}V1ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to LjBRARJES remove this checkout from w your record. FINES will -—— be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. .___——..__.—.._..- M"... M— ‘-..-. a") .' ' ‘1 7'9 x 3 \ “ P g"? 5; .€ L THE IMPACT OF THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MASTER CANNER PROGRAM ON FOOD PRESERVATION KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES By Penny Kasch Ross A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition 1987 ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MASTER CANNER PROGRAM ON FOOD PRESERVATION KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES By Penny Kasch Ross Food preservation knowledge and attitude change was assessed in 57 people enrolled in nine Michigan Cooperative Extension Service (CES) Master Canner programs. Three Likert scales designed to measure attitudes toward the "nutritional value of home preserved foods", the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" and "preserving foods properly and safely" and a 30 item objective food preservation knowledge test were developed. Established methods of knowledge test and attitude scale construction were used with appropriate steps taken to insure validity and reliability of the instruments. Reliability coefficients ranged from .75 to .85 for the knowledge and attitude instruments. Demographic and food preservation background information was collected also. A control group of 84 subjects was solicited from telephone logs of peOple contacting county Extension offices for food preservation information. The food preservation knowledge and attitude instruments were administered to Master Canners prior to and upon completion of their training course. Control subjects received the pre- and post-test instruments, through the mail, six weeks apart. Significant differences in occupations, ages, educational level and place of residence between Master Canners and controls were detected. These groups also differed significantly in their amount of food preservation experience, methods of food preservation previously tried and currently used, types of equipment readily available for use and their sources of food preservation information and training. Pretesting revealed no significant knowledge or attitude differences between the Master Canners and control subjects. Food preservation knowledge post-test scores were significantly higher for the Master Canners than control subjects. Post-test attitudes toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" and "preserving foods properly and safely" were significantly more positive in Master Canners than control subjects. Master Canners post-test attitudes toward the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" remained slightly negative following completion of the program and did not differ from those of control subjects. Significant relationships existed between food preservation knowledge, attitudes and certain demographic variables for both groups. This study demonstrated that participation in the CES Master Canner program significantly improved food preservation knowledge and promoted positive food preservation attitudes among recipients. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A word of thanks is due to many who contributed to my growth and development in the completion of this degree. I would like to express my appreciation to the following: To Dr. Jenny Bond, who offered support and guidance throughout my graduate program, who never lost faith in my abilities and who was a friend as well as teacher; To members of my committee, Dr. Mary Andrews, Dr. Dena Cederquist, Dr. Jake Wamhoff and Ms. Burness Wenberg, for their support and assistance: To a special friend and colleague, Dr. Judy Anderson, who offered words of advise and encouragement and helped make life in our Extension Food and Nutrition office more (in)sane and bearable; To Barb Mutch, for her long talks, sense of humor and help in being my long distance arm to MSU; To the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition and the College of Human Ecology for financial assistance; And especially to Doug, for his support, never ending patience and love and Zach, who provided motivation to finish just by being there. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE Attitudes . Attitude Measurement Likert Scale Construction Nutrition Attitude Research . Measurement of Nutrition Knowledge Nutrition Knowledge Research . Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior METHODS Human Use Approval Recruitment of Subjects Experimental Design Instrumentation . Food Preservation Knowledge Test Development Food Preservation Attitude Questionnaire Development Establishment of Instrument Content validity Demographic Questionnaire Development Instrument Pilot Testing Final Instrument Preparation Data Analysis . Demographic and Food Preservation Background Variables Food Preservation Knowledge Test Food Preservation Attitude Questionnaire Relationships Between Variables RESULTS AND DISCUSS ION Control Group Sample Characteristics Master Canner Sample Characteristics Master Canners Motivation for Program Attendance Food Preservation Knowledge Food Preservation Attitudes Relationships Between Variables vi viii 5 16 18 O L. 29 32 39 39 40 44 49 49 50 51 53 54 65 66 66 67 68 69 70 70 87 93 95 100 Ill Implications and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 122 Research Strengths and Limitations . . . . . . . . . 125 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 APPENDICES A. UCRIHS Approval Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 B. Participant Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . 131 C. Client Telephone Information Form . . . . . . . . . 132 D. Supplemental Information Questionnaire . . . . . 133 E. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognative Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 F. Edwards’ Informal Criteria for Attitude Statement Construction . . . . . . 137 G. Letter Sent to Professional Review Committee Members . . . . . . . . . . . 138 H. Food Preservation Knowledge Test . . . . . . . . . 140 1. Food Preservation Attitude Questionnaire . . . . . 145 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 vii TABLE 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Summary of selected instrumentation used in published nutrition attitude research studies Summary of selected instrumentation used in published nutrition knowledge research studies Clientele enrollment in county Cooperative Extension Service Master Canner programs during 1986 Discrimination and difficulty indicies for food preservation knowledge test items Unrotated factor matrix containing factor loadings for 30 food preservation attitude scale items Varimax rotated factor matrix containing factor loadings and communality values for 30 food preservation attitude scale items Varimax rotated factor matrix containing factor loadings and communality values for 21 food preservation attitude scale items Final varimax rotated factor matrix solution for the 17 food preservation attitude scale items used in data collection Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by sex Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by occupation Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by age range Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by highest level of education attained Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by place of residence viii PAGE 13 24 42 56 60 63 64 73 74 76 77 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by amount of food preservation experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by food preservation methods previously tried . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by food preservation methods currently used . . . . . . . . Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by availability of food preservation equipment . . . . Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by food preservation information sources . Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by sources of food preservation training Food preservation knowledge pre- and post-test scores (mean : standard error) for Master Canners and control group subjects Food preservation attitude pre- and post—test scores (mean : standard error) on three Likert scales for Master Canners and control group subjects . . . Kendall correlation coefficients between demographic, knowledge and attitude variables for Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects ix 78 80 81 84 86 96 101 113 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Michigan counties conducting Master Canner programs in which Master Canner volunteers were enrolled Michigan counties in which control group subjects were drawn for this study Comparison of the proposed Solomon four group design with the actual modified experimental design used in this study Graphic representation of the Scree test used to determine the number of significant factors to extract through factor analysis PAGE 41 45 46 INTRODUCTION An increasing number of people are turning to home food preservation to conserve food dollars without jeopardizing the nutritional value of their meals (Kuhn and Andress, 1983). A survey of consumers relative to home canning practices revealed that many are confused about proper home canning methods and their effect on the quality and safety of home canned food (Wolf et a1., 1973). Increasing home canning activity has been paralleled by a nationwide growth in the number of reported botulism outbreaks (Zottola et a1., 1978). Several botulism cases linked to improper home canning are reported annually in Michigan, and deaths have occurred. Forty-five cases were reported in 1977 due to improperly home canned food served in a Pontiac, MI, restaurant (Anon., 1977a). Since improperly canned low acid foods can support the growth of Clostridium botulinum, it is extremely important that consumers learn safe canning methods. The Michigan State University (MSU) Cooperative Extension Service (CES) has responded to consumers’ needs for food preservation information through the Master Canner program. The objective of this program is to provide food 1 2 preservation training to volunteers so they may assist Extension Home Economists (EHEs) in home food preservation education. The Master Canner program is a six-week series of single lessons on canning acid foods, drying, freezing, canning low acid foods, pickling, and jam and jelly making, taught by trained EHEs. Once the course is completed, each participant is expected to volunteer ten hours to CES programs. Master Canner volunteers may prepare articles for county newspapers and newsletters, answer the consumer food preservation telephone "hotline", present food preservation exhibits at shopping malls or farmers’ markets and teach single lesson food preservation classes to clientele. Problem Statement Since its development in 1980, the CES Master Canner program has not undergone a formal evaluation. Certification of volunteers was based on program attendance and passage of a written short answer, comprehensive final exam. The latter had been developed and implemented without regard for validity and reliability assessment. No attempt has been made to assess food preservation attitudes of volunteers. Yet, a preliminary survey of EHEs conducted by the investigator prior to the initiation of this research revealed EHEs perceive that many Master Canner volunteers may lack the knowledge necessary to respond to critical food safety issues despite their training. Since 3 accurate food preservation information may mean the difference between a safe food and a hazardous one, volunteers must be knowledgeable, able to follow current CES food preservation recommendations and able to convey this information to the public. Furthermore, since attitudes may play an influential role in determining how information is accepted and applied, it is important to evaluate whether Master Canners possess favorable attitudes toward the use of proper food preservation procedures and are willing to follow current Extension recommendations. Objectives This research study was designed to assess any deficiencies in Master Canners’ knowledge or attitudes that may hamper their successful completion of the program’s volunteer service component. No valid and reliable measurement instruments currently existed to accomplish this task and provide routine information from which to certify volunteer competence. The development and use of such instruments will provide valuable information from which recommendations for program improvement and volunteer use can be based. Thus, there were three main objectives to this study: (1) to determine if there was an increase in Master Canners’ food preservation knowledge over the course of the training program; (2) to determine if Master Canners’ attitudes became more positive toward certain food preservation issues over the course of the training 4 program; and (3) to determine if relationships existed between Master Canners’ food preservation knowledge and attitudes prior to and upon completion of the training program. To accomplish these objectives this research will focus on the development and implementation of an appropriate research design which controls for variables that may subsequently threaten the study’s internal and external validity. Instrumentation development will be subject to rigid controls for validity and reliability assessment to insure accurate, appropriate and comprehensive treatment of subject matter material. REVIEW OF LITERATURE This research focuses on assessing the food preservation knowledge and attitudes of participants enrolled in the CES Master Canner program. Since appropriate measurement instruments are ultimately of paramount importance to the study’s outcome and interpretation of results, this chapter will focus on measurement and design issues relevant to this research. The concept of attitude and its measurement will be discussed. Issues relative to the measurement of nutrition knowledge will be presented. A review of published literature, pertaining to assessment of nutrition knowledge and attitudes, will be addressed. Attitudes While the concept of attitude has played a central role in the development of American social psychology, there is no single definition of attitude acceptable to all researchers. In 1935, Allport reviewed the general area of attitude theory and research. After considering the numerous definitions of attitude found in the literature, he concluded that most investigators viewed an attitude as 6 "a learned predisposition to respond to an object or class of objects in a consistently favorable or unfavorable way". He further emphasized that this bipolarity in the direction of an attitude (the favorable versus unfavorable) was often regarded as its most distinctive feature. In a similar manner, Thurstone (1932) defined an attitude as "the affect for or against a psychological object". Thus attitude was conceptualized as a simple unidimensional concept. Several investigators have since adopted this viewpoint (Edwards, 1957; Shaw and Wright, 1967). Chein (1948) later argued for a multidimensional view of attitudes. His conceptualization suggested that a person’s attitude toward an object consisted of three components: (1) a cognitive component representing a person’s information about an object; (2) an affective or emotional component which deals with a person’s overall feelings of like or dislike for the object; and (3) a conative or behavioral component which refers to the person’s tendency to act toward the attitude object in a reasonably consistent way. Others have endorsed this multidimensional approach to the study of attitudes (Krech et a1., 1962; Zimbardo et a1., 1977). Despite the discrepancies involved in forming a universal definition of attitude, the operations by which attitudes are commonly measured almost invariably yield a single score that is reflective of the unidimensional view. Standard attitude scales (e.g., Likert, 1932; 7 Thurstone, 1932 scales) arrive at a single number designed to index this general evaluation or feeling of favorableness toward the object in question. Thus, although attitudes are regarded by some to include affective, cognitive and conative components, it is usually only evaluation of the affective component that is measured and treated by researchers as the "essence" of attitude. Concepts such as beliefs and intentions are often used synonymously with the concept of attitude in the literature. Fishbein and Ajzen (1972) argue for a differentiation among these terms. They make the following distinctions: attitude refers to a person’s favorable or unfavorable evaluation of an object; beliefs involve the individual’s perception of the likelihood of the existence of the concept or of a relation between two concepts (i.e., the probability that a particular concept exists); and, behavior intentions link the subject’s willingness to engage in various behaviors with respect to a given person or object. Beliefs and behavioral intentions are seen by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) as determinants of an individual’s attitude. Attitude Measurement Many types of measurement procedures have been used to study attitudes. In a review of research published between 1968 and 1970, Fishbein and Ajzen (1972) found more than 500 different instruments designed for this purpose. These 8 included standard attitude scales (e.g., Likert, Thurstone, Guttman, semantic differential); indicies across various verbal items; single statements of feelings, opinions, knowledge or intentions; observations of overt behaviors; and physiological measures. Standard attitude scales, such as the Likert scale (Likert, 1932), ask subjects to indicate their agreement or disagreement with a set of attitude statements about the attitude object. The final instrument consists of a relatively small number of attitude statements which resulted from analyzing responses to a larger pool of initial items. Likert scales have been used extensively in the area of nutrition education research (Biltz and Derelian, 1978; Lohr and Carruth, 1979; Maiman et a1., 1979; Axelson and Penfield, 1983; Boren et a1., 1983). Their popularity is due to their relative ease of construction, the simplicity of response and the fact that otherwise unmotivated subjects can respond in little time. Oppenheim (1966) describes several principles of measurement which should be followed in the construction and evaluation of an attitude instrument. These include: (1) unidimensionality, (2) linearity, (3) reliability, and (4) validity. Unidimensionality: An attitude scale is unidimensional if it measures a single attitude. A person’s attitude score, therefore, reflects only his/her position on the 9 underlying attitude continuum and two or more persons who have the same attitude score will be at the same position on the continuum. If the attitude scale is not unidimensional, it means that more than one attitude is being measured. Factor analysis is often used to determine items in an attitude instrument that are highly correlated. Items meeting this criterion are assumed to be homogeneous and refer to only one underlying construct. Linearity: Unidimensional also assumes the attitude scales are linear, placing individuals along a single dimension of affect. In other words, the criterion of linearity perceives the nature of attitudes as straight lines, running from positive, through neutral, to negative feelings about the object or issue in question. Reliability: Instrument reliability refers to the extent to which an attitude scale yields the same results in repeated trials. Measurement of any phenomenon always contains a certain amount of random error. As Stanley (1971) has observed, "the amount of random error may be large or small, but it is universally present to some extent." Because repeated measurements never exactly equal one another, unreliability is always present to at least a limited extent. While repeated measurements of the same phenomenom never precisely duplicate each other, they do tend to be consistent from measurement to measurement. This consistency in repeated measurements of the same phenomenon is referred to as reliability. The more 10 consistent the results given by repeated measurements, the higher the reliability of the measuring procedure; conversely, the less consistent the results, the lower the reliability (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). Four basic methods exist for estimating the reliability of empirical measurements. With the test - retest method, the same test is given to the same people after a period of time. One then obtains the correlation between scores on the two administrations of the same test as the reliability estimate. The alternate form method is similar to the test-retest method in that it also requires two testing situations with the same people. On the second testing, however, an alternate form of the same test is administered. The correlation between the alternative forms provides the estimate of reliability. In contrast, the split-halves method can be conducted when the test is given on only one occasion. Specifically, the total set of items is divided into halves, and the scores on the halves are correlated to obtain an estimate of reliability. Internal consistency reliability is determined by computing an interitem correlation matrix from which coefficient alpha or Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951) can be calculated for the entire scale. Validity: While reliability focuses on the extent to which indicators (i.e., attitude scale items) provide consistent results across repeated measurements, validity concerns the crucial relationship between concept and ll indicator. An attitude instrument is valid if it measures what it is designed to measure rather than reflecting some other phenomenon. To be valid, an instrument must match the depth and scope of its intended topic, must be reasonable and understandable to its intended audience, and must bear a measureable relationship to the characteristic or quality that it is intended to assess (Talmage and Rasher, 1981). Content validity considers the representativeness and appropriateness of items in an instrument. Ideally, an instrument should be representative of a specific domain of content defined by the researcher. There is no agreed upon criterion for determining the extent to which a measure has attained content validity. In practice, the expertise of content area specialists is often used to determine the relationship of items to the entire content domain. Face validity relates to the superficial appearance and reasonableness of the test from the test taker’s perspective. Test items, language used, format and procedures are subject to review. Persons who have expertise with the intended audience, or audience representatives are good judges of face validity (Talmage and Rasher, 1981). Construct validity requires that the instrument be based upon a sound theory or conceptual rationale. Used in this context a construct refers to a hypothetical variable, a name given to a group of attitude items thought to be 12 interrelated. If the items are highly correlated, it is assumed that the attitude scale is unidimensional and its component items measure the same underlying attitude construct. Factor analysis is a technique for construct validation. Its usefulness lies in determining the unidimensionality of attitude scales or showing that specific items refer to a single construct. Several references exist outlining suggested procedures for constructing and analyzing attitude scales (Edwards, 1957; Shaw and Wright, 1967). Yet, a review of pertinent literature summarized in Table 1 shows that many researchers, publishing since 1972, provide little or no evidence of appropriate item construction, validity or reliability. Six of the eight studies were reported in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Ehlers and Fox (1982) assessed the attitudes of food cooperative shoppers using an 18 item Likert scale. Response categories were "agree", "disagree", or "undecided". No criteria were specified for establishment of content or construct validity. No instrument pretest procedures and no reliability coefficient were reported. Werblow et al. (1978) developed 19 attitude statements related to general nutrition and nutrition for the athlete. Several statements had been validated and used in previous work but an undiscernible number were developed for this study. Some degree of content validity can be assumed since statements were written based on a review of l3 mEmaEEma E EDGE voEooamc: . mo> IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 87.055 EoE BEE corona. Ez morons. Ez 2.:an Ez 8:32 Ez morons. 