ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
orities of its members and partners within the field of retail food safety. The goal of the assessment was to serve as a national census of the retail food regulatory community to identify areas where training resources are most needed. For this article, we performed a secondary analysis of data collected for the Training Needs Assessment. The sur- vey focused on EPH professionals including practitioners, educators, researchers, and policymakers who are involved in retail food safety. Individuals outside this criterion, such as individuals who are primarily engaged in the food industry or academia, were excluded from this analysis. Using a formula for finite population sam- ple size determination and considering the estimated population size of these profession- als, a calculated minimum of 377 individuals was needed to achieve a confidence level of 95%, a power of 0.8, and a margin of error of 5% (Raosoft, 2004). Compliance With Ethical Standards Participants were apprised of the voluntary nature of the survey, the confidentiality of their responses, and that all data would be de-identified for analysis. Ethical clearance for the study was granted by the institutional review board at California Baptist University (IRB# 028-2324-EXM). Survey Measures The Training Needs Assessment was devel- oped based on a thorough review of existing research, consultation with subject matter experts, collaboration with FDA, and input from NEHA members and partner organiza- tions with knowledge in retail food safety. The survey consisted of several sections and included questions on demographics, job-related factors, and relevance and expo- sure to retail food safety KAs from the NCS framework (Table 1). The Training Needs Assessment survey was piloted with a group of 55 NEHA-FDA RFFM Grant Program registrants with knowledge in the field of retail food safety. These registrants provided feedback on the appropriateness and utility of questions. Demographics Participants were asked to report on several demographic factors, including location, gen- der, age, race and ethnicity, and highest level
FIGURE 1
Quadrant Analysis Framework
High
Quadrant 1 Low Knowledge Exposure
Quadrant 2 High Knowledge Exposure
High Relevance
High Relevance
Content Knowledge Exposure
High
Low
Quadrant 4 Low Knowledge Exposure
Quadrant 3 High Knowledge Exposure
Low Relevance
Low Relevance
Low
Relevance to Job Duties
FIGURE 2
Mean Relevance of and Exposure to Knowledge Areas for Overall Workforce
Note. Q = quadrant.
of education completed. Detailed workforce demographics and capacity results have been reported by Streuli et al. (2024). Job-Related Factors Respondents were asked questions about job-related factors such as number of years
working in retail food safety, current job level (i.e., entry, journey, technical, or leadership), when they last received retail food safety training, how they would categorize their job functions, and whether or not continu- ing education units (CEUs) were required for their job.
26
Volume 87 • Number 1
Powered by FlippingBook