time aside to observe contin- monitor the behavior/s.
ually. Thus, it is a practical way to estimate the overall occurrence The process should encourage Clearly define the schedule of
of a behavior. Time sampling is similar to interval recording in cooperation. when behavior/s will be
that the observation time is divided into intervals (in this case 5 to observed and the observation
intervals (periods).
10 minutes); however, in time sampling, the behavior is recorded
only if it occurs at the end of the time period when the observer The process should respect the Create an opportunity to observe
privacy and dignity of students. and record students behavior.
is required to check if the behavior has been demonstrated or not. Conduct reliability testing.
For instance, if proper washing of fruits and vegetables is being Graphically represent the data.
observed, it would be recorded as occurring/not occurring at the (Adapted in part from Patton 2002)
end of each interval. When the specified amount of time has ex-
pired, the observer(s) looks at the student and determines whether
or not the behavior is occurring. Time sampling is appropriate for behaviors and skills prior to implementation. Inter-rater reliability
behaviors that are longer in duration (such as proper washing of (that is, percent of agreement) was calculated as follows:
fruits and vegetables). If the behaviors are of shorter duration (such Agreements
as checking proper cooking temperature of a meat product), the 100
Agreements + Disagreements
time sampling method would be adjusted to an interval record-
ing method where behaviors are designated as either occurring
or not occurring during each interval. In either case, total oc- For example, if Rater #1 and Rater #2 agreed that hand
currences of the specified behavior are summed for each period, washing was observed a total of 8 times over a 10-minute in-
divided by the number of recording intervals, and multiplied by terval session but disagreed about its occurrence during two in-
100 to establish a percentage. For example, if washing fruits and tervals, the overall reliability rating would be 80% {8/8 + 2 =
vegetables occurred four times during an eight segment record- 80%}. Data collection and systematic behavior observation pro-
ing interval, a value of 50% would be assigned to this behavior: cedures used in this study provided an objective basis for mak-
(4 occurrences/8 segments) = 50%. ing reliable decisions and documenting student behaviors and
In Phase III, pilot template observation data were collected performance.
for each of the four meals selected during Phase I. A number of
specific guiding principles and practices were adhered to through- Results and Discussion
out the data collection process (see Table 1) (adapted in part from A total of 15 students (9 male, 6 female) between the ages of
Patton 2002). Three to six students were observed as a group 1519 years old agreed to participate in the pilot testing of the
preparing and/or cooking meals during each of the 60-minute FSP Assessment Tool. All participants had an Individual Educa-
meal preparation periods pre-established by the facility. Two au- tion Plan (IEP) and attended a high school for students with learn-
thors (Carbone and Scarpati) independently observed the students. ing, emotional, and behavioral disabilities. Their specific learner
Check marks were made on the FSP Assessment Tool to indicate characteristics were aligned with state and federal definitions of
if a food safety skill had been demonstrated. these disabilities and included average or above intellectual abil-
ity, achievement deficits, selective attention difficulties, and emo-
tional reactions to situations that might interfere with their learn-
Reliability ing and/or the learning of others. No other specific student data
Inter-rater or inter-coder reliability examines the extent to were available due to privacy issues and legal constraints regarding
which different observers using the same instrument get equivalent access to IEP information.
results (Singleton and others 1993). Inter-rater reliability checks Four different lunch meals were observed over a nine-week pe-
the stability of data collected with the observational forms and riod. Each observation session took approximately one hour. This
should be completed on at least three separate occasions during the observation study was exploratory in nature; data were collected
initial data collection phase if possible (Singleton and others 1993). over time in an iterative fashion, with each observation session
In this study, two independent raters (Carbone and Scarpati) used informing the next. Therefore, changes were made to both the
the FSP Assessment Tool at the same time, on the same students, content and format of the FSP Assessment Tool throughout this
based on the same observable behavior. Both raters were knowl- pilot study. After the first observation (meal #1), for instance, we
edgeable about proper use of the instrument and in the food safety discovered the need to add a space for other food safety practices

Available on-line through ift.org Vol. 12, 2013 r Journal of Food Science Education 9
Food safety practices assessment tool. . .

Table 2Observation data for student-based food safety practices.