62 “5:82 Ez morons. Ec . EEEcoo BOSE toes - EoEoo morons. Ec . EEEcoO morons. E: . EoEoo 8:82 E: - EEEcoo .5:an Ec - EoEoo A3 commons. 30395 c. BEBE, 255 A3 20508. 28395 5 BEES snow corona. E: - EEEcoo 2632 toaxo - EoEoo 98m :95 EEa m a co mEoz 9 23m :93 .58 m a co ass: 9 28m :95 .58 n a co «ES. cm 23». 8536 - 02mm cm :0 mEQ. 3. 23m 8636 . moan ca :0 9:2. on 3:82 6: mEo: E .363: - 28... :95 E8 m 22:6 9: E. 5:33: men 5:53: .223 ESE. 335E moEEE oEEoEo 0.2.2 3 30:85 9.602 EmE. Eats. «3228 33033“. o: .0058 .369: E cozmoauo coztsc 60:32.0 coats: E 52293.“ 2: E 0.2 .mozoEE E co_monE 05 63:5: 923. mogzzm mascara Nam coztSc E soc—stone: on. .532 $358 895: 5.3; 23.5 «mm coEEE E 85:09:. 05 2952 mouazzm 3:26.20 .0028 :9; 90 28505 9.68. Eccom new SEE: 9.282 2252 «32:8 5.0.55 28:... 22. 99.32 ON c8225.”. - 503. mm . o 2.2m 2:000:20 F m . 0 2.2m 2:05:20 .833. cm. 60:55:. 5. 02502 Ez 00:000. Ez 02502 Ez .2522: 02:00 5.55: E20000.E. :0 0025 E250 3052 :55 . E250 325: .598 . E250 325. :55 . E250 02.002 Ez 8:82 82 £255.52, 05 5.55: 0.05 :0 2:2. 00.05 22:2: on 05020 :5: 05 5.55: 05 5.55: E550 2 02.22 2:2. 00.05 22:2: om 02:009.. E: E250 - E2 00.05 22:2: E2. I 5.55: 0.50022: 05 0.25 :0 0:2an0 022 . 2:. mm 500. 505 055005026 05 5.50950 000. 62:5: E550 2 02.22 2:2. 022 - on: on 20.0 .m:20..:0 :. 00000: 2002 E 0003 2 0222 50.5050 N 025 3222:. 05.5202 52.2003 5: mo. 05 52.2002, wow E 0002305. 5....52 :oE 025028 mm— E 0002305. 5:532 550% 0:5» m: E 50230:: 5.552 05.0.2.5 wow E 00022.05. 5.552 .02. 02:00 5.55: m :. 02.050 20.2: 5.55:-5: E 05 20.2: $0. 5:550 E0530 2202.00 on— E 0002305. 5....52 225E mm: E 0002305. 5.2.52 62. P. .E .0 5220 . E... P. .E E 50.00? .08 F. 22:80: 05 >2E> :3 : x0“. 05 2.52: .32. Eb“. 05 0:0 .20 F. 8%.: 05 055.5 5252.3. E2555. 3.2; «cmEzzwfi 52:25:. E95525: 0000“. 52920250 00520:. .0255 55me: 500.305. 5.55: 02.2.50 :. pom: 5552:5202 020200 E meEzw .N 0.5:... 25 00500 5.55: 2... .0 5:20.50 0232.0. .000 n 000.... 00.000 .0220 :0... 5.00.0 >..:00...:0.0 0.03 8.00 u 505 00.000 .00...000 .0250 000 2 .0 E2. 000:0. 00.000 .0000. 80:8 .0. 003 0.000 .00. :00! .0200 .0 002 00.000 05005000. 0. 50:00 0000 - mm E2. 000:0. 00.000 .00 h 00:000. .02 .0 080.20.: - .003. 00. 0050:. «MG—0.. . qu— 00.0 0:320: E0E:..0:. 00:000. .02 32.6. .505 - E250 3050. .505 -5250 .22.; 5063.02 508000000 .0555: 0:0 5.55: 2050... .0.:0..5: 60.55: .0055 :0 25.. 00.2.0 0.2.5:. 00. 000500 52.5: 50:50.2: .0.:0..5: 0. 00.0.0. 082. 00.0. - 0a.. 000 5.55: 0:000 0:0 .2050 :0 00500 5.55: 0205: 02522:. 5.3 0.:0020 0205: K .0 0002305. 5.55: .000 0:0 0.0 .000 0 08: :9... 005.080 2.0.025 00. .0 0000.305. 5.552 .000 .. 00.00 02.0000 2.0.50 .000 S 2.052.005 E2. 9. >0>50 :05. N0 .0 0000.305. 5.552 :03: 0:0 0000000 .:0:5..0:. 52550005. 0000“. 5290.00.50 00:20.20 .208. .0 0.00» 26 Emmons and Hayes (1973) used a telephone interview to determine nutrition knowledge of mothers. Two questions were asked: What foods or types of food do you try to include in your child’s diet each day? and Why do you feel each of these foods should be included? While the authors concluded that mothers had little nutrition knowledge based on their answers, the number and content of questions asked seem grossly insufficient to adequately assess anyone’s nutrition knowledge. Spitze (1983) used a 280 item true/false test to determine the nutrition knowledge of male employees at a large midwestern university. She pilot-tested it with students, teachers and dietitians and the test underwent seven revisions. No criteria were given for item revisions. A reliability coefficient of .95 was reported for the final test version. Content validity of the test must be assumed, since the author consulted nutrition specialists during test development. Bedgood and Tuck (1983) measured the nutrition knowledge of Texas high school athletic coaches using a 43 item questionnaire. A panel of subject matter experts validated the questionnarire and it was tested for reliability (test-retest method) using college physical education majors. The number of students participating in the pretest was not reported and item analysis procedures were not specified. The reliability coefficient for the 43 statement knowledge test was reported as .65. 27 Yetley and Roderuck (1980) initially developed a 66 item knowledge test for young spouses. After test evaluation by faculty members and pretesting on 105 junior college and university students, plus subsequent item analysis, only 11 items remained. The authors reported reliability coefficients of .64 and .61, for husbands and wives, respectively, following test administration. Eppright et al. (1970) developed a knowledge test for mothers consisting of 35 items to be answered as "true", "false" or "don’t know". They also made provision for respondents to rate their degree of certainty with each item along a five point scale. This method of weighted scoring has also been used to assess the nutrition knowledge of women athletes (Werblow et a1., 1978; Perron and Endres, 1985), elementary school teachers (Petersen and Kies, 1972), high school graduates (Schwartz, 1975), grocers (Stansfield and Fox, 1977), nurses (Vickstrom and Fox, 1976; Schwartz, 1976) and physical education majors (Cho and Fryer, 1974). While weighted scoring is intended to provide a wider range of possible scores, Sabers and White (1969) reported no advantage from use of this procedure. These authors concluded that the same advantages could be gained by adding more items or by selecting only the best items from a larger pool. Unweighted scoring also saves time and offers fewer possibilities for errors in calculating the scores. In addition, the resulting raw scores from a simpler scoring 28 system are probably easier to interpret. Ross (1984) constructed a 100 question multiple choice test to assess changes in the nutrition knowledge of nursing students resulting from their participation in a nutrition course. The test was administered on the first (pretest) and last (post-test) days of the semester long class. The author noted a significant increase in students’ knowledge post-test scores, when compared to their pretest performance, following the course completion. However, no criteria were stated for test development. Validity, reliability and item analysis data were not reported. Krause and Fox (1977) determined physicians’ nutrition knowledge using a mail questionnaire. Fifty-five knowledge questions were prepared and reviewed by nutritionists and dietitians to insure content validity. The final 55 item questionnaire was based solely on their recommendations. The instrument was not pretested and no reliability coefficient was reported. The order of procedures used to develop valid and reliable nutrition knowledge tests also vary among investigators. Some researchers have pretested instruments to obtain reliability estimates and item analysis data before developing the final test form (Yetley and Roderuck, 1980; Fanslow et a1., 1981; Bedgood and Tuck, 1983; Guiry and Bisogni, 1986). Others have obtained test data after administering the test to their study subjects (Dwyer et 29 81., 1970; Spitze, 1983; Singleton and Rhoads, 1984: Gorelick and Clark, 1985). Of the articles reviewed, most investigators took steps to insure content validity of knowledge instruments by basing questions on sound nutritional principles and using subject matter specialists as content reviewers (Table 2). Nutrition Knowledge Research Nutrition educators would like to assume that those who know the basic concepts and principles of nutrition will be motivated to apply this knowledge in their food choices. Numerous studies have been reported which attempt to measure the nutrition knowledge of individuals. A variety of methods have been used: telephone interviews; true/false and multiple choice objective tests; person to person interviews with clients; and food games and puzzles with preschoolers. Gorelick and Clark (1985) developed a nutrition education program for preschoolers that incorporated tasks appropriate to the children’s cognitive level of development. To determine the children’s understanding of the program content, pre- and post-tests measured how well the children could manipulate and respond to various foods or realistic plastic replicas of foods in a series of game-like tests. Children exposed to the six-week nutrition education program had significantly higher post-test scores than children who received no intervening 30 program in their early childhood learning center. Boysen and Ahrens (1972) used a similar pre/post-test design to assess nutrition knowledge of second graders receiving a four-week nutrition education program. Students involved in the experimental program showed significant improvement in their post-test scores compared to children receiving no nutrition education. A questionnaire designed for parents to ascertain whether this newly acquired nutrition knowledge was applied in the home revealed that some improvements in the children’s eating habits occurred. Lunches sent from home during the nutrition program were judged to be of poor quality, however, suggesting the whole family must be involved in efforts to improve children’s food habits. Graves et a1. (1982) determined the nutrition knowledge of vegetarians and nonvegetarians matched for age, gender, residence and prior nutrition training. Vegetarians scored significantly higher on an 80 item test covering concepts related to basic nutrition (food sources, nutrient functions, absorption, metabolism), and vegetarian nutrition (protein complementarity, limiting amino acids, nutritional advantages and disadvantages) than did nonvegetarians. Vegetarians’ nutrition knowledge was related to the degree of nutrition training but was independent of gender, length of time or type of vegetarianism practiced. 31 Spitze (1983) examined the nutrition knowledge of 100 males employed by a midwestern university in service and academic positions. The average score on a 280 item true/false knowledge test was 65 percent. No significant correlation existed between knowledge scores and age, educational level or the men’s participation in food shopping, food preparation or label reading activities. The latter finding differs from Woolcott et al. (1981), who noted a positive correlation between knowledge scores and participation in food-related activities of men employed in management and executive positions. Other investigators (Fusillo and Beloian, 1977; Yetley and Roderuck, 1980) reported low scores on nutrition knowledge tests administered to adult males. In contrast to Spitze (1983), other studies have found knowledge scores significantly correlated with age, both positively and negatively. Woolcott et a1., (1981) using executive level men, found higher nutrition knowledge associated with increasing age, while Fusillo and Beloian (1977) found less knowledge associated with increasing age in a group of adult male consumers. Also unlike Spitze, Woolcott et a1. (1981) and Fusillo and Beloian (1977) reported educational levels were positively correlated with nutrition knowledge. Cho and Fryer (1974) administered a 50 item true/false test of general nutrition knowledge, food composition and misconceptions to college physical education (PE) majors 32 and basic nutrition students. Nutrition knowledge scores for the PE students were significantly lower than those of the nutrition group. PE students considered high school and college courses, parents and coaches as their primary sources of nutrition knowledge, while nutrition students rated college courses highest. Students who ranked college courses as their primary source of nutrition knowledge had significantly higher test scores than those who ranked coaches or parents as their primary sources. Athletic coaches’ influence on dietary practices of young athletes led Bedgood and Tuck (1983) to investigate the nutrition knowledge of high school coaches. Eighty-six percent of the coaches surveyed dispensed nutrition information regularly, yet scores on a 43 item nutrition knowledge test ranged from 28 - 84%, with a mean score of 55%. Eighty-five percent of the coaches scored below 70%, suggesting a need for better nutrition education for coaches and trainers. Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior Traditionally, social psychologists propose a three-phase process to explain behavior change. It begins with knowledge acquisition, which leads to attitude changes, which in turn influence one’s behavior. The assumed role of education is to initiate the information-gathering process which then produces attitude shifts and finally induces behavior modification (Swanson, 33 1972). This process is summarized as follows: Education —--> Knowledge -—-> Attitudes --—> Behavior According to Swanson (1972), the assumed relationship among knowledge, attitudes and behavior specifies that as a person receives more information on a subject (s)he begins to develop a "belief" about it. Eventually, (s)he would evaluate the subject as "good" or "bad", or ”favorable" or "unfavorable", thus adopting an attitude position. Using a nutrition and health example, the model would predict the process as follows: (l)the accumulation of information on the negative effects of consuming a poor diet would come to be believed by a person; (2) (s)he would reevaluate his/her dietary practices, viewing them as something associated primarily with "bad" or "unfavorable" health consequences rather than "good" or "favorable" consequences; and (3) noting the inconsistency between his/her attitudes that (s)he developed from what (s)he knows about nutrition and the fact that (s)he still consumes a poor diet, the person will change his/her behavior to bring it more in line with his/her attitudes, i.e., to improve dietary habits. Thus, the paradigm that knowledge (K) precedes attitudes (A) which precede behavior (B) changes has been based on creating dissonance within the person’s mind so that (s)he will change behavior to be consistent with the information (s)he knows and the attitudes (s)he holds (Swanson, 1972). This three step sequence, K --—> A --—> B, has been challenged in recent years. While Cohen (1964) believes 34 that attitudes always precede behavior, Wicker (1969) suggests that attitudes are but one of many factors influencing behavioral outcome. Reservations about the K ---> A —~-> B paradigm are related to the realization that attitudes are resistant to change and that a person’s behavior may in fact change before attitudes (Swanson 1972). Behavior typically has multiple causes. Nutrition-related behaviors are likely a combination of internal influences such as nutrition knowledge, attitudes and personality characteristics, and external factors such as cultural expectations, food availability, food costs, advertising appeals, food popularity and the desire to be similar to peers (Johnson and Johnson, 1985a). The view that nutrition knowledge and attitudes will determine nutrition behavior oversimplifies the complexity involved in food selection, preparation and consumption. Nevertheless, a substantial amount of research has examined people’s knowledge and attitudes about nutrition, and some studies have attempted to relate these variables to behavior. Conflicting reports exist regarding their relationships. In a study of nutrition knowledge, attitudes and practices of high school graduates, Schwartz (1975) found a significant correlation between knowledge and attitudes, and between attitudes and practice, but none between knowledge and practice. Similar findings were noted when 35 Strobl and Groll (1981) examined the knowledge, attitudes and practices of vegetarians. Positive and significant correlations between nutrition knowledge and dietary behavior were observed in twelve- to fourteen-year-old girls (Hinton et a1., 1963), homemakers (Young et a1., 1956), mothers of preschool children (Eppright et a1., 1970; Caliendo and Sanjur, 1978), and lactating women (Sims, 1978). Conversely, the correlation between knowledge and practice was not significant in fourth and fifth grade children (Baker, 1972; Bell and Lamb, 1973), high school athletes (Douglas and Douglas, 1984), and elderly persons (Grotkowski and Sims, 1978). Several researchers found that favorable attitudes toward nutrition consistently correlated with higher nutrient intakes (Jalso et a1., 1965; Baird and Schutz, 1980). In contrast, Grotkowski and Sims (1978) noted significant negative correlations between nutrient intake and attitudes related to fad diets and vitamin/mineral supplement use in elderly subjects. Age and attitude were the best predictors of dietary behavior when studying behavior change among nutrition education assistants in Missouri’s Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (Carruth et a1. 1977). Petersen and Kies (1972), using elementary teachers, also reported that attitude influenced behavior independently of the individual’s knowledge of nutritional concepts and practices. 36 Neither nutrition knowledge nor attitudes greatly influenced the food practices of female athletes (Perron and Endres, 1985). However, knowledge and attitudes were positively and significantly correlated, indicating that the more nutrition knowledge an athlete had, the more positive the attitude toward nutrition. This study confirmed earlier findings on the positive relationship between nutrition knowledge and attitudes of women athletes (Werblow et a1., 1978). Recently, Guiry and Bisogni (1986) studied how the amount of caffeine consumed from beverages was related to knowledge and attitudes about caffeine. They found no relationship between knowledge about caffeine and attitude toward the importance of nutrition, but observed a negative association between knowledge about caffeine and attitude toward the use of caffeine during pregnancy. Caffeine consumption was independent of knowledge about the caffeine content of beverages. Johnson and Johnson (1985b) reviewed the relationship between dietary behavior and food and nutrition-related knowledge and attitudes by using meta-analysis. Glass et al. (1981) defined meta—analysis as the process of combining results of independent experiments for the purpose of integrating their findings. Meta-analysis is conducted on a group of studies with a common conceptual hypothesis or common operational definitions of independent or dependent variables. Thus meta-analysis is applicable 37 to nutrition education research because of the large body of literature addressing the measurement of nutrition knowledge, attitudes and behavior. Meta-analysis techniques have been developed to allow researchers to quantitatively address two questions: (1) Is there a relationship between two variables? (2) What is the strength of the relationship? The procedure used by Johnson and Johnson (1986b) included 303 studies yielding 4,108 findings that met the criteria of measuring food and nutrition-related attitudes and knowledge and dietary intake for the same individual. Meta-analysis results clearly indicated that nutrition education, as described in journal research articles, has been effective in promoting nutrition knowledge, positive nutrition attitudes and in increasing consumption of nutritious foods. Significant relationships existed between nutrition knowledge and behavior, and between nutrition attitude and behavior. The relation between nutrition knowledge and attitudes did not reach statistical significance. In a meta-analysis of nine research articles examining the nutrition knowledge-behavior and attitude-behavior relationship, Axelson et a1. (1985) also noted a correlation between these variables. Assessment of the relationship between nutrition knowledge and attitudes was not included in this procedure. 38 The study reported herein was designed to assess the food preservation knowledge and attitudes of clientele enrolled in the CES Master Canner program. Control subjects consisted of consumers with expressed interests in home food preservation who were not current participants in the Master Canner program. A 30 item food preservation knowledge test and 17 item Likert format attitude questionnaire were administered to all subjects. Established methods of knowledge test and attitude scale construction were used with appropriate steps taken to insure validity and reliability of the instruments. METHODS This chapter will outline the experimental design used in this research with attention given to controlling variables which may threaten the internal or external validity of the results. Methods and procedures used to recruit study subjects will be presented. A detailed section on "Instrumentation" will outline steps taken to insure validity and reliability of the food preservation knowledge test and attitude questionnaire developed for data collection. Data analysis procedures and tests of statistical significance used for group comparisons will be discussed. Human Use Approval Prior to the initiation of this research a copy of the proposal was sent to the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects for review. Approval was granted and all subjects involved were invited to participate at will (Appendix A). A consent form was developed explaining the study’s purpose and assuring participant confidentiality (Appendix B). A subject’s signature on the consent form was taken as his/her written agreement to 39 40 participate. Since the proposed research involved Extension field staff, approval was also obtained from Dr. Doris Wetters, CES Assistant Director for Home Economics. Recruitment of Subjects Since Master Canner programs are conducted at the county level, EHE participation in this study was aggressively sought by the investigator. Requests for their help in conducting Master Canner programs were made through personal mailings to all EHEs, personal telephone contacts and articles placed in their monthly food and nutrition newsletter. Master Canner program promotion and subject recruitment were handled by EHEs within each county. Subjects for this study consisted of 57 clientele enrolled in CES Master Canner programs held in Allegan, Bay, Genesee, Iosco, Kent, Macomb, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne counties between March and September, 1986 (Figure l). A breakdown of program time frame and Master Canner participants by county is presented in Table 3. A non-equivalent control group of 204 participants was generated from telephone logs of people contacting county Extension offices for food preservation information in 1985. To facilitate telephone log preparation, all county Extension home economists were provided with printed forms to record pertinent information including client name, address, telephone number and a summary of question content (Appendix C). Telephone forms were sent to EHEs in April Figure l. 41 I ‘ can." IL - .. : Q P - -.0 O - q o — a nun a", f' u I I ----------.o-.---- 'nuunku-n‘aucou , .Iltl~.m l o . I I ' I --.---'---.-----O------ usm'"'~m nuu. 'cuut ' -°"’ ' I . I s 9 C.. o.-. 0 L | u o I '0" .............. and can. ’ucnurww.~“~"‘ ...... o ' l . . I ' g -c‘ J . - — - - k - - - ‘ C 1 - - . r .- . ' ' l.‘ 'ooonuu .. Hm: Iumu . ‘ I ' - Q .- -l- o . 0 . ' r.'" t z . 3;.‘.'-w.'- . o - --‘ . P- --'----f---‘u ' "' ‘Ill‘ \ om»l . ‘ '0'“ .3uflll."""'. . I . . I I ' I ' ’ - —'— '~ ' . I I '-b ' 1 l _: u. ' _- ,.--‘ouu.. 1 - - - O - P - - o'- -- k_' '- . ' “um . ”In . (”II . mus- ,’ w l :. U 0 U | ' " ' ' - . :_ L ”—";uunu. ' . . . g . g a. .uu ltd-IN“... nuns! uuvu u”... o i 0 I . . . ' O Michigan counties conducting Master Canner programs in which Master Canner volunteers were enrolled. 41 .' J I I r menu. I. . ~ L r‘ Ina-u r. . can”-.. : : zen-sum ---.;uu . I '..‘n-.‘ 0 ; I ‘--1 I. . .“u. ' - .0 Q I‘.w'“ ‘ '0.. I .M..m I. -- - J. I 1“ q (l.-- -a‘ 'uuouu I I ,usu . a I "P‘ I . r’ H \ o ' I I a , 9 O I \ “nu‘lg 9 o- ' oqa‘.... “tn-In”, I -'--..-“ ......... £031..“ - mus. 0;...“ : .ouo . Pun-u. . I ' I ’ I “*,uu cuss .03 '0 II“ I I ' I I I I I. I I I I I." v ....... q ....... ‘ mun ,‘U'U 'ucun r“"W.5I-suo I I “MO. I ' . g | --‘ -I.-.‘ gO-O‘O‘CL-r-. 'J' : I.‘ :uocuun ...."'. luau . a I ' - . - - -‘-- . . ‘ P 0"." 1 z ' p :- a;.-WCL - - . ' I c -4 P o - -f c . of "non: . .ICIM “v"..‘umu.’ . . I I I ’0‘-.. has. I ’ I f | ' ‘ . t- - “.‘.' . -----Pd-fi-b-..---L:l'o u‘ . 563‘“. . .‘gn ' IIICI . lib... ‘ I!“ ' . U I . ‘ . . I g I . . -:- L - _ - ‘ ' — . .‘-.".P--‘---..--TJ--I.-'.- go.--- . nu Jtfl'” oun- “U-W unuc 0".“ I I I . ' Figure 1. Michigan counties conducting Master Canner programs in which Master Canner volunteers were enrolled. 42 Table 3. Clientele enrollment in county Cooperative Extension Service Master Canner programs during 1986. County Program Date Number of Participants Allegan July 4 Bay July 6 Genesee April - May 6 losco August 3 Kent May 5 Macomb September 8 St. Clair April - May 7 Washtenaw July 10 Wayne March - April 8 43 1985 so that calls to county offices during the peak 1985 food preservation season could be recorded. To examine similarities between the treatment and control groups, general demographic information, including sex, occupation, age, educational level and place of residence, was collected. Background information was also collected on subjects’ food preservation experiences and sources of food preservation information and training (Appendix D). Demographic and food preservation background information established whether both groups, although non-equivalent by assignment, were as alike as possible. Additionally, Master Canners were asked to answer two questions pertaining to their motivation for enrolling in the program: (1) Why did they sign up for the Master Canner program? and (2) Did the program’s volunteer component influence their decision to participate? These questions were attached to the Supplemental Information questionnaire (Appendix D) as a separate form, to be completed by Master Canners along with the demographic and food preservation background information. Requests for EHEs to send their completed telephone logs to the state office were made in July and November 1985, through the CES Food and Nutrition Newsletter. Logs which contained neither a client’s address nor telephone number were discarded. Nine hundred thirty-eight usable client logs were received. Potential control group subjects were initially 44 contacted by the investigator by telephone and asked to participate in this study. During the conversation the purpose of the study was explained and subjects were given the opportunity to ask questions. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of subjects agreeing to participate were recorded at the time of the call to verbally verify this information. Calls were made to potential subjects until 204 agreed to participate in the study. Consent forms were then mailed to these study subjects to confirm their participation. Control subjects were drawn from 21 counties in Michigan (Figure 2). Experimental Design The proposed experimental design for this research was a modification of the Solomon Four Group Design (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). A true Solomon design uses treatment and control groups that are subdivided into pre/post-tested and post-test only fractions (Figure 3). However, adjustments in the original pre- and post-test schedule were necessary in this study due to the small sample size of Master Canner program enrollees (n=57). To account for this limitation, all Master Canners were asked to complete a pre- and post-program food preservation knowledge test and attitude questionnaire (Figure 3). These program materials were administered to Master Canners at the beginning of their first class session, prior to any subject matter teaching by the EHE. The demographic and Figure 45 - - O ‘ O O - .. .0 Icon“;- ‘unnn “Mu. ' ‘ . . ‘. ‘ h - CO- 'Icn" '.: .,. -:--.-'uuu I__,. -J P - -' I Iona Inn-I a"... ‘ . .‘:l:'-' I .| l I . . : ' . .I .- L — ‘w ’. . . d' ' - -.- -‘ an". I — o O o - - - - - .- -§ IV- I I quu I “an n". fin“. I H ' III .' I i I . _o_: . . ..-".‘. ------ 1‘ - - .. J- . ‘CJ--- . ”0:00- I‘ll" nun .u‘w;tll0080 .m“ I I I . . . I I E I .I_ I I 2. Michigan counties in which control group subjects were drawn for this study. 46 (A) Controls Master Canners Pre lpost- tested Post - test only ( ) Controls Master Canners Pre Ipost- 4 7 tested 8 5 Post - test only 97 Total 161 57 Subjects Figure 3. Comparison of the Drooosed Solomon Four Grouo Desidn (A) with the actual modified experimental design (8) used in this studg. 47 food preservation background information form and additional questions related to motivation for program enrollment were also completed by all Master Canners at this time. Master Canners completed the ‘post program knowledge test and attitude questionnaire at the end of their last class session. Control group subjects were divided into two groups: (1) pre- and post-test, and (2) post-test only. This was accomplished by an April 1986 mailing of the demographic information and food preservation background form, food preservation knowledge test and attitude questionnaire to all control subjects. In the cover letter subjects were asked to complete and return the forms within a three week period. Each subject received a postage-paid, addressed envelope in which to return their completed materials. All forms were alphanumerically coded to determine when subjects returned the materials. Four subjects returned the materials uncompleted and asked to be withdrawn from the study, leaving a control group sample size of 200 participants. One hundred seventy six completed forms were received by the requested return date. One hundred control subjects were then randomly selected from this group to receive the post-program materials. Randomization was accomplished by generating a series of 100 random numbers between 1 and 176 using a Hewlett Packard HP 150 calculator. The 176 participant names were arranged in alphabetical order and the 100 names corresponding to the 48 order of random numbers were selected. These subjects were mailed the food preservation knowledge test and attitude questionnaire a second time in June 1986, constituting a ”post-test" group with no intervening program. A reminder letter was sent to the 24 subjects in the initial control group who failed to return their completed test and questionnaires by the requested date. Subsequently, five more completed forms were returned. Total sample size for the control "post-test only" group was 97 participants. Control subjects in the pre- and post-test group, receiving the food preservation knowledge test and attitude questionnaire twice at a six week interval, totaled 84. 49 Instrumentation Prior to this research, certification of Master Canner volunteers was based on program attendance and passage of a written short answer, comprehensive final exam. The latter had been developed and implemented without evaluating its effectiveness. This section will detail methods used to develop the food preservation knowledge test and attitude questionnaire used in this research. Particular attention was given to developing valid and reliable instruments that were comprehensive in their treatment of subject matter and appropriate for use with Master Canners and control group subjects. Pilot testing of the instruments, prior to their use with study subjects, provided objective data as a basis for item revision and/or elimination. Food Preservation Knowledge Test Development Procedures used to develop the food preservation knowledge test items were adapted from Gronlund (1982) and Tinkleman (1971). Test question content was derived from current United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) home food preservation bulletins covering canning (Anon., 1977c; 1977e; 1983), freezing (Anon., 1976), drying (Anon., 1977d), pickling (Anon., 1978) and jam and jelly making (Anon., 1977b). The intent of this study was to certify mastery of food preservation principles and procedures by clientele 50 enrolled in the Master Canner program. Hence, a summative evaluation approach was used. Test questions were written to represent key concepts in the subject matter material. An equal number of items were chosen from each food preservation area for a test representative of the content domain. The cognitive domain of Bloom’s taxonomy was used as a basis for identifying instructional objectives to be measured by the test (Appendix E). Questions were written to correspond with the first three cognitive levels: knowledge, comprehension and application. Originally eight to ten knowledge test items were written covering each content area of the Master Canner program. Fifty five items were generated and subsequently subjected to professional review. In accordance with guidelines for test item construction, items were independent of one another, contained only plausible and attractive distractors, were free of irrelevant information, contained no verbal clues to the correct response and were stated in a positive form whenever possible. Food Preservation Attitude Questionnaire Development A Likert format attitude questionnaire was designed to measure certain food preservation-related attitudes of Master Canners and control group subjects. Original statements were written to correspond to four g priori 51 constructs: I. Nutritional value of home preserved foods II. Reasons for preserving foods at home 111. Importance of proper food preservation methods IV. Food safety/food handling of home preserved foods Edward’s (1957) informal criteria for attitude statements were used as the basis for development of the items relating to each construct (Appendix F). Establishment of Instrument Content Validity Following development of the first draft of the food preservation knowledge test and attitude questionnaire, a professional review committee evaluated the instruments for content validity. Committee members, selected for their demonstrated interest in the development of appropriate food preservation materials for consumers, were contacted first by telephone to discern their interest in participating in the review. Those verbally agreeing were sent a formal letter requesting their professional assistance in evaluating the instruments along with a description of the Master Canner program and accompanying research study (Appendix G). The committee consisted of five CES food science and human nutrition specialists from other states and 2 doctoral students currently conducting food preservation research at Pennsylvania State University. Committee members reviewed knowledge test items for content, clarity and appropriateness for the 52 intended audience. In addition, they ranked all questions within each content section in priority order. High priority was to be given to items representing the knowledge base they felt was needed by Master Canner program participants to effectively assist the BBB with food preservation questions and programs. Similarly, review team members evaluated the attitude statements for content, clarity and appropriateness for the intended audience. Using the five point Likert format (strongly agree to strongly disagree) members were asked to respond to each statement by selecting the response they felt would indicate the respondent held a positive attitude toward food preservation. A person with a "positive attitude" was described as "one who is cognizant of current recommended methods and employs them in preserving food; uses proper food safety and food handling techniques; avoids unsafe, unreliable or untested procedures and encourages the use of proper methodology by others". Based on input from the review committee, 14 knowledge test questions required minor modifications to improve clarity. Reviewer ranking scores were then averaged and the five highest priority questions within each content area (except canning) were selected for inclusion on the pilot version of the knowledge test. The top ten questions were chosen for canning due to the extensive amount of material included in this general heading. Thus, the final pilot test version of the food preservation knowledge test 53 contained 30 questions. Content area questions were arranged so that each question was preceded and followed by one from a different food preservation category. Attitude statements which showed common agreement on the attitude scale (either agree-strongly agree or disagree-strongly disagree) among all reviewers were chosen for inclusion on the pilot test version of the attitude questionnaire. Of the original 36 attitude statements, six were eliminated due to reviewer disagreement over how the item should be answered. Six of the remaining items required minor modifications to improve their clarity. The attitude response judged by the review team, in either a positive (agreement) or negative (disagreement) direction was also used as a basis for determining how each statement would be scored on the final questionnaire. A value of 5 points was given to the "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree" attitude depending on how an item was rated by the review team. Values of 4, 3, 2 and 1 were then assigned to the remaining categories in descending order. As with the food preservation knowledge test, the order of attitude statements was mixed by construct on the final pilot test version to minimize a response set by the subjects. Demographic Questionnaire Development The Supplemental Information questionnaire presented in Appendix D requests information relating to a subject’s 54 personal background and food preservation experience. Personal background questions were adapted from previously used surveys (Warwick and Lininger, 1975; Warner and Christenson, 1984). Food preservation questions were designed to assess past experiences, present practices and sources of food preservation information. All supplemental information questions were reviewed by the investigator’s doctoral committee prior to their use in pilot testing. Instrument Pilot Testing Following expert review and subsequent instrument revisions, the investigator pilot-tested the food preservation knowledge test and attitude and supplemental information questionnaires with 196 adults to determine face validity. Participating in the pilot test were subjects expected to have adequate food preservation knowledge (previous graduates of the CES Master Canner program and EHEs) and those expected to be uninstructed in the principles and procedures of home food preservation (community nutrition graduate students and consumers attending a variety of CES food and nutrition related programming events). Food preservation knowledge test pilot data underwent item analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the questions (Ebel, 1979). A discrimination index was calculated for each item by subtracting the number of respondents in the uninstructed group who answered the item 55 correctly from the number in the instructed group who answered it correctly. Items having a discrimination index equal to or greater than .20 were desired. Twenty-five of the 30 pilot test questions met this criteria (Table 4). Item difficulty was estimated by determining the percentage of respondents who answered a question correctly. An item difficulty index between 20 percent and 80 percent was desired. Twenty two questions on the pilot version of the food preservation knowledge test fell within this range (Table 4). Minor revisions were made on the thirteen test items not meeting the predetermined criteria for item difficulty and discrimination. Distractors were reworded or rewritten to improve their effectiveness. Modified items were then subject to informal review by MSU CES food and nutrition specialists and community nutrition graduate students for clarity and accuracy. Test reliability was calculated to be .85 using the Kuder Richardson 20 (1937) estimate of internal consistency. Construct validity of the attitude scales was determined from pilot test results using factor analysis. Dr. Laura Sims, Administrator, Human Nutrition Information Service, USDA, and Dr. Fred Ignatovich, Professor, Educational Administration, Michigan State University served as consultants on the appropriate use of factor analysis procedures. Subjects’ responses to attitude statements were number coded 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 based on the response key generated by the expert review committee. The 56 2: x 22353 8 855:: 88: mm: >5 .852“. 28288 52. 383ma on; £53282 .8 8 5:9 u :82: 25550 - 8. 3.8.53 8 555:: 88: we: .3 8520 382:8 Em: 88265... on; 9:85de 38285 8 855:: .355 28280 Em: became—w. 055 $59.33: “88285:: 8 855an u .885 3.855850 - 3: 98.55 :2 £5 2:8: 65 s 8528 2; .82. - :3 2 m: cm .3 mm mm ms 2 8 mm .82. 5855 5.: 3.: 3.: 3.: 8.: 8.: 3.: «4.: we: 3.: .62. 5:25:35 on mm mm 3 mm mm SN 8 mm 5 .2532 as. 76: 3 cm on m: an o: S 2 mm 5 $2. 5355 8.: 3.: 8.: 3.: 9o «4.: was 5.: 8.: Q: .82. 8:25:85 on 3 3 t m: m: 3 m: m: I .2532 52.33 o: E m: mm mm mm mm on S E E E .82. 2.855 $.: 3.: 9: Ed 8.: 8.: no mm: 3.: 5.: 3: 3 .82. 8:25:85 3 m m a m m. a m m P .2532 52. 7.8. 85¢: 82 @3532... :582325 poo: to: 8885 5:855 new 5855850 .5: 59:. 57 factor analysis program of SPSS (Nie et a1., 1975) was used to determine unidimensionality of the four scales. Nine factors were extracted initially using the method of principle factoring with iterations (Table 5). The number of factors to be retained was determined by: (1) extracting significant factors from the unrotated factor matrix; and (2) using the SCREE test (Cattell, 1966). Examination of the unrotated factor matrix revealed four factors with two or more significant factor loadings of .40 or greater. The SCREE test, conducted by plotting each factor against its corresponding eigenvalue (a criterion used to determine the relative importance of factors extracted from a variance-covariance matrix), indicated three, and possibly four, factors of importance (Figure 4). The factor analysis program was rerun using varimax rotation and the four factor solution was examined first. Based on suggestions by Drs. Sims and Ignatovitch and a review of pertinent research papers using factor analysis for attitude item selection, criteria for final item selection included factor loadings of .40 or greater and communality values of .30 or greater. Nine items were deleted from the questionnaire that did not meet these specifications (Table 6). The remaining items were then grouped according to the highest loadings for a factor. The six items pertaining to the original attitude construct "nutritional value of home preserved foods" loaded highly on factor two. No other items loaded 58 8:88 8 ed 8 3528. $088. 085 8 N 5.55888 9083 .. 33— :8 8 52. mmdm 8 58505 598.8 888. 9:8: “85850 880 . nvod NoNd onod oNod- op Pd —mo.o vood FoNd mood vo mod mood nvpd Nood- vnwd- mod oFNd vvmd vmod oo vopd- wood- mowd- mvmd oo—d mvod- mmpd- PNPd —Nv.o No Ndi v— Pd- oNod mood wood wood Nod hood. oowd Po oo—d pood- omod- mood- wood wood- owpd- o:d .mmd oo mvod Nmpd- Rood op pd Nvod- oo—d- prd- mod- hood mm Nnod- mvod- ommd- o—pd N. —d- Nvmd vm..d- oovd sod no mood mood vood- powd- hvod- mood. oopd de- mood ow Fmpd vad- mood vood- oopd mv—d- 5:.0- mood pod mm oo—d- mod oNod- «nod mpod hood mood- de vnwd «N Nvod mood mod mopd wopd n—od- N—d vood mvwd ow N—od hwpd ovod- mod. mmpd opod- ovod omwd sood NN mNod- vad opod murd- —mod- mnwd mmod- :md- smod —N oopd. onwd- ovod mood- mood vod- mopd- ovod- pmod ON Epd vowd- mood- om—d- mood- Nvod- N—d- oNod om—d mp vwmd omod- om—d :od. vmpd- —oNd Kurd mmd «Pod or omod ovod- mood. om...o- vFod- m—d- vovd owd Nomd up mvod- vood- Brod Nwod oood .m—d onwd o—md. cmvd or m—d- mood. mood vmod mood oovd wwpd- m..wd PNNd VF wood N: —.o mmwd- prd mvvd opwd hood Nopd- NN-Pd. or —ood- mo—d _.d N—Nd- vmpd mood oopd- mopd ovod or wood- onod vmod- N—Nd- oowd- —m..d oood vovd- oomd : vood Anod- mowd- oNod mN—d- hood. —mvd mZd mood o— osod- omwd vood- o— —.o- mod vpod Nm—d- v:d mmmd h oNod. hwod. :od vnpd nvod NNPd —o—d h—md- vovd o nowd- wood. mN—d- hood cood- owwd. vmmd mood wmod m mmod- —oo.o vood NO—d vm..d- and. nmwd- vopd mood v mopd- omod mood o mmwd vood mmwd mood FN—d- o nvod oopd hood. Nowd ommd- mopd- om—d- mvod- opod N on—d shod oood vwwd mnpd- nF—d- NoNd- Nood- oomd p 0 Logan. m 50.0mm N 50.0mm 0 508m... m 508w“. .ov 50~0mm :0 Bowen“. :N 5.30m“. oo— houomu 500532 Ea: . 