Food Safety Category and Overall Rates

Observable Practices Meal #1a Meal #2 Meal #3a Meal #4 (%)b
Clean Exp c Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e Exp c Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e
Wash hands properly 4 3 75 6 6 100 6 5 83 5 3 60 81
Clean prep surfaces 2 2 100 2 2 100 3 2 67 3 1 33 70
Pre-wash vegs/fruits 4 3 75 4 2 50 1 1 100 4 3 75 69
Wash boards/utensils 1 1 100 1 1 100 2 2 100 2 2 100 100
Clean spills NA f NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 100 2 1 50 67
Other (rinsed lids) 1 1 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100
Practice Performance Rate (%) 83 85 85 63 78
Chill Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e
Keep refrigerated foods 2 1 50 2 2 100 1 1 100 2 1 50 71
at proper temp
Check freezer temp NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chill hot foods properly NA NA NA 1 1 100 2 1 50 1 1 100 75
Practice Performance Rate (%) 50 100 67 67 73
Separate Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e
Separate cutting NA NA NA 1 1 100 1 1 100 2 2 100 100
boards
Separate utensils for NA NA NA 1 1 100 1 1 100 1 1 100 100
meat/fish
Proper storage of NA NA NA 1 1 100 1 1 100 1 1 100 100
meat/fish
Practice Performance Rate (%) 100 100 100 100
Cook Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e
Use thermometer to check NA NA NA 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA NA 0
internal cooking
temp
Other (cook eggs until 1 1 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100
yolks/whites are firm)
Practice Performance Rate (%) 100 0 0 33
Other (personal hygiene) Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e Expc Obsd %e
Wear proper hair 3 2 67 6 5 83 5 5 100 5 4 80 84
restraint
Wear gloves 3 3 100 6 6 100 5 4 80 5 5 100 95
Demonstrate proper NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
care of cuts
Demonstrate proper 2 1 50 1 1 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA 67
tasting practices
Practice Performance Rate (%) 75 92 90 90 88
a Meals for which inter-rater reliability checks were performed.
b Overall performance rates reflect data for each food safety practice across all meals observed.
c Exp = expected number of observed practices.
d Obs = actual number of observed practices.
e Total observed/total expected = %
f NA = not applicable (not observed).

in the Clean and Cook categories. We also added a new category
(Other) to reflect personal hygiene practices that were not re-
flected in the four Fight Bac! practices. There was also a need to
add more space on the observation form to better accommodate
note taking.
Two observers (Carbone and Scarpati) independently observed
food safe skills during meal preparation opportunities. Inter-rater
reliability rates were calculated for two meals (#1 and #3). For meal
#1, inter-rater reliability rates were as follows: Clean-90% agree-
ment; Chill -100% agreement; Separate-N/A; Cook-100% agree-
ment; and Other-90% agreement. For meal #3, overall agreements
were: Clean-95%; Chill-100%; Separate-100%; Cook-100%; and
Other-90%. Reliabilities were relatively easy to establish given the
clear and well defined safe food handling behaviors, the discrete
nature of their occurrence, and the moderate to low rates at which
they occurred. Therefore, reliability checks were only taken for
two meals.
All behaviors were equally weighted and the benchmark for
adequate performance was set at 100%. General observation data
for each food safety practice demonstrated during the pilot study
are shown in Table 2. These data suggest that cooking and chilling
foods, and cleaning practices had the lowest overall performance
rates. Specific food safety practices with the poorest performance
rates were cleaning spills and work surfaces, and pre-washing veg-
etables/fruits (Clean), keeping foods that need to be refrigerated
at the appropriate temperature and chilling hot foods properly
(Chill). Proper tasting practices were also inconsistently demon-
strated (Other). Overall, properly separating foods and utensils and
personal hygiene practices were more consistently demonstrated.
An example of more complete observation data from meal #1,
with specific comments and suggested corrective actions, are pro-
vided in in the case study example Figure 2.
The assessment technique and instrument described here pro-
vides educators working with SWD with a useful way to collect
information about student performance and effective instruction.
This information can help reveal inconsistencies in instructional
techniques that may not otherwise present themselves in tradi-
tional paper and pencil evaluations. In the context of current edu-
cational reform and its emphasis on outcomes, accurate measures
of student performance are critical to making informed decisions
about students, teachers, and schools (US Dept. of Education No
Child Left Behind Act 2001). For SWD in particular, perfor-
mance outcomes are inherent in their IEPs and reflect the effec-
tiveness of the curriculum. Useful and accurate performance data

10 Journal of Food Science Education r Vol. 12, 2013 Available on-line through ift.org
Food safety practices assessment tool. . .