8:8: 088.... 32.8 :585085 poo. on :2 35:85 888. m55mEoo 5:85 888. 8885: .m 058... 59 HI:F’ .o 2.8... 61 significantly on this factor, hence the original construct name was retained for the final scale. Factor one contained eight items comprised of a mixture of three statements originally written under the construct "importance of proper food preservation methods" and five statements originally written under the "food safety/food handling of home preserved foods" construct. Careful examination of these original statements revealed an underlying theme of food safety and appropriate methodology within each. The scale for these combined items was named "preserving foods properly and safely" to reflect this theme. Factor three contained three items pertaining to pressure canning. Although these items were originally grouped under the "importance of proper food preservation methods" construct, their content similarity produced enough consistently similar responses from pilot test subjects to form a single factor. The scale pertaining to these items was named "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods". While a fourth factor was formed with factor loadings and communalities exceeding the preset criteria, the four corresponding items grouped as an individual scale, were conceptually uninterpretable. Two of the items corresponded with the "reasons for preserving foods at home" construct, while one each related to "importance of proper food preservation methods" and "food safety/food 62 handling of home preserved foods". Upon reexamination of the rotated factor matrix it was noted that three of the four items also loaded highly on one or more factors. Because of this discrepancy, the factor analysis program with varimax rotation was rerun with output limited to three factors. This was done to determine whether variance in these items could be significantly explained by one of the three other factors. The resulting three factor solution factor matrix produced communalities of .28 or less and factor loadings of .42 or less for these four items (Table 7). Based on these results, the four items were deleted from the final questionnaire. The final varimax rotated factor matrix, containing factor loadings grouped by magnitude for the 17 items used in data collection, is given in Table 8. Cronbach’s (1951) alpha reliability estimates were determined for the three remaining attitude scales following the factor analysis procedures used to ascertain scale unidimensionality. Reliability coefficients of .82, .81 and .75 were obtained for the "preserving foods properly and safely", "nutritive value of home preserved foods" and "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" scales, respectively. Additional item deletions were not indicated to improve scale reliabilities. Reliability coefficients of .75 or above are considered acceptable for the purposes of group measurement (Tinkleman, 1971). 63 Table 7. Varimax rotated factor matrix containing factor loadings and communality values for 21 food preservation attitude scale items. ‘ ........................................................................... Item Number Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Communality 1 0.611 0.163 -0.006 0.4 2 0.615 0.217 0.05 0.429 4 0.582 0.012 0.012 0.34 5 0.075 0.145 0.696 0.511 6 0.2 0.681 0.176 0.535 7 0.581 0.081 0.113 0.358 10 0.064 0.063 0.607 0.377 11 0.285 0.62 0.079 0.472 14“ 0.264 -0.116 0.048 0.085 16 0.195 0.67 0.205 0.53 17 0.323 -0.002 0.707 0.605 18" 0.107 -0.456 0.257 0.286 21 -0.053 0.483 -0.186 0.271 22 0.6 -0.04 0.362 0.494 25 0.56 0.111 0.162 0.353 26 0.087 0.641 0.125 0.435 27“ 0.422 -0.231 0.145 0.253 29 0.615 0.276 0.016 0.455 30 0.562 0.05 0.158 0.343 31 0.033 0.59 0.137 0.368 33“ 0.139 -0.387 0.312 0.267 ' Data obtained using factor analysis program of SPSS (Nie et al., 1975) " Items deleted from the attitude questionnaire based on factors loadings of 0.40 or less and/or communality values of 0.30 or less 64 Table 8. Final varimax rotated factor matrix solution for the 17 food preservation attitude scale items used in data collection. " Item Number Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1 0.631 0.151 -0 01 2 0.633 0.198 0 053 4 0.601 -0.015 0 028 7 0.563 0.082 0 133 22 0.578 -0.018 0 373 25 0.577 0.09 0183 29 0 636 0.253 0176 30 0 557 0.044 0176 6 0.196 0.702 0.138 11 0.264 0.652 0.045 16 0.184 0.716 0.152 21 -0.076 0.514 -0.226 26 0.114 0.601 0.114 31 0.005 0.652 0.086 5 0 086 0.133 0 741 10 0 056 0.085 0 605 17 0 324 0.02 0 703 ' Data obtained using factor analysis program of SPSS (Nie et al., 1975) 65 Final Instrument Preparation Following pilot test data analysis, the food preservation knowledge test and attitude and supplemental information questionnaires were prepared for use with Master Canners and control group subjects. All instruments were retyped and art work was added for attractiveness (Appendices D, H and I). Due to the elimination of 13 attitude items after pilot testing, it was necessary to rearrange the order of items on the final questionnaire. Attitude statements were mixed by construct to minimize chances of a response set by subjects. The order of statements on the supplemental information questionnaire and food preservation knowledge test did not change between the pilot test and final versions of the instruments. 66 Data Analysis All data were analyzed on the MSU Cyber 750 computer using programs from the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie et a1., 1975; Hull and Nie, 1981). Non-parametric statistical tests were employed since the data were not obtained through random sampling procedures. The 0.05 level of probability was used as the criterion for significance. Comparisons made between pre- and post-test scores for Master Canners and pre- and post-test scores of control group subjects were considered paired sample comparisons. Comparisons of pretest scores between Master Canners and control group subjects, post-test scores between these two groups and the post-test scores of pre/post-tested control group subjects versus post-test only controls were considered two independent sample comparisons. Frequencies and associated statistics were obtained for all variables for the total set of data. Dempgraphic and Food Preservation Background Variables Due to the unequal sample sizes for Master Canners (n=57) and control group subjects (n=181), statistical comparisons were first made between controls receiving both pre- and post-test instruments (n=84) and those who received post-test only instruments (n=97). Chi-square tests were used to evaluate differences between these two groups on the demographic variables of sex, occupation and 67 place of residence and on all variables related to food preservation methods previously and presently used and sources of food preservation information and training (Zar, 1974). Differences between post-test only control group subjects and pre/post- tested controls for age, level of education and years of food preservation experience were analyzed by the Mann Whitney U test. Comparisons were then made between Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects for all demographic and food preservation background variables. Chi-square and Mann Whitney U tests were employed for the variables as described above (Zar, 1974). Food Preservation Knowledge Test Answers to the food preservation knowledge test were hand scored by a student worker and double checked for accuracy by the investigator. Items were assigned a value of l or 0, reflecting either a correct or an incorrect response, respectively. The McNemar test was used to evaluate differences between knowledge pre- and post-test scores for Master Canners and control group subjects (Zar, 1974). Differences between knowledge pretest scores for Master Canners and for control group subjects were analyzed by a chi-square test. Similarly, chi-square tests were used to evaluate differences between post-test scores of these two groups and between post-test scores of pre/post-tested control group subjects and controls who 68 were post-tested only (Zar, 1974). Food Preservation Attitude Questionnaire Items on the food preservation Likert format attitude questionnaire were hand scored from 1 to 5 by a student worker and double checked for accuracy by the investigator. For the three attitude scales, the strongly disagree response was scored a 5 and the strongly agree response was scored a 1. Scores were then summed across the items in each scale. The highest scores possible were 15, 30 and 40 for the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods", "nutritional value of home preserved foods" and the "preserving foods properly and safely" scales, respectively. For all scales, the higher the score the more positive or favorable the attitude being measured. The Wilcoxon matched pairs ranked-signs test was used to evaluate differences between attitude pre- and post-test scores of each scale for Master Canners and for control group subjects (Zar, 1974). Differences between attitude scale pretest scores for Master Canners and control group subjects were analyzed by the Mann Whitney U test. Similarly, Mann Whitney U tests were used to evaluate differences between post-test scores of these two groups and between post-test scores of pre/post-tested control group subjects and controls who were post-tested only (Zar, 1974). 69 Relationships Between Variables Kendall rank-order correlation coefficients were determined between knowledge and attitude scores and selected continuous demographic variables for Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects. Nie et a1. (1975) suggested the use of Kendall coefficients when data contain a large number of tied ranks. The value of Kendall coefficients vary from +1.0 to -l.0, but in general their absolute value tends to be smaller than those of Pearson’s product moment correlations. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Control Group Sample Characteristics No significant differences existed between pre/post- tested control group subjects and controls who received post- test only materials for any demographic or food preservation background characteristics. This type of information was collected to establish that the Master Canners and control group subjects were as alike as possible in the absence of random sampling procedures frequently used to select treatment and control groups. A control group selected through random sampling would have facilitated a more powerful comparison with the Master Canners. Such sampling was not possible in this study, however, since the Master Canners willingly selected themselves into the program. A random sample of general consumers to serve as controls would not have constituted a similar comparison group since these people may or may not have an interest in home food preservation. Since the Master Canners share a common interest in food preservation, it was assumed that the control group (people calling county CES offices for food preservation information) generated for this study would have a similar interest. 70 71 Control group subjects were predominately females who were not employed outside the home. The post-test only control group had 96 (99%) females and 1 male (1%). Eighty-one (96%) of the pre/post-test control group subjects were female and 3 (4%) were male (Table 9). Sixty-eight (70%) post-test only control group subjects were homemakers, 7 (7%) were health professionals, 3(3%) were clerical employees, 3 (3%) were educators, 7 (7%) were business persons and 9 (10%) were in other non-professional occupations (Table 10). Fifty seven (68%) pre/post-tested control group subjects were homemakers, 6 (7%) were health professionals, 4 (5%) were clerical employees, 5 (6%) were educators, 9 (11%) were business persons and 3 (3%) were in other non-professional occupations (Table 10). The majority of control group subjects were 25 to 44 years of age. Three (3%) post-test only control group subjects were less than 25 years old (Table 11). Twenty-five (26%) each were between 25 and 34 years and between 35 and 44 years old. Fifteen (15%) each were ages 45 to 54, and ages 55 to 64 years old. Fourteen (14%) subjects in this group were over 65 years old (Table 11). Two (2%) pre/post-tested control group subjects were less than 25 years old, 21 (25%) were between 25 and 34 years, 24 (29%) were between 35 and 44 years, 18 (21%) were 45 to 54 years old, 11 (13%) were 55 to 64 and 8 (10%) were 65 years and over (Table 11). 72 Table 9. Distribution of Master Canners and control group subjects by sex.‘ Female Male Group n (%) “ n (%) iiéélg’r'e'g-J-JJ. """"""""""" 5' 17:56; """"""" it'll-3; """" Pre/post- test controls 81 (96) 3 (4) Post-test only controls 96 (99) 1 (1) " Groups did not differ significantly on this variable. “ n = number of subiects 73 30085 8 855:: u : .- .8.vo .Amudé coop u 8828-50 .8205: 288589.... 28 3:08 02: 9.8:... - a: m 8. m .4: m .25 E s :5 a a: 2 828.32.2m. 8. m a. m a. m 5.2%.”. .m. m .5 v a: A 85.53 2:20 E a E m :5 8 22392: 5.2... at 2 .8. S an: em 38566: -----.-.--..V...-... ........................ 5...... .................... Mums-.. ............. c ..._...........m ..... 2988 2:0 Ems-80¢ m_o::oo “582-80585. 22:80 8885.. ...................................... .0 50.8538 .3 93.58 5:08 85:8 8:: 2380 8852 8 8.8585 .3 888. 74 200530 .0 .0060: u : 2. .SVQ EEmoEcgm 020:6 3:06 03. 009:. . .m: 3 .0: m .m. m .26 .0 mm .m: m. .m: 2 .E 0 mac. 8 2 mm .m: m: :m. m. .3. m 28.. em 2 3 .mm. mm .8. E a: : 98. 3 2 mm .3. mm .8. E .3 R 28.. 3 2 mm .m. m .N. w .3 m 28. mm cm... 30.. S SS ........... w??? ..... 20::00 >_:0 503000 22.50 00.02-500.05. 90:55 .2022. ...................................... no .mmcm: 0mm .5 200.330 0305 .0::00 0cm 05:ch .2me .0 8:32:05 .3 0.00... 75 Most control group subjects had completed at least a high school education. One (1%) post-test only control group subject had acheived an eighth grade or less education, 3(3%) had completed some high school, 48 (50%) were high school graduates, 26 (27%) completed some college courses, 9 (9%) were college graduates, 6 (6%) completed some post graduate courses and 4 (4%) had earned an advanced degree (Table 12). Two (2%) pre/post-tested control group subjects had an eighth grade or less education, 6 (7%) had completed some high school, 28 (33%) were high school graduates, 28 (33%) had completed some college courses, 13 (16%) were college graduates, 6 (7%) completed some post-graduate courses and l (1%) had earned an advanced degree (Table 12). 0f the post-test only control group subjects, 14 (14%) lived on a farm, 30 (31%) lived in a rural area, 29 (30%) came from a small town of less than 50,000 people, 14 (14%) from a suburban area and 10 (11%) lived in a city of 50,000 people or more (Table 13). In the pre/post-test control group, 16 (19%) lived on a farm, 29 (35%) in a rural area, 25 (29%) in a small town, 6 (7%) in a suburban area and 8 (10%) lived a city of 50,000 or more people (Table 13). The amount of food preservation experience was similar among all control group subjects. One (1%) pre/post—tested control group subject had no previous food preservation experience. All post—test only controls had done some preserving (Table 14). Approximately one—third (134%) of 76 0.00.0:0 .0 006:: n : : .890 ..._E00_.._:m_0 090...: 00:05 02 000.... . .5 .V .5 . .0. 0 00.00: 085.60 00500 .0. 0 .n. 0 .0: 0 000500 0.030.900: 0600 000.950 .0. 0 .t. 0. .05 0 20:00.: 002.00 .R. 00 .00. 00 .0... 00 000:8 2:8 00.0.0600 .00. 0: .00. 00 .05 2 0.300.302”... :0... .0. m .5 0 .o. o .850 :0... 0:50 020.0500 .5 P .0. 0 .0. o 000. .o 000.: £0 ............ £33.25. 0.0.E00 3:0 .00.-.00n. 0.0::00 00.007.000.05. 98:00 0.005.. ......................................... .0 005050 8:00:00 .0 _0>0_ 00:9: .5 0.00.03 0:05 .0550 0:0 0.0::00 .2005. .0 5.59.0.0 .N. 0.00.: 77 0.00.0:0 .0 .0005: n : : ..00.v0 ..vu...0. 00.00 u 20:00.00 ..:0.0...0 2200...:90 0.0 00:90 03. 000.... . .00-'|----'I'-I-I-I-00000.II'0I'II'I--'--'-.."--I"-0---. -'0'------"-----'-'0--'---'--‘0------ .0080 08.000. :5 o. .05 0 :0. 0. 0.0 00.0.. .3. 3 .5 0 .00. 0. 00.0 083:0 .0080 08.001 .00. 00 .00. 00 .3. 0 :22 .050 :0. :0 .00. 00 .00. 0. 00.0 .05: .3. 3 .05 0. .5 0 5.0. ............ . :33: 0.2.50 2:0 .00.-.000 0.0::00 00.007.000.90. 0.0::00 0.00.2. ........................................ .0 00:00.00. .0 000.0 >0 0.00.0:0 0:0.0 .0..:00 0:0 0.0::00 000.2 .0 50:00.05 .0. 0.00 h 78 0.00.0:0 .0 00:5: u : .. ..00.v0 .2.:00_..:0_0 00.0...0 00:90 03. 000... .. . .00. 00 .00. 00 .05 0. 0.00.. 0. :0... 0.0.2 .3. 3 .0. 0 .0. 0 0.00. 0. - 0 .05 t .00. 0. .00. 0. 0.00.. 0 - . .0. 0 .0. 0 .05 0 .00.. . - 05:0... 0 .0. 0 .5 . .05 2 05:0... 0 :0... 000.. .0. 0 .5 . .05 0 080.096 00030.: oz ............. . :5 3... 0.9.80 2:0 .003000 0.9200 00.007.000.20. 0.0::00 0.00.2. 50020020 000“. ........................................... a. 0 0800000 80020020 000. .0 E0000 >0 0.00.000 0:0... .0050 0:0 0.0::00 .8002 .0 80:00.05 .3 0.00.. 79 control subjects had been preserving for one to 10 years while the majority of control subjects (162%) had more than 10 years of food preservation experience. Post-test only and pre/post-tested control group subjects did not differ with respect to the types of food preservation methods they had previously used. The majority of subjects in each group had tried freezing, water bath and pressure canning, pickling and jam or jelly making (Table 15). In contrast, approximately three-fourths (79%) of the subjects had never tried to dry foods. Similarly, the two control groups did not differ with respect to the types of food preservation methods they currently use. Most subjects (180%) were currently freezing foods. In contrast, drying was a method relatively few people (38%) used (Table 16). Slightly more pre/post-tested control group subjects currently water bath can (60%) or make jam or jelly (52%) than do the post—test only controls for these two methods (47% respectively). Approximately half (145%) of the subjects in each group currently pressure can while less than half (342%) currently use pickling as a food preservation method (Table 16). One subject from each group was not currently preserving food. Most control group subjects had a water bath canner (181%), pressure canner (161%) and freezer (192%) readily trvailable for their use (Table 17). In contrast, only 13 80 0.00.000 .0 500.00 n 0 .. 0.00.000 .0..000 00.007.000.20 000 0.00000 0.005. 0003.00 0.030.090 00.0...0 0000.0... 0000. .0 00: . ..u...0. 0.00.000 .0..000 .o.v0 mo.A0 .oo.v0 3&0 .0.v0 mo.A0 00.007.000.20 000 0.00000 00.. .0.. 00.0. {.0 00.0. 0.0 .2005. 000200 0020., 0.000000 .0. 0 .00. R .00. 00 .00. 00 :5 : .0. 0 00030.. 0.0: 0.0.0.00 000 .00. 00 :0. 00 .0.. 0. .00. 00 .00. 00 .00. 00 00... 000030... .00. - .000 .05 0. .00. 00 .05 0. .00. 00 .0. 0 .0. v 0000.00 0.0: 0.0.0.00 .00. 00 :0. 0. .00. 00 .00. 00 .00. 0. .00. 00 00... 000030.“. 00.007.000.20 .00. 0. .00. 00 .3.. 00 .00. 00 .00. 0. .05 0 00030.. 0.0... 0.00000 .00. 00 .00. 0. .00. 00 .2. 00 .00. 00 .00. 0.. 00... 0000320 8.00.2 .00. 0 .00. 0 .00. 0 .00. 0 .00. c .. .00. 0 000.0 00.0.00. 003.0 00.0.0.0. 00.0000 00.0000 05000.0 0.0.. .0 0.00. 05000.0 0.00 .0.0>>. II-'----I----.-IIII'II-ll-lolIII-Il'lI---.-'-'-'-""-I0"-I--"-'l-. I'I--'----I---‘"I-Il---'|-I--.---I-'---'-II--.‘ .00... 0000390 0000.00. 000030020 000. >0 0.00.000 000.0 .0..000 000 0.00000 .2002 .0 000000.05 .m. 2000 81 00.00.: 0.00.000 .0 .0005: u 0 .. 0.00.000 .2500 00.007.000.05 0:0 0.00000 5.00.2 0003.00 0.0020090 00.0...0 0000.90 0000. .0 00: . .I-'I-'---ll-"'."I'|-'I-'-I--l'-‘--|-|-'---|-.|'0---'---"'-I--'--.--.-'------0.'-'-'-.--."'-'. ..u...0. 0.00.000 .0..000 00.00 .o.v0 mo.v0 .0.v0 00.3 00.007.000.20 0:0 0.00000 00.0 .00 00.0 ...0 0.0 5.00.2 0003.00 0020.. 00000-00 .00. .0 .0.. 00 .00. 0.. .00. .0 .0.. 0. 000.00 00 0.0.0.00 000 .0. 0 .00. 00 .00. 00 .0... 0.. .00. 00 00: 0.00.50 .00. - .000 .00. R .00. 0.. .00. 0.. .0... .0 .00. 0. 0030.. 00 0.0.0.00 .0. . .0... 00 .0... 00 .00. 00 .00. .0 00: 0.00.50 00.000.000.20 .00. 00 .00. 0.. .0.. 0.. .00. 00 .00. 00 0030.. 00 0.00000 .5 0 .t. 0. .00. 0. .00. .0 .00. .0 00: 0.8.50 .200... .0.. 0 .00. c .00. 0 .00. 0 .. .0... 0 000.0 00.30 05.0.0.0. 00.0000 00.0000 00.0090 05000.0. 0.00 .0.0>>. .0000 0.00.50 0000.00. 000020005 000. .0 0.00.000 000.0 .0..000 0:0 0.00000 5.005. .0 :0..00...0.o .0. 0.00.. 82 0.00.000 .0 .0900: u 0 .. 0.00.000 000.0 6008 00.007.000.20 000 0.00000 .2005. 0003.00 0.0020090 00.0...0 500.0500 0.0. .0 b._.00_.0>< . ..u...3 0.00.000 .0..000 0050 .o.v0 00.0 .0.v0 00.007.000.20 .000 0.00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00.2 0003.00 0020., 20000-20 .00. 00 .0. 0 .00. 00 .0.. 0. 0.02.0.0 .02 0.0.0.00 0.00 .0.. .. 3.0. .0 :0. 00 :0. 0. 0.02.02 .00.-..000 .00. .0 .0. 0 .00. 00 a... 0. 032.20 .02 20.0.00 .0.. 0. .00. K .00. 00 .00. 0. 0.02.03. 00.007.000.20 .00. 0.. .00. 0. .3.. 00 .00. .0 202.02. .02 0.00000 3... 0 .0.. 2. .00. 00 .00. 00 0.02.03. .2002 .00. 0 .0.... c .00. c .. .00. 0 000.0 5.0.3.000 .0N00.0. .00000 .00000 05000.0 0.00 .0.0>>. 0.00.0500 .0 00.: ..000.0.000 00..0>.000.0 000. .0 0.502.000 >0 0.00.000 000.0 6050 000 0.00000 .2005. .0 000000.05 N. 203 83 (15%) pre/post—tested control group subjects and 14 (15%) post-test only controls had ready access to a dehydrator. One post-test only control group subject reported having no food preservation equipment available for use. No pre/post-tested control subjects reported a problem with equipment availability. The CBS was cited as the most frequently used source for food preservation information by both control groups (Table 18). Seventeen to 23 percent of control group subjects always used an immediate family member for food preservation information, while relatives, neighbors or friends were listed as occasional information sources by approximately one half (147%) of subjects (Table 18). The Ball Blue Book and/or Kerr Home Canning and Freezing Book were the most popular reference books used by either control group. Other books and food preservation information sources, such as radio, newspapers or magazines, were infrequently or never used by control group subjects (Table 18). A high school or college home economics course was cited as the most frequent source of food preservation training for control group subjects (123%) (Table 19). Eight (9X) pre/ post-tested controls and 15 (15%) post-test only control group subjects had received food preservation training in a 4-H foods and nutrition program. Six percent or less of control group subjects had received food preservation training from their mother or grandmother, an 84 3. n 8: 3 a. m as am as a. as mm as 3.... as 9.... :s ca 3. N 3V N. as h as C 8: a an. on an. mm as a 88 NN 3. n a. m A: a as m 33 ww a: mm as m. 38 NF 88 mp 3.2 Pa as 2 as E :3 3. a. o :3 3 as a a: t 3.8 MN 83 cm as am as so 83 an E m 32 mm a: m: a: 3 as 3 3m. vm as am as 3. as X” as a. 32 mm as a 39 aw as 3 AN. w as m a. o a: I 33 em as mm a: 3. 