On Monday, July 16th, the following lunch menu is planned for the High School in
Middletown, USA.

o Egg salad sandwich with lettuce, tomato and mayonnaise

o Celery with Ranch dip

o Cole slaw with carrots

o Canned pear halves

o Brownie with peanut butter chips

Its 8:30 a.m. and Peter, the food service manager, is in the kitchen with three of
his staff: Hannah and Bob, the two salad prep cooks, and Roman, the line cook.
Because its so hot outside, a cold entre is planned for lunch. Hannah and Bob get
busy preparing the vegetables and fruits. They need to clean and sanitize the work
surface areas, then wash the celery, carrots, lettuce and tomatoes, slice the tomato,
chop the celery, and shred the cabbage. Meanwhile, Roman is peeling and chopping
eggs that he hard boiled the day before for the egg salad. He has already checked to
make sure the yolks and whites are firm; next he will add the mayonnaise, some dry
mustard and seasonings to make the egg salad. Peter is overseeing things and cutting
the brownies for dessert. Later he will portion out the pear halves from the cans in the
storage area.

With a menu like this, basic food safety practices of proper cleaning, chilling and
sanitation practices can be observed. It is expected that all food service workers will
properly wash their hands prior to starting their work in the kitchen. They should all be
wearing a hair restraint and gloves. Hannah and Bob are working with fresh produce, all
of which should be washed prior to prep work. After the tomatoes and celery are cut, the
cutting board and knives should be cleaned,sanitized and properly stored. The
cabbage will be shredded using a food processor, which needs to be put into the
dishwasher after use. The mayonnaise for the cole slaw and egg salad should remain in
the refrigerator until needed. After the cole slaw is made, it should be covered and
stored in the refrigerator. When the eggs are peeled and mixed with the dressing and
flavorings, the egg salad should also be covered and stored in the refrigerator until its
ready to be served. The cans of pears need to be cleaned, opened and portioned out
right before service. The Ranch dressing dip should be refrigerated after opening and
remain refrigerated until right before serving.

Figure 2Meal #1 case study example

Available on-line through ift.org Vol. 12, 2013 r Journal of Food Science Education 11
Food safety practices assessment tool. . .

OBSERVATION FORM FOR STUDENT-BASED FOOD SAFETY PRACTICES

MEAL #1 EXAMPLE

Date July 16, 2012 Observer E.Carbone, S. Scarpati

Start Time 8:30 AM End Time 9:30 AM Number of Students Observed 3

Initials of Students being Observed: HC, RW, RO a Location: Kitchen

Assigned Role/s of each Student:

2 salad prep cooks, 1 line cook

Menu (to be completed prior to observation):

Egg salad sandwich with lettuce, tomato and mayonnaise
Celery with Ranch dip
Cole slaw with carrots
Canned pear halves
Brownie with peanut butter chips

Record one tally mark for every occurrence of each practice observed.
Food Safety Observable Check if Tally Total (observed)/ Comments Corrective
Category Practice Practice (observed) Total (expected) Actions
Observed =%

CLEAN wash hands 1,1,1 3/4 = 75% One student did not Follow up
properly wash his hands with student
- before working after taking a call regarding
- after handling foods on his cell phone. use of cell
phones in
clean prep work the kitchen
surfaces 1,1 2/2 = 100% area.

pre-wash fresh Celery was not Remind

fruits/ 1,1,1 3/4 = 75%% washed prior to students of
vegetables chopping it. the need to
wash all
wash cutting fresh
board and 1 1/1 = 100% produce.
utensils
b
clean spills N/A

other( rinsed off

lids of pear 1 1/1 = 100%
cans)
Overall
Performance
Rate:

10 (total
observed)
/12(total expected)

Overall
performance rate
= 83%

Figure 2Continued

12 Journal of Food Science Education r Vol. 12, 2013 Available on-line through ift.org
Food safety practices assessment tool. . .

CHILL keep all foods 1 1/2 = 50% Mayonnaise was

that need left out on the
refrigeration counter.
(cheese, milk,
eggs, deli
meats, etc) at
the appropriate
temperature

check freezer
temperature

chill hot foods N/A

properly

N/A

Overall
Performance
Rate:

1(total observed)
/2 (total expected)

Overall
performance rate
= 50%

SEPARATE use a N/A

separate
cutting board
for raw meat
or properly
wash the
board
between uses

use separate N/A

utensils for
meat/fish

demonstrate N/A
proper storage
of meat/fish

Overall
Performance
Rate: N/A

COOK use
thermometer to N/A
check internal
cooking
temperature

other (cooked 1 1/1 = 100%

eggs until
yolks/whites
are firm)

Figure 2Continued

Available on-line through ift.org Vol. 12, 2013 r Journal of Food Science Education 13
Food safety practices assessment tool. . .

Overall
Performance
Rate:

1(total observed)
/1 (total expected)

Overall
performance rate
= 100%

OTHER wear proper 1,1 2/3 = 67% One student was Remind
(Personal hair restraint not wearing proper student of
hygiene hair restraint. the need to
practices) wear gloves 1,1,1 3/3 = 100% wear hair
restraint.
demonstrate N/A
proper care of
cuts
One student used Review
demonstrate 1 1/2 = 50% the same spoon proper
proper tasting twice to taste the tasting
practices egg salad. practices.

Overall
Performance
Rate:
6 (total observed)
/8(total expected)

Overall
performance rate=
75%
a b
Students names and initials have been changed; N/A = Not Applicable (not observed)

Additional Comments:

Review of these data indicates that certain food safety practices need additional

instruction or review. Overall Performance Rates for observed food safety practices

ranged from 50% for Chilling foods to 75% for Other (personal hygiene practices), to

83% for Cleaning. Instruction would therefore focus on specific practices in need of

improvement, including properly cleaning vegetables, hand washing, keeping foods

adequately chilled, wearing a hair restraint, and proper tasting practices. NOTE: Some

practices may be assigned that may not be observable in all individuals (Ex: checking

freezer or refrigerator temperatures, proper storage of foods, etc).

Figure 2Continued

generated from the Tool fits well into the outcomes sections of IEPs
and it is an accurate way to monitor students progress while not
overwhelming teachers and other practitioners with yet another
test to give to students.
Focus of this study was on the development of the tool and
its feasibility of use. A limited number of meals and students
were observed; therefore, generalizability of the data should be
viewed with caution. However, the findings do provide informa-
tion around which instruction can be built. For example, review
of the pilot data suggest that properly separating cutting boards and
utensils is a food safety behavior that was consistently practiced,
while the other behaviors may need to be targeted for additional
instruction. The FSP Assessment Tool can reveal a wide range
of observable food safety practices. Identification of problem ar-
eas can easily be made and corrective actions taken. The Tool
can also be tailored to accommodate the needs of the particular
facility.
In addition to the small sample size, a caveat we offer is the same
for any assessment that it is a sample of student performance across
a specified time frame and context, and that it is not expected
to measure every aspect of a specific safe food activity. Context
played an important role when we designed the observation form.

14 Journal of Food Science Education r Vol. 12, 2013 Available on-line through ift.org
Food safety practices assessment tool. . .