38 mm 82 mm E E P E w a: 3 as G a: m: a: on a: I. as am 5. o E P E F :5 m as t a: m as 3 as t as m. A: F 8: m 3v m as a as m a. v E v a. m as ma .2 — a: 3 a. a as 2.. a: I A: a As a a. a a: VP 3. o E F 2: m :s a. a: 2 E v A: a E v a: N. ace—8:26 cozwzomoa too. (am: 28:02:. 9.2202222 «68x80 82.6 559535 too. 25: :8. 3 =3 . . o 2 tom 3.22%.. 02.8380 358 cozazomma 5E5 3:932.“ noon 225.8562 9522”. .382: £82 EmBoEE. .mooSOm 5:95.25 cozwaomoa poo. E £833 965 6.2.8 new 29.58 5532 _o co_SnEm_o .m— 2an .9858 2.96 35.8 36076335 ocm 22:50 5822 c823 >=cmo=Ema 85:6 853 :o_.mE.oE_ cozmzomoa ooo. m2. .o om: : 28.33.. 955 .9250 >_co 7.8-53. . A3 £8.53 399 .0550 362-6335 . .9 29:80 .2222 . .3 £833 .0 396:: u c . a. E E as as as a. a. E E a. as o s _ ma 8 «a c o a P o 0 2cm: 5 a. E as :s as as a. E E a. as 853%.: v e F E m: cm a a v P a a .o efiaagoz as 2 5 E as as as a. E as As E a: m a v 3 8 an a m m a m I 9.25 32a 3.38 005 05a 0.2 005 can. 02 00E or: 0.2 E 005 3. or: E 0.2 850m as c 3.00am .oz 20 as c own 552 as c moEzoEom om: . as c was? om: 5:8. .2 293 86 .9853 32m .228". 362.6835 ocm msoccmo swam-2 Cosimo >=cmo=E9m 38:6 858 mEEm: cozmzomoa too. £5 .0 om: : £8.33 965 .9250 2:0 asaoa - as £8.33 956 .228 gasswoaaoi - a: 99.50 swam—2 - as £8.33 so 595:: u c . as as as as as as as“. «.5 22a: .o 3 5 v m o m m cosmic; mwo as as ac: E E as 358 w m m m n m P — o cocoocoomotoo mwo as as as as as A: .mfioEncsm E cm on a v P a .285. as as :s a: as as £283. 8:32. am ma am a; m a Em $8. I-.. as as as as as as :358 m a a m m a am a a e £5088 98: as as as as A: as $20 «a 5 mm m m . 8:838 .33 00E 2% 0.2 as 005 as or: E 0.2 32:8 as c 9:55. oz . as c @559. oozooom .mEEm: cozmzomoa boos _o 3058 5 $8.53 955 62.8 new «5:58 .2me .0 5:22:65 .9 2an 87 adult education class or a CES correspondence course or workshop. Sixty-five percent or more of pre/post-tested controls and 77% or more of post-test only controls had not received prior food preservation training (Table 19). Master Canner Sample Characteristics Since no significant demographic or food preservation background differences were noted between the two groups of control participants, further comparisons were made between Master Canners and the pre/post-tested control group subjects on these characteristics. Through the sampling technique used in this study, it was assumed that these two groups differed only by the Master Canners participation in the comprehensive CES food preservation training program. However, statistical analysis revealed that several significant demographic and food preservation background differences existed. Significant differences were noted in the occupations of Master Canners and the pre/post-tested control group subjects. Twenty (35%) Master Canners, approximately one-third of the sample, were homemakers while 37 (65%) were employed in a variety of other occupations - — 6 (11%) were health professionals, 7 (12%) were clerical employees, 5 (9%) were educators, ll (19%) were business persons and 8 (14%) were in other non-professional occupations (Table 10). In contrast, more than two—thirds (68%) of the control subjects were homemakers with the remaining 32% employed in 88 other occupations (Table 10). The ages of Master Canners were significantly different from the pre/post-tested control group subjects. Approximately half (51%) of the Master Canners were age 34 or below - two (4%) Master Canners were less than 25 years old and 27 (47%) were between 25 and 34 years (Table 11). Of the remaining 49%, ll (19%) Master Canners were between 35 and 44 years, 8 (14%) were between 45 and 54 years, 6 (11%) were between 55 and 64 years and 3 (5%) were age 65 or over. By comparison, half (50%) of the pre/post-tested control subjects were between 35 and 54 years, with approximately one-quarter (27%) of subjects below 35 years and one-quarter (23%) above 54 years old (Table 11). Significant differences were noted in the educational level of Master Canners and the pre/post-tested control group subjects. All Master Canners had at least a high school education - ll (19%) were high school graduates, 26 (46%) had completed some college courses, 9 (16%) were college graduates, 6 (10%) completed some postgraduate courses and 5(9%) had earned an advanced college degree (Table 12). In contrast, 8 (10%) control group subjects had less than a high school education and only 1 (1%) had earned an advanced college degree (Table 12). Place of residence differed significantly between Master Canners and the pre/post—tested control group subjects. Eighty-three percent of control group subjects lived on a farm, in rural areas or in small towns of less 89 than 50,000 people (19%, 35% and 29%, respectively) (Table 13). By comparison, more than half (59%) of the Master Canners lived in suburban areas or large cities of 50,000 or more people (28% and 31%, respectively). Only 2 (4%) Master Canners lived on a farm with 13 (23%) from a rural area and 8 (14%) from a small town (Table 13). Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects differed significantly in amount of food preservation experience. Seventy-three percent of Master Canners had been preserving food for 5 years or less, whereas, 74% of control group subjects had been preserving for more than 5 years (Table 14). Significant differences were found in the use of several food preservation methods previously tried by Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects. Significantly more control subjects had previously water bath canned, pickled or made jam or jelly than Master Canners (Table 15). No differences were found between Master Canners and controls who had used freezing, pressure canning or drying in the past to preserve foods. Freezing had been used by most participants (384%), whereas, only one-third or less from each group had tried to dry foods (Table 15). More control subjects (68%) had tried to pressure can than had Master Canners (47%). Similarly, Master Canners and controls differed significantly in their current use of water bath canning, laickling and jam or jelly making (Table 16). 90 Significantly more control subjects were using these methods than were Master Canners. A similar trend was noted in the use of pressure canning by controls as compared to Master Canners. No differences were found between Master Canners and controls in their current use of freezing or drying to preserve foods. Freezing was used by a large percentage of both groups (165%) while drying was rarely used (58%) (Table 16). The types of food preservation equipment readily available for use by Master Canners and pre/post—tested control group subjects differed significantly. A significantly larger number of controls had access to a freezer and water bath canner than did Master Canners (Table 17). No differences were found in the availability of pressure canners or dehydrators. Slightly more than half (156%) of the subjects in each group had a pressure canner available for use. Only 13 (15%) controls and 8 (14%) Master Canners had access to a food dehydrator. Significantly more pre/post-tested control group subjects (86%) used the CBS for food preservation information than did Master Canners (49%) (Table 18). While immediate family members, relatives, neighbors and friends were also listed as frequent sources for food preservation information, no significant differences were found between the groups for these sources. The Ball Blue Book and/or Kerr Home Canning and Freezing Book were frequently used by about one-third of the subjects in each d1 pr gr Urb, pCpL 91 group. The majority of subjects in both groups (169%) did not use cookbooks, manufacturers directions, USDA food preservation bulletins, popular press books, newspapers, magazines or radio as information sources (Table 18). Significantly more pre/post-tested control group subjects received food preservation training from high school or college home economics courses than did Master Canners (Table 19). No significant differences were found between the groups for any other training sources. The majority of subjects (191%) in each group had not received previous food preservation training. No significant difference was found between the sex of Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects. Fifty-one (90%) Master Canners were female and six (10%) were male. The pre/post-tested control group had 81 (96%) females and 3 (4%) males (Table 9). While the demographic and food preservation background differences noted between Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects may account for each group’s performance on the knowledge and attitude instruments used in this study, different results may have been obtained if different and/or additional counties had offered Master Canner programs in 1986. Seven of the nine participating Master Canner counties, Bay, Genesee, Kent, Macomb, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne, are suburban or urban areas, whereas, Allegan and Iosco counties are less populated or in largely rural areas of Michigan. Fifty of 92 the 57 Master Canner program participants resided in the more urban counties suggesting that the noted demographic and food preservation background differences may have been an artifact of the small and unrepresentative sample of Master Canner counties and program recipients participating in this study. Quite different demographic and food preservation background qualities may have characterized a sample of Master Canner program participants from largely rural counties or a sample drawn from an equal number of rural and urban counties. In summary, pre/post-tested control group subjects and controls who received post—test materials only did not differ on any demographic or food preservation background characteristics. Once similarities between these two groups were established, demographic and food preservation background comparisons were made between the pre/post-tested control group subjects and the Master Canner program recipients. It was hypothesized that these two groups differed only by the Master Canners participation in the comprehensive CES food preservation training program. Yet, statistical comparisons revealed significant demographic differences related to the occupations, ages, educational level and place of residence of subjects. The group’s also differed significantly in their amount of food preservation experience, methods of food preservation previously tried and currently used, ‘types of equipment readily available for use and their 93 sources of food preservation information and training. However, since baseline food preservation knowledge and attitudes were not different among study participants (see below), the investigator feels that differences in the values of the demographic variables were of little consequence. Master Canners Motivation for Program Attendance Master Canners responded with a variety of answers when asked, "Why did you sign up for the Master Canner program?". The most common responses were: "to learn the proper and safe way to preserve food"; "to expand my current food preservation knowledge and learn the newest techniques and procedures"; "to learn a new skill and share my knowledge with others (4-Her’s, low income families, as a Peace Corps worker, friends)"; "want to learn from an authority rather than a book and gain hands-on experience"; "so I can preserve my garden produce and have seasonal foods in the winter"; "to help save money"; "to preserve foods for the health of my family (i.e. no preservatives, no pesticides, low salt/sugar foods)"; "to learn the differences between home and commercial food processing"; "to learn to use a pressure canner with confidence"; 94 "the program has practical application to my current job (4-H leader)". When asked if the Master Canner program’s volunteer component influenced their decision to participate in the course, positive participant responses included: "volunteering will help reinforce what I have already learned"; "1 will enjoy the experience and challenge of volunteering"; "it (volunteering) seems a fair exchange for being able to take the class"; "it will be a benefit to expand my knowledge to others (4-Her’s, friends, low income families)"; "volunteer work is a good learning experience"; "volunteering will help me gain confidence in helping others"; "I enjoy sharing information with others and would have volunteered whether or not there was an expected requirement"; "it is important to tell others the value of home making and share skills". Participants’ negative responses to the program’s volunteer component included: "this (volunteering) will be a problem since I am so busy"; "I have very little time for volunteer work"; 95 "I wanted the program material for myself and would rather not volunteer, if possible"; "I would rather pay more money and not do volunteer work"; "I don’t feel that you will "force" me to volunteer if I don’t have the time". Three Master Canner participants stated they were unaware of the program’s volunteer component at that time. Food Preservation Knowledge The mean food preservation knowledge test score for post-test only control group subjects was 17.61 (57%) out of a maximum 30 points. This score was not significantly different from the mean knowledge post-test score of 18.41 (60%) for pre/post-tested control group subjects (Table 20). Knowledge test scores for the post-test only control group ranged from 9 to 27 correct. Scores for control subjects in the pre/post-test group ranged from 11 to 28 correct. The research design used in this study was chosen to determine if pretesting some control subjects and not others would affect the outcome of their food preservation knowledge post-test. If the pretested control subjects were sensitized to the food preservation information presented in test questions and showed marked improvement on their post-test scores, it may have been due to prior exposure to the pretest rather than the acquisition of new 96 Table 20. Food preservation knowledge pre- and post-test scores (mean t standard error) for Master Canners and control group subjects. .-----—----------—--D---------0--C-.-’---------_---------C---t-------------------u-O .-----------------D---C--------------------1----------'----------. Food preservation knowledge pretest 16.85 i .64' 17.61 t. .40 ~~~~ Food preservation knowledge post-test 25.64 i .33 “ 18.41 i .43 17.61 t .44 ‘ Significantly different than Master Canners post-test score (p<.001) " Significantlv different than pre/post-tested controls post-test score (p<.001) 97 knowledge. To determine if pretesting had a confounding effect in this study, pre/post-tested control subjects were mailed their tests six weeks apart. Since the post-test scores of the two control groups were not significantly different, these results suggest that pretesting was not a factor influencing performance on the food preservation knowledge post-test. No significant difference was noted in the food preservation pretest scores of Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects (Table 20). Mean pretest scores for Master Canners and control group subjects were 16.85 and 17.61, respectively, of a maximum 30 points. Pretest scores for Master Canners ranged from 6 to 27 correct. Control group pretest scores ranged from 9 to 27 correct. These results indicate that although the Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects differed on several demographic indicators, baseline food preservation knowledge was similar between the two groups. It is possible that although control groups subjects reportedly had more years of food preservation experience than the Master Canners (Table 14), many of their food preservation practices may be outdated or not recommended ‘by the CES. Control subjects’ answers to food preservation Iknowledge test questions may, therefore, reflect such gpractices resulting in lower pretest scores for this group than might have been expected based on their previous experience. 98 Food preservation knowledge post-test scores were significantly higher for the Master Canners than control group subjects (p<.001) (Table 20). Master Canners scored an average 25.64 of 30 points on the post-test. Scores for this group ranged from 20 to 30 correct. The average post-test score in the control group was 18.41 with scores ranging from 11 to 28 correct. From these results it appears that participation in the Master Canner program significantly improved the food preservation knowledge post-test scores of program participants. The mean test score of this group was increased by 8.79 points (52%), from a mean pretest score of 16.85 to a mean post-test score of 25.64. In contrast, no significant difference was noted between mean pre- and post-test scores of control group subjects. The mean test score was increased by less than one point (0.8, 4.5%) in this group, from 17.61 to 18.41 points, for mean pre— and post-test scores, respectively. These findings suggest that enrollment in the Master Canner program is a useful and effective way for clientele to acquire basic food preservation knowledge. Although most Master Canners entered the program with less food preservation experience than the control group subjects, it appears that the comprehensive food preservation training program provided them with the necessary background information needed to be knowledgeable of proper and safe food preservation procedures. 99 Many knowledge questions tested application of the subject matter taught in the course, rather than memorization of facts. For example, subjects were asked to choose the appropriate response to questions asking, "What advice would you give someone who tells you they processed 24 quarts of green beans in a boiling water bath, instead of a pressure canner, about a week ago?" and "Someone wants to know if alum should be added to pickles. What would you recommend?" Such questions were intended to be indicative of those Master Canners will likely encounter during their volunteer service. . The higher post-test performance by Master Canners suggests that they were better able to apply the knowledge acquired in the course to these real life situations rather than rely on past experiences as a guide to procedures that may jeopardize a product’s safety. Thus, despite the experience record of most control group subjects, it appears that many may use food preservation procedures and techniques not sanctioned by the CES. In summary, the mean food preservation knowledge post-test scores of pre/post—tested control group subjects and post-test only controls did not differ. Similarly, no significant difference was noted in the food preservation knowledge pretest scores of Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects. When food preservation knowledge post-test scores were compared between these two groups, the Master Canners showed significant improvement in their test performance. 100 Food Preservation Attitudes The maximum attainable score on the three item "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" attitude scale was 15. Scores of 12 to 15 on this scale were indicative of a subject’s feeling that pressure canning was a safe and relatively easy method of food preservation that they felt confident in using. In contrast, scores of six and below indicated a subject’s apprehension and unwillingness to use this method. A score of nine expressed neutrality - neither a positive nor negative feeling toward the use of pressure canning for home food preservation. Post-test only control group subjects received a mean attitude score of 10.89 (73%) on the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" scale (Table 21). This was not significantly different from the mean post-test score of 11.04 (74%) obtained by control group subjects receiving both a pre- and post-test of food preservation attitudes. Scores in the post-test only control group ranged from 4 to 15. Pre/post-tested control group subjects’ scores ranged from 3 to 15. The less than one point difference (0.15) noted between control groups on this scale indicates that attitudes toward the use of pressure canning for home preserved foods were very similar. Since a score of nine represents neutrality, the average scores of 10.89 and 11.04 for post-test only and pre/post-tested control, respectively, reflect only slightly positive attitudes. 101 .5qu mm. H 8.8 1:1: mm. H 8.8 It?! mm. u. 38 ((1: Boom 62.68 9853 .2280 332-33an Eo: 285:6 >=conc9m - 3. 28.x: 28m 62-53 22:30 .2me Eo: 2.29% 2.50536 - 3 cm. 5. mv. mm. mmdw modm vo. I v0.0? No.3 RN53 m fimm medw QNNP of: mmdl nmép 52-7.3 22$ 98 5205 3.305 wooo. mgzomoi $2-.on goo. 32305 9.8: .2 7665 9:53 @5806 3 cm: 62-68. .502 ootomoa 622a scan .0 o:_m> _mcoztSz $8.33 32m _oscoo new soccmo .2222 .2 moaom :95 8:: co cots oaucma H 58.5 883 aoimoa cam 66 82:6 cozmzomoa poo”. .—w some 102 These results were not surprising. Approximately two~thirds (161%) of the subjects in each group reported having a pressure canner available for their use (Table 17). Similarly, this was a food preservation method that had been used previously by 64% of post-test only controls and 68% of pre/post-tested control subjects (Table 15). Yet, despite equipment availability and previous experience with this method, only about half (45% of pre/post-tested controls and 50% of post-test only controls) were currently pressure canning (Table 16). It is possible that a bad experience in using a pressure canner, (i.e., steam burns, jar breakage, unsealed jars, poor food quality), had caused some subjects to form less favorable opinions toward pressure canning than they would have had previous experiences been more positive. The maximum attainable score on the six item "nutritional value of home preserved foods" scale was 30. Scores of 24 to 30 on this scale indicated that subjects felt home preserved foods were at least equal to commercially processed foods in their nutritional value and quality. These higher scores also reflected subjects’ feelings that additives and preservatives used in commercially prepared foods are useful and necessary to acheive a high quality product. In contrast, scores of 12 and below indicated a subject’s feeling that home preserved foods were nutritionally superior to commercially processed foods and that the latter contained too many additives and 103 preservatives. A score of 18 indicated neither positive nor negative feelings toward the nutritional value of home preserved foods. Post-test only control group subjects received a mean attitude score of 15.54 (52%) on the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" scale (Table 21). This was not significantly different from the mean post-test score of 15.82 (53%) obtained by control group subjects receiving both a pre- and post-test of food preservation attitudes. Scores in the post-test only control group ranged from 7 to 26. Pre/post-tested control subjects’ scores ranged from 6 to 25. The minimal difference (.32) between post—test scores of control subjects reflects their similarity in attitudes toward the nutritional value of home preserved foods. The somewhat low scores, however, indicate slightly negative attitudes. Since this scale is indicative of feelings that commercially processed and home processed foods are equal in quality, the results suggest that control subjects feel the latter are nutritionally superior products. When handled and processed properly, home preserved foods can be nutritionally comparable to those commercially processed. Modern processing techniques allow for the harvest, preparation and canning, freezing or drying of foods in minimal time to assure the highest nutrient retention possible. Commercial additives and preservatives serve useful purposes such as calcium chloride added to 104 tomatoes as a firming agent or sulfur dioxide used to prevent discoloration of dried fruit. Home preserving conditions, however, may involve post-harvest processing delays, under— or overprocessing and/or imprOper or excessively long storage conditions which contribute to nutrient losses in home preserved foods. Thus, the slightly negative attitudes expressed by control subjects may be due to a lack of understanding of commercial processing techniques or the role of additives and preservatives in canned, frozen or dried products. Furthermore, it appears that control group subjects may be unaware of improper home food handling, processing or storage conditions that can effect the nutritive value of home preserved foods. The maximum attainable score on the eight item "preserving foods properly and safely" attitude scale was 40. Scores of 32 to 40 demonstrated a subjects’ positive feelings that following up-to-date food preservation recommendations were important to assure a safe product and an acceptance that procedural tasks in preserving foods often change as new research becomes available. In contrast, scores of 16 and below indicated a willingness to tweject current food preservation recommendations for traditional, non-recommended and often unsafe methods, that may produce hazardous products. Lower scores also indicated a subject’s misconception that the presence of a sealled canning jar or the absence of overt food spoilage 105 assured product safety despite the possibility of insipient spoilage. A score of 24 indicated neither agreement nor disagreement with the need for proper food preservation methods. Post-test only control group subjects received a mean attitude score of 28.36 (71%) on the "preserving foods properly and safely" scale (Table 21). This was not significantly different from the mean post-test score of 29.35 (73%) obtained by control group subjects receiving both a pre- and post-test of food preservation attitudes. Scores in the post-test only control group ranged from 15 to 40. Pre/post-tested control subjects’ scores ranged from 14 to 40. A less than one point difference (.99) separated the attitude scores of pre/post-tested and post-test only control group subjects on this scale. The scores of 28.36 and 29.35 reflect only slightly positive attitudes toward preserving foods properly and safely. These results may be due to the previous experience record of most control group subjects. Approximately three-fourths (174%) of the subjects in this group had been preserving foods for five years or longer (Table 14). Many food preservation I‘ecommendations, however, have been updated in the past few years to reflect newer knowledge in this area. For example, processing is now recommended for all jellied fruit products, processing times have been increased for nanny products and jar sterilization is recommended for 106 products processed 15 minutes or less (Kuhn, 1984). The low positive attitude scores noted here reflected an unawareness of updated recommendations or their rejection for more traditional "tried and true" methods that have been used successfully for years, such as open kettle canning, oven canning or water bath canning low acid foods. No significant differences were found in the mean attitude pretest scores of Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects on the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" scale. The Master Canners mean attitude score was 14.87 (50%) out of 30 (Table 21). Control group subjects had a mean attitude score of 15.27 (51%). Such scores indicate slightly negative attitudes toward the nutritional value of home preserved foods by either group. Pretest scores on the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" scale ranged from 8 to 22 for Master Canners and from 6 to 23 for control subjects. Similarly, attitudes related to the nutritional value of home preserved foods were not significantly different between Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects when post-test scores were compared. 0f the maximum attainable score of 30 for this scale, Master Canners and control group subjects had mean scores of 15.59 (52%) and 15.82 (52%), respectively (Table 21). Post-test scores on this scale ranged from 8 to 20 for Master Canners and from 6 to 25 for control subjects. 107 A high score on this scale indicates a positive attitude that the nutritional value of home preserved foods is equal to those commercially processed. The pretest scores for these groups were low, however, indicating that all subjects shared a common feeling that commercially processed products were inferior in nutritive value and quality when compared to home preserved foods. Surprisingly, attitudes related to this scale remained unchanged in Master Canners despite their participation in the CES food preservation training program. There are several possible explanations for this noted resistance to change. First, despite the safety record of most food additives and preservatives, several have come under fire in recent years. For example, sulfites used to prevent browning reactions in fruits and light-colored vegetables have been linked to severe allergic reactions in several people (Buckley et a1., 1985). Nitrates, added to preserve the color of cured meat products, can combine with protein to form nitrosamines, a suspected carcinogen (National Academy of Sciences, 1981). Sodium chloride, added as a flavoring agent to many foods and a curing agent to pickled foods, has been associated with the development of hypertension in sodium-sensitive individuals (Houston, 1986). Publicity for these issues has been widespread and public awareness is high. Consequently, Master Canners’ opinions may be biased against the nutritional value of commercially processed 108 foods particularly if they view additive and preservative use as detrimental. No significant differences were found in the attitude pretest scores of Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects on the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" scale. The Master Canners mean attitude score was 11.43 (76%) out of 15 (Table 21). Control group subjects had a mean attitude score of 10.94 (73%) (Table 21). Such scores indicate a positive attitude toward the use of pressure canning for home food preservation. Pretest scores on the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" scale ranged from 5 to 15 for Master Canners and from 3 to 15 for control subjects. Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects differed significantly (p<.001) on their post-test mean attitude scores for the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" scale. Mean attitude post-test scores for Master Canners and control subjects were 12.78 (85%) and 11.04 (74%), respectively (Table 21). Post-test scores on this scale ranged from 8 to 15 for Master Canners and from 3 to 15 for control subjects. These results suggest that participation in the Master Canner program favorably affected the participants’ attitudes toward the use of pressure canning for home food preservation. Although half (56%) of the Master Canners reported having a pressure canner available for their use (Table 17), 75% indicated that they were not currently 109 using this food preservation method (Table 16). Since half (47%) of the participants had previously tried pressure canning (Table 15), it is possible that many found the process too frightening or complicated to warrant its continued use. The equipment use demonstrations and hands-on preserving experience provided in the Master Canner program may have given participants the opportunity to overcome fears or apprehensions toward pressure canner use. Since control group subjects received no formal food preservation training, their attitudes, only slightly favorable toward the use of pressure canning, remained unchanged over the six week span from pre- to post-test. No significant differences were found in the attitude pretest scores of Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects on the "preserving foods properly and safely" scale. The Master Canners mean attitude score was 29.49 (74%) out of 40 (Table 21). Control group subjects had a mean attitude score of 29.09 (73%). These scores indicate that both groups had a positive attitude toward the use of proper food preservation methods. Pretest scores on the "preserving foods properly and safely" scale ranged from 18 to 40 for Master Canners and from 11 to 40 for control group subjects. Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects differed significantly (p<.001) on their mean post-test attitude scores for the "preserving foods properly and safely" scale. Mean post-test attitude scores 110 for Master Canners and control subjects were 32.19 (80%) and 29.35 (73%), respectively (Table 21). Post-test scores on this scale ranged from 21 to 40 for Master Canners and from 14 to 40 for control subjects. The significantly higher mean post-test attitude scores of Master Canners when compared with control group subjects on the "preserving foods properly and safely" scale suggested that the comprehensive CES food preservation program was effective in developing more positive attitudes in program participants. The noted 2.7 point increase from pre- to post-test for Master Canners indicates that participants expressed even stronger feelings at program’s end toward the use of current food preservation methods that would assure product safety. Most Master Canners (73%) had had five years or less food preservation experience compared to the five or more years of most (74%) pre/post-tested control group subjects (Table 14). Since many non-recommended potentially dangerous food preservation techniques date back more than five years, it is possible that the Master Canners were less exposed and less familiar with these techniques than the control subjects. Hence, Master Canners would be less likely to reject current methods for others that have been used successfully in the past but have since been proven unsafe. Also, course material in the Master Canner program is designed to acquaint participants with rationale for current recommended methods and reasons why substitute lll methods may be unsafe. For example, water bath canning, rather than a paraffin seal, is recommended for jellies to retard mold contamination. Pressure canning is required for all low acid foods to prevent botulism spore germination. With this background knowledge Master Canners may have been more likely to develop positive attitudes toward "preserving foods properly and safely" than if explanations had not been provided for recommended procedures. In summary, the mean attitude post—test scores of pre/post-tested control group subjects and post-test only controls did not differ on any of the three attitude scales. Similarly, the mean attitude pretest scores of Master Canners and pre/post-tested control group subjects were not different for the three scales. Attitudes toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" and "preserving foods properly and safely" were significantly more positive in Master Canners than pre/post-tested control subjects when mean attitude post-test scores were compared. Master Canners post-test attitudes toward the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" remained slightly negative and unchanged from those of pre/post— tested control group subjects. Relationships Between Variables Kendall correlation coefficients between knowledge and attitude scores and other demographic variables at the pre- 112 and post-tests for Master Canners and the pre/post- tested control group subjects were determined (Table 22). When the correlation coefficients were significant, they were also low in value (5.38) indicating the relationships were weak. Food Preservation Knowledge and Demoggaphic Variables No significant relationships were found between food preservation knowledge pre- or post-test scores and ages of Master Canners or control group subjects (Table 22). The educational level of Master Canners and control group subjects was not significantly correlated with food preservation knowledge pretest scores (Table 22). A significant positive correlation was noted between food preservation knowledge post-test scores and educational level for Master Canners. The relationship between post-test scores and educational level for control group subjects, however, was not significant (Table 22). The non significant relationships noted between food preservation knowledge, age and educational level of Master Canners and control group subjects were not unexpected. Few constraints are placed on individuals wishing to preserve their own foods. Food preservation is a hobby that can be enjoyed by most people regardless of age, sex, educational level or other factors. While initial equipment investments (i.e. freezer, dehydrator, water bath and pressure canners, jars) may be a constraint to those on Eo.vo 3 E8535 - .8 Eva a 28:55 - 3s nova 5 28:29.0. - E 113 as a as a E mm. 00.0 3s 0a «0.0 F _ as 0000.305. cozmzomoa poo“. a. w «0.0 3 ma. :0 8.0 3s «a as a. As 2. 00.0 802.33 m coszomoa poo”. .P s 00.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 40.0 80 no.0 as 0a. .26. m 302.803 0 a 8.0 as on. «.0 v0.0 00.0 8.0- a0.0 no.0 00< 3. a. as am. as 2. «0.0 as am. 03 2. _ P as 0000.305 coszomoa poo“. » 8.0- 3. a0. 3.0 N000. E s. 3.0 as a E 8. 85:33 m coszomoa poo“. w s m0.0 a0 a0.0 3.0.0 3.0 8.0 2.0 .0 .20. m 302.808 m a m0 0- as am 00 0 I 0 a0.0 m0 0 m0 0 S 0 02 $2250 9858 5622 22:50 soccwo Baa—2 22:50 soccmo .232 29:80 £0:ch 5.8.2 :93 new mpooa oozmmoa goo. poaomoa 9:2. .2 62 3.02265 moBmtw> 2533 £52 mEZommi 6:55 _o o:_m> _mcoztsz msccwo Summoa _o 0»: cozmzomoa poo“. £00.53 305 .2000 862-6855 pcm weoccmo Bass. so. 839.? 825m new mapszocx .oEaSmoEop Cosimo mEmGEooo cozflotoo .323. .mm 2am . . . ._r 114 fixed or limited incomes, the equipment is intended for long-term use and other costs can be minimal. While a significant relationship was noted between educational level and Master Canners’ food preservation knowledge post-test scores, its importance is questionable. Since no statistically significant difference was found between pretest scores of Master Canners (mean pretest score = 16.85) and control group subjects (mean pretest score = 17.61) the results indicate that despite a higher level of education for most Master Canners (Table 12), years of schooling was not a factor in determining knowledge pretest outcome. It is possible that the educational background of Master Canners was useful in applying what they learned in the program to questions on the food preservation knowledge test. However, because the Master Canner program was the intervening variable between the food preservation knowledge pre- and post—tests it seems likely that program participation had more influence on knowledge post-test scores than the subjects’ educational background. Food preservation experience was significantly and positively correlated with food preservation knowledge test scores for Master Canners and control group subjects (Table 22). A similar significant positive relationship was noted between food preservation knowledge post—test scores and preserving experience for control group subjects, but not for Master Canners (Table 22). 115 These results indicate that food preservation experience was the most important demographic variable influencing the food preservation knowledge pretest scores of both groups. Although the correlation was low (r = .19), food preservation experience was also directly related to food preservation knowledge post-test scores of control group subjects. This result was expected since control subjects did not receive food preservation training and had only their previous knowledge and experience to aid them in answering test questions. Master Canners food preservation experience, however, was not significantly correlated with knowledge post-test scores suggesting that participation in the comprehensive training program was a more important influence on test outcome than previous experience. Had Master Canners not received food preservation training, negligible gains in pre- to post-test knowledge scores, similar to those of control subjects, would have been expected. Food Preservation Attitudes and Demographic Variables Pre— and post-test scores on the "preserving foods properly and safely" attitude scale were significantly correlated with the ages of Master Canners (Table 22). No significant relationships were noted, however, between age and Master Canners’ pre- or post-test attitudes toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" or the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" scales. 116 Attitude pre- and postftest scores for all three scales were not significantly related to the ages of control group subjects. No significant relationships were found between educational level attained and attitude scale pretest scores for Master Canners or control group subjects (Table 22). Similarly, no significant relationships were noted between the groups when post-test scores and educational level were examined. Master Canners food preservation experience was significantly and positively correlated with pre- and post-test attitudes toward "preserving food properly and safely" (Table 22). A significant positive correlation was also noted between food preservation experience and Master Canners post-test attitudes toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods". No relationship was found between Master Canners food preservation experience and their pretest attitudes on this scale. Similarly, no significant relationships were found between Master Canners food preservation experience and pre- or post—test attitudes related to the "nutritional value of home preserved foods". Food preservation experience was significantly and positively correlated with both pre- and post-test attitudes toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" in control group subjects (Table 22). Pre- and post-test attitudes toward the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" and "preserving foods 117 properly and safely", however, were not related to the food preservation experience of this group. Food Preservation Knowledge and Attitudes Significant positive relationships were found between food preservation knowledge and attitudes toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" and "preserving foods properly and safely" when Master Canners pretest scores were compared (Table 22). Pretest attitudes on the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" scale were not significantly related to food preservation knowledge in these subjects. While post-test attitudes of Master Canners on the "preserving foods properly and safely" scale were significantly and positively correlated with food preservation knowledge, no significant relationships were noted between post-test food preservation knowledge and scores on the other two attitude scales (Table 22). Conversely, significant, positive relationships were noted among food preservation knowledge and all attitude scales when pre- and post-test scores of control group subjects were compared (Table 22). Sims (1980) reviewed the findings of studies that examined the nutrition knowledge - attitude relationship and reported that the most prevalent relationship was a positive correlation between knowledge and attitudes. Conversely, other researchers have found no correlation between knowledge and attitudes (Petersen and Kies, 1972; 118 Krause and Fox, 1977; Guiry and Bisogni, 1986; Brush et a1., 1986). Since the present study is concerned with food preservation, rather than nutrition, knowledge and attitudes, direct comparisons are not possible. However, generalizations can be made about the knowledge — attitude relationship patterns previously noted. In the pretest, the Master Canners showed a positive correlation between food preservation knowledge and attitudes toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" and "preserving foods properly and safely". These results suggest that the more Master Canners knew about food preservation prior to the training program, the more willing they were to use a pressure canner and the more conscientious they were about using proper methods. A significant correlation was noted between Master Canners food preservation knowledge post-test scores and their attitudes toward "preserving foods properly and safely". Thus it appears that participation in the Master Canner program may be instrumental in promoting positive attitudes toward safe and proper preserving practices. Although Master Canners’ post-test attitudes toward the use of pressure canning were not correlated with their food preservation knowledge, post-test attitude scores indicted that Master Canners had developed more positive attitudes on this subject over the course of the training lxrogram. Hence, it appears that factors other than an 119 increase in food preservation knowledge may be responsible for the noted positive attitude change. Master Canners’ pre. and post-test attitudes toward the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" were not correlated with their food preservation knowledge. In addition, when pre- and post-test scores were compared, no change was noted in participants’ attitudes toward this topic. Thus, the slightly negative attitudes toward the nutritional value of home preserved foods held by Master Canners were unrelated to gains in their food preservation knowledge and appear to be relatively resistant to change. Significant relationships between food preservation knowledge and attitudes were noted at the pre- and post-tests for control group subjects on all attitude scales. It is interesting to note that attitude scale scores remained unchanged in this group between administration of the pre- and post-tests. Thus it is not surprising that the significant knowledge - attitude relationships were consistent over time in the absence of an intervening variable (i.e., the Master Canner training program) that may have had an imposing effect on the attitudes expressed by these subjects. In summary, Kendall correlation coefficients were determined between knowledge and attitude scores and other demographic variables at the pre- and post—tests for Master (Zanners and the pre/post-tested control group subjects. (Eenerally, the pre- and post-test correlations between age 120 and educational level and food preservation knowledge test and attitude scale scores were not significant. Food preservation experience was positively and significantly correlated with the food preservation knowledge pretest scores for both groups. A significant correlation was also noted between food preservation experience and knowledge post—test scores for control group subjects. Master Canners food preservation experience, however, was not correlated with their scores on the food preservation knowledge post-test. No significant relationships were found between food preservation experence and pre- or post-test attitudes toward the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" for the Master Canners or control group subjects. Pre- and post-test attitudes toward "preserving foods properly and safely" were positively and significantly correlated with the food preservation experience of Master Canners but not control group subjects. Food preservation experience was significantly correlated with pretest attitudes toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" in control group subjects only. Post—test attitudes for this scale were significantly correlated with the food preservation experience of both groups. Significant correlations were found between food preservation knowledge pretest scores and pretest attitudes toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved 'foods" and "preserving foods properly and safely" in Master 121 Canners and control group subjects. Knowledge pretest scores were correlated with pretest attitudes toward the ”nutritional value of home preserved foods" in control group subjects only. Control subjects post-test attitudes for all three scales were positively and significantly correlated with their food preservation knowledge post—test scores. Master Canners knowledge post-test scores were correlated with post-test attitudes toward "preserving foods properly and safely" only. Generally, when correlations were significant they were also low in value indicating that relationships between variables were not strong. 