Table 3Observation session organization. curriculum, and it uses frequent measures to determine progress
and inform instruction. Teachers and classrooms will benefit from
Procedure Example
establishing high expectations while presenting meaningful and
Identify food safe behaviors Clean, Chill, Separate, Cook
Define food safe behaviors Specify what each behavior will appropriate activities for all students. For more information about
look like when observed (for UDL, visit the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST),
example, What do you see Universal Design for Learning Research and Demonstration Cen-
when hands are washed, or
foods are separated?) ter (www.cast.org).
Behaviors should clearly
observable, measurable and Conclusion
specific. Finally, this assessment approach, while specifically tailored to
Define events related to the target Identify events that might
behaviors influence the defined behaviors a safe food curriculum, can be readily adapted to many perfor-
(e.g, time of day, kitchen mance skills that are part of any well-rounded food management
organization, menu training curriculum. Our intention was to present a logical, valid
instructions, teacher behavior,
number of students in kitchen, and reliable way of determining the effectiveness of a safe food in-
etc.). struction program by observing SWD demonstrate specific skills
Establish measurement strategies Determine how to measure and
record food safe behaviors (e.g, in real time across real food handling situations. With more ac-
as descriptive narrative, curate assessment data and better informed instruction, SWD are
checklist or interval recording more likely to gain access to valuable employment in food service
techniques). Establish
inter-rater reliability. and ultimately better access to a community and productive life.
Collect, analyze, graph data Compile results based on
measurement strategy. Prepare
results to inform curriculum. Acknowledgements
This study was funded by a grant from the USDA Integrated Re-
search, Education and Competitive Grants Program under agency
We kept in mind that observers would likely operate in a variety award #200551110-03275. This study was assigned Contribution
of kitchens. Some will be large enough to allow for easy and fluid #5141 by the USDA at the Univ. of Rhode Island, Agricultural
avenues for observers to move around while checking for safe Experiment Station.
food skills, while others might be small and restrict observer(s) to
specific locations while collecting data. Our pilot test location was
small, with equipment (for example, ovens,) and work spaces (for
References
example, prep tables) not in close proximity to sinks and wash areas.
Elliott, JL, Thurlow ML. 2006. Improving test performance of students with
As observers, we were restricted to one general location to prevent disabilities on district and state assessments. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
interference with the natural work flow. Despite these restraints Corwin. p. 232.
we were able to collect sufficient data in a reliable manner. Haney W, Madaus G. 1989. Searching for alternatives to standardized tests:
Many aspects of recording the occurrences of a skill make it Whys, whats, and whithers. Phi Delta Kappan 70:68387.
user friendly because it rarely interferes with classroom activities Hehir T. 2009. Policy foundations of universal design for learning. In:
and a simple yes or no check may be all that is needed. Gordon DT, Gravel JW, Schifter LA, editors. A policy reader in universal
design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. p. 3545.
Furthermore, occurrence data produces a count that can easily be Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004.
transferred to a graph or other sheet and interpreted to monitor [Accessed 2012 Feb 15]. Available from: http://idea.ed.gov.
progress. A major challenge, however, to observing specific food Madaus JW, Pivarnik L, Patnoad M, Scarpati S, Richard N, Hirsch D,
safety skills within the general categories described here (that is, Carbone E, Gable R. 2010. Teaching food safety skills to students with
Clean, Chill, Separate, Cook) is that they are likely to be low disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, March/April;42(4):4451.
frequency behaviors. In other words, it would be unreasonable Partnership for Food Safety Education. 2009. [Accessed 2012 Feb 15].
Available from: http://www.fightbac.org.
to expect them to occur very often. For example, it is logical to
Patton MQ. 2002.Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed.
assume that if washing a cutting board is not an expected skill for Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 598 p.
that observation period, then it would not be demonstrated. If Primavera LH, Allison DB, Alfonso VC. 1997. Measurement of dependent
it was demonstrated, it would likely only occur once, or possibly variables. In:, Allison DB, Franklin RD, Gorman BS, editors. Design and
twice during that time. The FSP Assessment Tool was designed for analysis of single-case research. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
observing skills as they are exhibited and the sample of individuals p. 4192.
being observed was relatively small. To maximize the accuracy of Sanford C, Newman L, Wagner M, Cameto R., Knokey AM, Shaver D.
2011. The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults With Disabilities
the observation tool, we offer several guidelines to prepare and up to 6 Years After High School. Key Findings From the National
organize an observation session (see Table 3). Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 20113004). Menlo
Park, CA: SRI International. [Accessed 2012 Feb 15]. Available from:
www.nlts2.org/reports/.
Universal Design and Assessment Scallan E, Griffin PM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Hoekstra RM. 2011a.
As noted earlier, the FSP Assessment Tool was developed in ad- Foodborne illness acquired in the United Statesunspecified agents.
Emerging Infectious Diseases [Accessed 2012 Feb 16]. Available from:
herence to the guiding principles of Universal Design for Learning http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/1/pdfs/p21101.pdf.
(UDL) (Hehir 2009). Many traditional assessments, such as writ- Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson M-A, Roy SL,
ten classroom tests, are not designed in this fashion and therefore Jones JL, Griffin PM. 2011b. Foodborne illness acquired in the United
have to provide accommodations (for example, more time, special Statesmajor pathogens. Emerging Infectious Diseases [Accessed 2012 Feb
16]. Available from: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/1/pdfs/
materials, etc.) in order to allow SWD fair and equitable access p11101.pdf.
to the test information. In contrast, the FSP Assessment Tool Singleton RA, Straits BC, Straits MM. 1993. Approaches to Social Research.
is flexible and applicable to all students engaged in a safe food 2nd ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 605 p.

Available on-line through ift.org Vol. 12, 2013 r Journal of Food Science Education 15
Food safety practices assessment tool. . .

Stiggins RJ. 1987. Design and development of performance assessments. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices 6(1):3342. FoodCode2009/default.htm.
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service. United States Department of Education. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
2008. Be food safe. [Accessed 2012 Feb 15]. Available from: [Accessed 2012 Feb 26]. Available from
http://www.befoodsafe.gov. http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2009. Food Code, www.cast.org: Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), Inc.
Recommendations of the US Public Health Service, Food and Drug Wakefield, MA; 2012 [Accessed 2012 Feb 26]. Available from:
Administration, [Accessed 2012 Feb 15]. Available from: www.cast.org.

16 Journal of Food Science Education r Vol. 12, 2013 Available on-line through ift.org