122 Implications and Recommendations Since its development in 1980, the CES Master Canner program has not undergone a formal evaluation. Over the last seven years, the program has trained hundreds of volunteers to assist EHEs with client food preservation questions and programs. Yet, a preliminary survey of EHEs, conducted in 1986 by the investigator, revealed that EHEs perceived that many Master Canners may lack the knowledge necessary to respond to critical food safety issues despite their training. Hence, this study was designed to assess the food preservation knowledge and attitudes of subjects enrolled in Master Canner programs throughout Michigan during 1987. Three Likert scales designed to assess attitudes toward the "nutritional value of home preserved foods", the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" and "preserving foods properly and safely" and a 30 item food preservation knowledge test, developed specifically for this study, were used. Established methods of knowledge test and attitude scale construction were used with appropriate steps taken to insure the instruments were valid and reliable. Prior to this research, successful completion of the Master Canner program was contingent upon passage of a 20 question short answer final exam. Validity and reliability of this test were not established. No attempt was made to assess attitudes of program participants. Thus the food 123 preservation knowledge test developed for this research could be a useful evaluation tool to certify competency of future Master Canner program participants. Since knowledge test questions were representative of the subject matter Master Canners are expected to have upon completion of the program, it is suggested that the test be adopted for statewide use. Relatively simple hand or computer-aided calculations, based on participant pre- and post-test scores, would provide EHEs with data to certify program graduates and to support continuation of the program. The attitude scales used in this research detected attitudinal changes among Master Canners toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" and "preserving foods properly and safely." Attitudes toward the "nutritional value of home preserved foods" remained unchanged in Master Canners from pre- to post-test, however, the investigator made no attempt to promote more positive attitudes among program participants during the study. Use of the attitude scales employed in this research for future Master Canner programs would provide EHEs with useful information for planning educational strategies to promote positive food preservation attitudes among program recipients. With the small number of Master Canner counties participating in this study, it is suggested that the research be repeated another year to improve the generalizability of the results. Efforts should be focused 124 on increasing the number of Master Canner counties and obtaining a sample representative of the state’s rural and urban population. If the results reported in this research are confirmed by additional testing they will serve to reinforce the role of the CES as a credible source of food preservation information and training. Volunteers could be used to recruit potential program participants. Research results could be used to demonstrate program effectiveness if federal funds are requested to support program costs. The pre/post—test design used in this study is a useful prototype for future CES program evaluations. Many CES programs are presented as a series of lessons or workshops with sufficient time passage from beginning to end to assess pre- to post-test knowledge and/or attitude changes. The procedures used to develop and validate the food preservation knowledge and attitude instruments can easily be adapted to other subject matter areas. 125 Research Strengths and Limitations Strengths With the CES engulfed in strict budgetary constraints it is imperative that existing funds be used to support programs with demonstrated effectiveness. This study objectively demonstrates for the first time that the CES Master Canner program is effective in improving food preservation knowledge and promoting positive food preservation attitudes among recipients. The study reported herein was well designed with appropriate steps taken to control for variables which may have threatened the internal and external validity of results. Instruments developed to assess food preservation knowledge and attitudes were valid and reliable. Appropriate statistical tests were used to analyze the data. This study was also effective in reaching a broad cross-section of CES clientele of differing ages and socioeconomic backgrounds from both urban and rural areas of the state. Limitations Sample size was a major limiting factor in this study. Of the 83 counties in Michigan, only nine conducted Master Canner programs during 1986, with a total of 57 study participants. While the investigator aggressively sought the help of EHEs to conduct Master Canner programs, circumstances beyond her control (local client interest in 126 the program, time availability of the EHE, availability of monetary resources to cover program costs, county program priorities, availability of an appropriate time and place to conduct program sessions, the need for Master Canner volunteer help in a county, etc.) prevented many from participating in this research. In addition, seven of the nine Master Canner counties included in this study were primarily suburban or urban areas. A larger sample size comprised of participants from an equal number of rural and urban counties is needed to make a study such as this truly representative of the state’s sample population. The investigator feels it is unlikely, however, that a county sample size of greater than 20 to 25 is possible based on reasons stated above and the length of time the Master Canner program has already been in effect in Michigan. A second limitation of this study was the absence of a post-test only group of Master Canner subjects. The modified Solomon Four Group Design used in this study called for control subjects to be divided into two groups: (1) pre— and post-test and (2) post-test only. Due to the small sample size of Master Canners, however, all were asked to complete the pre— and post—program food preservation knowledge test and attitude questionnaire. Knowledge and attitude scores resulting from the split design used with control subjects suggested that pretesting was not a factor influencing their post—test performance. A pretest effect cannot be ruled out entirely for Master 127 Canners, however, since the limited sample size precluded the use of a pre/post-test and post-test only group design. A follow up study to this reseach should include a behavioral assessment of Master Canners during their volunteer service. Behavioral assessment was not possible in this study since the structure of the Master Canner program focuses on lectures/demonstrations and hands—on experiences to teach Master Canners the food preservation background information they will need to successfully complete their volunteer service. While this study demonstrated that participation in the Master Canner program significantly improved food preservation knowledge and promoted positive food preservation attitudes among recipients, it remains unclear whether these gains will be applied during their volunteer service. CONCLUSIONS The food preservation knowledge and attitudes of 57 participants enrolled in nine CES Master Canner programs were assessed. Three Likert scales designed to measure attitudes toward the "nutritional value of home preserved foods", the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" and "preserving foods properly and safely" and a 30 item food preservation knowledge test were developed for use in a pre- and post—test format. Eighty-four control subjects received the same pre— and post-tests with no intervening food preservation training program. Ninety-seven additional control subjects received post-test only materials to determine whether pretesting biased post-test results in some control subjects. Post-test scores of the two control groups were not significantly different. Likewise, pretesting revealed no significant knowledge or attitude differences between the Master Canners and pre/post-tested control subjects. Comparisons were then made between Master Canners and control group subjects’ post-test scores to determine the effectiveness of the program. Food preservation knowledge post—test scores were significantly higher for the Master Canners 128 129 than control group subjects. Master Canners post-test attitudes toward the "use of pressure canning for home preserved foods" and "preserving foods properly and safely" were significantly more positive than those of control subjects. Master Canners post-test attitudes toward the ”nutritional value of home preserved foods" remained slightly negative and unchanged from those of control group subjects. These findings suggest that enrollment in the Master Canner program is a useful and effective way for clientele to acquire basic home food preservation knowledge. The program was successful in instilling more positive attitudes in participants on two of the three attitude dimensions measured. Futhermore, the sample participating in this research indicates that the CES is reaching a broad range of clientele, with differing socioeconomic backgrounds, in both rural and urban areas of Michigan. APPENDICES APPENDIX A UCRIHS APPROVAL FORM 130 APPENDIX A UCRIHS APPROVAL FORM MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY uwwnsm' comm-m ow usmcu mvowmc "mum sumas (uams) m ADMINISTRATION IUILDING (amass-1m December 3, 1985 EAST LANSING 0 IICHIGAN 0 “334.1.“ Ms. Penny Ross Food Science & Human Nutrition 204 Food Science Building Dear Ms. Ross: Subject: Proposal Entitled, "The Impact of the Master Canner Program on Food Preservation Knowledge and Attitudes" UCRIHS review of the above referenced project has now been completed. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this project at its meeting on December 2. 1985. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make.provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to December 2, 1986. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely. WW; Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms cc: Dr. Jenny T. Bond M" l u .- Alloruulnv An...- ”1"", ()rru'ltfill\ lulu-nun APPENDIX B PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM 131 APPENDIX B PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ..--——-——..—-—-_ . .-.—.- COOPERATIVE Emerson SERVICE _ ,____ ._ -. __ Department of Food Science 165 Somh Anthony Hall Michigan State University and Human Nutrition East Lansing, Michigan £8824 1225 CONSENT FORM 1, , agree to participate in the food preservation research study which is being conducted by Penny Ross of the Michigan State University C00perative Extension Service. The purpose of the Study has been explained to me and I have been given the opportunity to ask questions. As a participant in this study I understand I will be asked to take a written test and complete a questionnaire related to my knowledge of and attitude toward food preservation. I will also be asked questions about my personal background and whether or not I routinely preserve my own food at home. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time, and such action will have no influence on services I receive from the C00perative Extension Service. I also may decline to answer any questions I find unacceptable. I understand that my responses and all information about me will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. General results of the formal study, entitled "The Impact of the Master Canner Program on Food Preservation Knowledge and Attitudes”, will be made available to me at my request. Signed Date Cooperative Eulanuon Service anagrams an open Io all «m rap-d to race color national chain an ov handrcap Analgan 5|an Unwflu‘y. U S Department of Ayicuhma and cow-lea W'flmu MSU is an Affirmative An-ovvtooal prmlunly immune» APPENDIX C CLIENT TELEPHONE INFORMATION FORM 132 APPENDIX C CLIENT TELEPHONE INFORMATION FORM MASTER CANNER RESEARCH STUDY Client Information Log Client Name: Date: Address: street MI city state zip code county Telephone: 44( ) area code Nature of Question: PR 4/85 APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE 133 APPENDIX D Code SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION What is your sex? (CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER) Female Male What is your occupation? (WRITE IN) What is your age? (CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER) Less than 25 25 — 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 or over What is the highest level of education y0u have completed? (CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER) 8th grade or less Some high school High school graduate Some college College graduate Some post-graduate work An advanced college degree (i.e. M.S., Ph.D., M.D., etc.) Concerning where you live, is it a: (CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER) Farm Rural area Small town (less than 50,000 people) Suburban area Large city (50,000 or more people) What method(s) of food preservation have you tried? (CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER) Freezing Water bath canning Pressure canning Pickle making Drying Jam or jelly making No previous experience with preserving foods .Reference book(s) - please list those used: 134 How much experience do you have in preserving food (i.e. canning. freezing, drying, pickling, etc.) at home? (CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER) No previous experience Less than 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 5 years 5 - 10 years More than 10 years What method(s) of food preservation do you use most frequently now? (CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER) Freezing Water bath canning Pressure canning Pickle making Drying Jam or jelly making Not currently preserving food What type(s) of food preservation equipment do you have readily available for your use? (CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER) Water bath canner Pressure canner Freezer Oehydrator (commercial or homemade) None To what extent do you use the following sources for food preservation information: (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN) Always Sometimes Not at all Immediate family member Relative Neighbor/friend Food preparation and/or preservation course Cooperative Extension Service Other sources: Have you been in a course or received food preservation training from any of the following: (INDICATE Y FOR YES. N FOR NO) Adult education class High school or college home economics course 4-H foods and nutrition program Other 12. 13. 135 Why did you sign up for the Master Canner program? Part of the requirement for the Master Canner course is 10 hours of volunteer service. Did this volunteer component influence your decision to participate in the program? Yes No (CIRCLE ONE) Please explain APPENDIX E TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: COGNITIVE DOMAIN 136 APPENDIX E TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: COGNITIVE DOMAIN Knowledge 1.00 KNOWLEDGE (Remembering previously learned material) 1.10 Knowledge of specifics 1.11 Knowledge of terms 1.12 Knowledge of specific facts 1.20 Knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics 1.21 Knowledge of conventions 1.22 Knowledge of trends and sequences 1.23 Knowledge of classifications and categories 1.24 Knowledge of criteria 1.25 Knowledge of methodology 1.30 Knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field 1.31 Knowledge of principles and generalizations 1.32 Knowledge of theories and structures Intellectual Abilities and Skills 2.00 COMPREHENSION (Grasping the meaning of material) 2.10 Translation (Converting from one form to another) 2.20 Interpretation (Explaining or summarizing material) 2.30 Extrapolation (Extending the meaning beyond the data) 3.00 APPLICATION (Using information in concrete situations) 4.00 ANALYSIS (Breaking down material into its parts) 4.10 Analysis of elements 4.20 Analysis of relationships 4.30 Analysis of organizational principles 5.00 SYNTHESIS (Putting parts together into a whole) 5.10 Production of a unique communication 5.20 Production of a plan or proposed set of operations 5.30 Derivation of a set of abstract relations 6.00 EVALUATION (Judging the value of a thing for a given purpose using definite criteria) 6.10 Judgements in terms of internal evidence 6.20 Judgements in terms of external criteria Reference: Bloom, 8., M. Engelhart, E. Furst, W. Hill and D. Krathwohl. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co., Inc., 1956, pp. 201-207. APPENDIX F EDWARDS’ INFORMAL CRITERIA FOR ATTITUDE STATEMENT CONSTRUCTION 137 APPENDIX F EDWARDS’ INFORMAL CRITERIA FOR ATTITUDE STATEMENT CONSTRUCTION 1. Avoid statements that refer to the past rather than the present. 2. Avoid statements that are factual or capable of being interpreted as factual. 3. Avoid statements that may be interpreted in more than one way. 4. Avoid statements that are irrelevant to the psycho— logical object under consideration. 5. Avoid statements that are likely to be endorsed by almost everyone or by almost no one. 6. Select statements that are believed to cover the entire range of the affective scale of interest. 7. Keep the language of the statements simple, clear and direct. 8. Statements should be short, rarely exceeding 20 words. 9. Each statement should contain only one complete thought. 10. Statements containing universals such as all, always, none and Egyer introduce ambiguity and should be avoided. 11. Words such as only, just, merely, and other of a similar nature should be used with care and moderation in writing statements. 12. Whenever possible, statements should be in the form of simple sentences rather than in the form of compound or complex sentences. 13. Avoid the use of words that may not be understood by those who are to be given the completed scale. 14. Avoid the use of double negatives. Reference: Edwards, A. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York, NY: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957, pp. 13-14. APPENDIX C LETTER SENT TO PROFESSIONAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS .138 APPENDIX G LETTER SENT TO PROFESSIONAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS COOPERAIIVE . -. _ ~ . . . -.. - . - - . I . A., - . s, ' 7. - . ' ' q n.‘ .0.. . f '5', , ‘-'. > '-. ."»__' 4'. ._ ‘_$ . EXIENSION ‘ ' -’ " "I ‘ ' '-""'F ' V ‘ .. . .. '1'“) 3"" ), T’.'.‘...’.s.'.'.-..‘1.~~--"'u . -‘ “I ,3‘ ‘ .ac' ’ .,'.-.““>. : ‘1'. . .2 - -_,‘ ;,2 ._l 1; 4‘}; .’a‘- ‘sh R41" - ').'4'. ‘ _ ’I.‘ a ' A‘ &.£‘~‘~ll"- R'ti ll. '_. . ,_ " _ I *1 _ .~ .. «7., had-~- ’. _ 'p ‘ ’3 - fr, "‘3 ‘. ‘ \Q" .7 ‘ ,' -- ' VJ. ',. , ,- ‘ op. . v ' I MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 0 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & COUNTIES COOPERATING FOOD SCIENCE 5 HUMAN NUTRITION-165 ANTHONY HALL‘EAST LANSINGOMICHIGAN 488244225 October 8, 1985 Milton P. Baldauf Assistant Deputy Administrator Home Economics and Human Nutrition USDA Extension Service Washington, D.C. 20250 Dear Dr. Baldauf: Your help is needed. A research study has been designed to determine the food preservation knowledge and attitudes of participants enrolled in the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service Master Canner program. The Master Canner program is designed to train volunteers to assist Extension Home Economists with consumer fooo preservation queSLions and prOgrams. You are one of several experts being asked to review the evaluation instruments which have been deveIOped for this study. Since providing accurate food preservation information to clientele may mean the difference between a safe food and a hazardous one, Master Canners must have thorough knowledge of the bacxground information covered in the training program. Also, since attitudes may play an influential role in determining how information is accepted and applied, it is important to evaluate whether Master Canners possess favorable attitudes toward the use of prOper food preservation procedures and are willing to follow current Extension recomendations. To assess whether our training pragram adequately prepares participants for their volunteer service, I have designed a food preservation knowledge test and attitude instrument. The instruments will be administered to Master Canner participants prior to and upon completion of the six week program. YOur expertise is needed to review these instruments for content and appropriateness for the intended audience. The final knowledge test will contain 30 questions - 5 for each food preservation area: drying, freezing, jelly making and pickling. The canning section will contain 10 questions. For simplicity each section of the test is on a separate page. Please review and comment on each question as necessary. Since 25 questions will need to be eliminated for preparation of the final test, please rank the questions within each area as you see their importance. The t0p five queStions you choose for the final test should represent the basic knowledge expected of volunteers who will be providing information to clientele. Attitude statements should be evaluated on a similar basis. Please indicate any which you feel are not representative or apprOpriate for this audience based on your experiences with clientele. Also, please comment on any which FAMILY LIVING EDUCATION MSU is an Affirmative Aaron/Equal Opponumry ”BUN/"Oh .139 you feel are inapprdpriately stated for use as attitude statements. An attitude scale has been provided in which to indicate responses. The items are intended to represent an array of attitudes held by participants that may reflect upon their performance in the Master Canner program. Please mark those responses which you feel would indicate the reSpondent holds a positive attitude toward food preservation. A detailed example for evaluating the attitude statements is provided on the cover sheet corresponding to that instrument. The instruments will be pilot-tested in early December. To complete revisions and incorporate any suggestions you may have, I would appreciate receiving your comments by November 6, 1985. Should the revisions be extensive I would ask that you also review the final draft of instruments before they are pilot- tested. Thank you for your assistance with this project. A copy of the final instruments and a sumnary of results will be available at your request upon completion of the study. If you have questions about the review process, I can be reached at (517) 355-7686. Sincerely, Penny Ross, M.S., R.D. Extension Food and Nutrition Specialist Michigan State University 165 Anthony East Lansing, MI 48824-1225 PKR/ljh Enclosure APPENDIX H FOOD PRESERVATION KNOWLEDGE TEST 140 APPENDIX H Code FOOD PRESERVATION TEST Directions: Read each question carefully. CIRCLE the letter which corresponds to the best answer for each question. Please answer all questions. If you are unsure of an answer, mark the letter which you think is most correct. C) d) You've just Opened a jar of jam and noticed a small spot of mold on top. You should: stir the mold into the jam until it is no longer visible remove the mold and reprocess the jam scrape off the mold and 1/2 inch of the jam underneath throw the jam away since it is spoiled Pressure canning is necessary for processing low acid foods like: fruits and tomatoes sauerkraut and chutneys fruits and vegetables vegetables and meats The appropriate temperature for long term freezer storage is: 32°F 15°F 10°F 0°F The source of acid in brined pickles is: vinegar bacterial fermentation ascorbic acid lime The main reason for venting a pressure canner is to: remove all air pockets inside the canner make sure the water in the canner is boiling check the gasket for leaks know when to start counting processing time When drying most vegetables, they should be pretreated by: brine soaking blanching sulfuring sulfiting 141 The recommended way to seal jams, jellies and preserves is by: pouring the hot product into a hot jar and putting on the lid inverting the jar to sterilize the lid topping the surface with melted paraffin water bath canning Pressure canning prevents botulism by: forming a vacuum in the jar so botulism spores cannot grow destroying botulism spores so they cannot produce toxin sealing the jars so botulism spores cannot enter destroying nutrients used as food by botulism spores The enzymes that cause ripening changes in vegetables are destroyed by: blanching freezing ascorbic acid evaporation of moisture Which type of processing method should be used to produce the crispest pickles? pressure canning at 5 pounds pressure simmering water bath canning (180-185°F) oven canning steam canning What advice would you give someone who tells you they processed 24 quarts of green beans in a boiling water bath, instead of a pressure canner, about a week ago? throw the beans away without tasting them reprocess the beans immediately in a pressure canner don't eat the beans without first boiling them for 10 minutes be sure and check for signs of spoilage when you open the jars The prOper temperature for oven or dehydrator drying of most foods is between: 140° - 150°F 200° - 220°F 250° - 300°F 325° - 350°F In order to set properly, a jam or jelly must have the correct amounts of sugar, fruit. pectin and: corn syrup gelatin water acid 142 You've just discovered 2 jars did not seal from the batch of carrots you canned this morning. You should: push the lids down and tighten the screw bands to seal the jars recan the carrots and reprocess in a pressure canner discard the carrots and use only those jars that sealed heat the carrots to boiling and repack in hot, sterilized jars before sealing A neighbor tells you he forgot to blanch the vegetables he froze several months ago and wants to know if they are safe to use. You tell him unblanched vegetables: can contain botulism toxin and should be discarded are safe to eat but their quality may be poor require boiling for 10 minutes to destroy bacteria before they are consumed are safe only when used in dishes that are baked at least 30 minutes A distressed friend wants your Opinion on a pickle problem. She carefully followed the recipe but her dill pickles still spoiled. A likely reason might be: she used slicing, rather than pickling cucumbers the pickles were wedged too tightly in the jar hard water was used to make the pickling solution the jars were improperly pretreated Immediately after removing jars from the canner you should: screw the bands down hand tight test for a seal by pressing the dome lid down allow the jars to cool undisturbed check for proper headspace and add liquid if needed The most effective pretreatment to keep fruits from turning dark during drying is: ascorbic acid blanching vinegar-salt soak sulfuring Liquid and dry pectins are not interchangeable in a recipe because: they are added at different times during the cooking process one requires boiling and one does not the type of fruit used determines the type of pectin needed they require different amounts of water Qfi Um vvvv 24. a) b) C) d) 143 You've just opened a jar of home canned tomatoes and noticed a small mold spot on the surface. You should: remove the mold and boil the tomatoes for 10 minutes before eating discard the tomatoes and the tomato liquid remove the mold and tomato liquid before eating the tomatoes discard the top one third portion of the tomatoes before using Begin to count blanching time for vegetables as soon as they: are placed in the pot and the water returns to a boil have been lowered into the boiling water become crisp-tender from cooking are wilted or translucent When making sauerkraut it is important that: the cabbage be checked daily for surface scum white vinegar be used to prevent discoloration the cabbage be exposed to air during fermentation the salt is iodized to inhibit mold growth When celery. onion and green pepper are added to home canned tomatoes, which processing method should be used? steam canning pressure canning water bath canning open kettle canning Properly dried fruits will be: leathery and pliable crisp and brittle sticky and shriveled cracked and hard Jams and jellies sweetened with artificial sweeteners: use less water in the recipe so the heat processing time is longer require Special types of pectins so the product will set properly need to have fruit juice added to produce the proper consistency require the addition of lemon juice to prevent mold growth When using a water bath canner you start to count processing time when: the jars are first placed in the boiling water the water in the canner comes to a rolling boil bubbles rise to the water surface the jars form a vacuum seal 27. a) b) C) d) 29. 144 Your freezer has been off for 24 hours due to a power failure and now you're wondering if the food inside is safe to eat. All of the following are safe food handling practices EXCEPT: repackaging thawed foods in moisture-vapor resistant wrap checking for color or odor changes that may indicate food spoilage refreezing those foods that still contain ice crystals adding dry ice to the freezer to keep the temperature down Someone wants to know if alum should be added to pickles. What would you recommend? don't use alum since it is not needed when good quality ingredients are used add alum because it brings out the flavor in pickles when it is added to the brine use plenty of alum since it controls the growth of spoilage microorganisms only use alum in brined pickles since it promotes fermentation When placing the screwband on a jar that is ready for processing you should: use a hand wrench to get as tight a seal as possible screw the band down with your hand until it is on firmly apply the band loosely so air can freely escape from the jar during processing put the band on loosely before processing and tighten when jars are removed from the canner A suitable container for storing dried foods might be: canning jars with lids fold top sandwich bags paper bags shoe boxes Preserve Now, Eat Later APPENDIX I FOOD PRESERVATION ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE .145 APPENDIX I Code FOOD PRESERVATION ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE YOUR OPINION PLEASE! Directions: This section of the questionnaire deals with feelings and concerns you may have about preserving foods at home. Please place a check (J) in the 933 box for each item that best expresses your feelings. Q) 8 czn .__r c, . M ; >~iw Q) = .0 l r-QJ Q) L - 01‘- S- Q) , i ' CC) 05 a: , ON '0 H - LUV III «- Hv- -v- Q) W'D 'U C nor disagree agree strongly agree 1. I know I used the right procedures when all my canning jars seal. 2. I am afraid to use a pressure canner. 3. Commercially canned foods are less nutritious than home canned foods. 4. I can always tell when a home preserved food is spoiled by the way it looks. 5. Commercial food processing removes most of the nutrients from foods. 6. As long as my home canned foods have unbroken seals, 1 know they are safe to use. 7. Home preserved foods are better for you because they don't have a lot of additives/preservatives. 8. When my traditional food preservation methods work it seems unnecessary to make changes based on updated recommendations by the Cooperative Extension Service. 9. I get a better quality product when I preserve foods at home. .146 strongly disagree disagree neither agree nor disagree agree strongly agree 10. I‘ve used some of the same food preservation methods successfully for years so why change when new recommendations are made. 11. I worry that commercially processed foods have too many additives/preservatives. 12. Using a pressure canner is dangerous. 13. I think traditional food preservation methods are the best because no one I know has ever died from home preserved foods. 14. Commercially frozen foods are less nutritious than home frozen foods. 15. I can always tell when a home preserved food is spoiled by the way it smells. 16. Pressure canning is too complicated. 17. My present food preservation techniques work well so there is no need to make changes. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Allport, G.W. Attitudes. In A Handbook of Social Psychology, C.A. Murchinson, ed. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press, 1935, pp. 798-844. Anonymous. Home freezing of fruits and vegetables. USDA Home and Garden Bulletin number 10. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Anonymous. Botulism outbreak in Michigan. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 26:117-118, 1977a. Anonymous. How to make jellies, jams and preserves at home. USDA Home and Garden Bulletin number 56. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977b. Anonymous. Home canning of meat and poultry. USDA Home and Garden Bulletin number 106. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977c. Anonymous. Drying foods at home. USDA Home and Garden Bulletin number 217. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977d. Anonymous. Canning, freezing, storing garden produce. USDA Agriculture Information Bulletin 410. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977e. Anonymous. Making pickles and relishes at home. USDA Home and Garden Bulletin number 92. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. Anonymous. Home canning of fruits and vegetables. USDA Home and Garden Bulletin number 8. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. Axelson, M. and M.P. Penfield. Food- and nutrition-related attitudes of elderly persons living alone. Journal of Nutrition Education 15:23-27, 1983. Axelson, M.L., T.L. Federline and D. Brinberg. A meta— analysis of food~ and nutrition—related research. Journal of Nutrition Education 17:51-54,1985. 147 148 Baird, P.C. and H.G. Schutz. Life style correlates of dietary and biochemical measures of nutrition. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 76:228—235, 1980. Baker, M.J. Influence of nutrition education on fourth and fifth graders. Journal of Nutrition Education 4:55-58, 1972. Bedgood, B.L. and M.B. Tuck. Nutrition knowledge of high school athletic coaches in Texas. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 83:672—677, 1983. Bell, C.G. and M.W. Lamb. Nutrition education and dietary behavior of fifth graders. Journal of Nutrition Education 5:196-199, 1973. Beyer, N.R. and P.M. Morris. Food attitudes and snacking patterns of young children. Journal of Nutrition Education 6:131-133, 1974. Biltz, P.A. and D.V. Derelian. Changing dietitians’ attitudes toward client counseling. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 73:239—241, 1978. Boren, A., P.N. Dixon and D.B. Reed. Measuring nutrition attitudes of elderly persons living alone. Journal of Nutrition Education 15:23-27, 1983. Boysen, S. and R. Ahrens. Nutrition instruction and lunch surveys with second graders. Journal of Nutrition Education 4:172-175, 1972 Breckenridge, M.E. Food attitudes of five- to twelve-year old children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 35:704-707, 1959. Bruhn, C.M., H.G. Schutz and R. Sommer. Attitude change toward food irradiation among conventional and alternative consumers. Food Technology 40:86-91, 1986. Brush, K.H., D.M. Woolcott and G.F. Kawash. Evaluation of an affective-based adult nutrition education program. Journal of Nutrition Education 18:258-264, 1986. Buckley, C.E., H.A. Saltzman and H.D. Sieker. The prevalence and degree of sensitivity to ingested sulfites. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 75:144-148, 1985. Caliendo, M.A., D. Sanjur, J. Wright and G. Cummings. Nutritional status of preschool children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 71:20—26, 1977. 149 Caliendo, M.A. and D. Sanjur. The dietary status of preschool children: An ecological approach. Journal of Nutrition Education 10:69-72, 1978. Campbell, D. and J. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963. Carmines, E.G. and R.A. Zeller. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1979. Carruth, B.R., M. Mangel and R.L. Anderson. Assessing change-proneness and nutrition-related behaviors. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 70:47-53, 1977. Cattell, R.B. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 4:245-276, 1966. Chein, 1. Behavior theory and the behavior of attitudes: Some critical comments. Psychological Reviews 55:175-188, 1948. Cho, M. and B.A. Fryer. Nutritional knowledge of collegiate physical education majors. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 65:30-34, 1974. Cohen, A.R. Attitude Change and Social Influence. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1964. Cook, C.B., D.A. Eiler and E.G. Kaminaka. How much nutrition education in grades K-6? Journal of Nutrition Education 9:131-135, 1977. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297-334. 1951. Douglas, P.D. and J.G. Douglas. Nutrition knowledge and food practices of high school athletes. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 84:1198-1202, 1984. Dwyer, J., J.J. Feldman and J. Mayer. Nutritional literacy of high school students. Journal of Nutrition Education 2:59-66, 1970. Ebel, R.L. Essentials of Educational Measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979. Edwards, A.L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957. 150 Ehlers, K.M. and H. Fox. Food cooperative shoppers: Nutrition knowledge, attitudes and concerns. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 80:160-162, 1982. Emmons, L. and M. Hayes. Nutrition knowledge of mothers and children. Journal of Nutrition Education 5:134-139, 1973. Eppright, E.S., H.M. Fox, B.A. Fryer, G.H. Lamkin and V.M. Vivian. Nutrition knowledge and attitudes of mothers. Journal of Home Economics 62:327—332, 1970. Fanslow, A.M., J.K. Brun and C. Hausafus. The NATs — Nutrition achievement tests for the elementary grades. Journal of Nutrition Education 13:90-92, 1981. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology 23:487-544, 1972. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. ngief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1975. Fusillo, A.E. and A.M. Beloian. Consumer nutrition knowledge and self-reported food shopping behavior. American Journal of Public Health 67:846-850, 1977. Glass, G.V,, B. McGaw and M.L. Smith. Metajanalysis in Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1981. Gorelick, M.C. and E.A. Clark. Effects of a nutrition program on knowledge of preschool children. Journal of Nutrition Education 17:88-92, 1985. Graves, J.H., S.A. Greninger, J. Vickers, C.L. Bradley and R.K. Young. Nutrition knowledge of vegetarians and non—vegetarians. Journal of Nutrition Education 14:21-26, 1982. Gronlund, N. Constructing achievement tests, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1982. Grotkowski, M.L. and L.S. Sims. Nutritional knowledge, attitudes and dietary practices of the elderly. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 72:499-506, 1978. Guiry, V.C. and C.A. Bisogni. Caffeine knowledge, attitudes and practices of young women. Journal of Nutrition Education 18:16-22, 1986. 151 Hinton, M.A., E.S. Eppright, M. Chadderdon and L. Wolins. Eating behavior and dietary intake of girls 12 to 14 years old. Psychologic, sociologic and physiologic factors. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 43:223-227, 1963. Houston, M.C. Sodium and hypertension. A review. Archives of Internal Medicine 146:179-185, 1986. Hull, C.H. and N.R. Nie. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences: Update 7-9. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981. Jalso, S.B., M.M. Burns and J.M. Rivers. Nutritional beliefs and practices. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 47:263-268, 1965. Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson. Nutrition education’s theoretical foundation. Journal of Nutrition Education l7(Supp.):8-10, 19853. Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson. A meta-analysis and synthesis of nutrition education research. Journal of Nutrition Education 17(Supp.):1l-19, 1985b. Kerrey, E., S. Crispin, H.M. Fox and C. Kies. Nutritional status of preschool children. 1. Dietary and biochemical findings. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 21:1274-1279, 1968. Krause, T.0. and H.M. Fox. Nutritional knowledge and attitudes of physicians. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 70:607-609, 1977. Krech, D., R.S. Crutchfield and B.L. Ballanchey. Individual in Society. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Kuder, G.F. and M.W. Richardson. The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika 2:151-160, 1937. Kuhn, G. How to can food the right way. Agricultural Extension Service, The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1984. Kuhn, G. and E. Andress. Critical review of home preservation literature and current research: Home canning. USDA Final Report, Cooperative agreement no. 12-05-300-553. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983. 152 Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 140:44-53, 1932. Lohr, L.A. and B.R. Carruth. A nutrition attitude instrument for nursing students. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 74:140-145. 1979. Maiman, L.A., V.L. Wang, M.H. Becker, J. Finlay and M. Simonson. Attitudes toward obesity and the obese among professionals. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 74:331-336, 1979. Milton, S.E. and H.M. Fox. Nebraska physicians’ attitudes and practices in the field of infant feeding and nutrition. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 73:416-419, 1978. Morse, E.H., M.M. Clayton and L. Cosgrove. Mother’s nutrition knowledge. Journal of Home Economics 59:667-668. 1967. National Academy of Sciences. The Health Effects of NitrateigNitrite, and N-Nitroso Compounds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1981. Nie, N.R., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner and D.H. Bent. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd. ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. O’Connell, L., B. Shannon and L. Sims. Assessing nutrition-related attitudes and beliefs of teachers. Journal of Nutrition Education 13(Supp.):80-85, 1981. Oppenheim, A.N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1966. Palmer, J.L., G.E. Jennings and L. Massey. Development of an assessment form: Attitude toward weight gain during pregnancy. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 85:947-949. 1985. Perkins, K.L., F.R. Roach and A.G. Vaden. Influence of teachers’ attitudes toward the school lunch program on student participation. Journal of Nutrition Education 12:55-60, 1980. Perron, M. and J. Endres. Knowledge, attitudes and dietary practices of female athletes. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 85:573-576, 1985. Petersen, M.E. and C. Kies. Nutrition knowledge and attitudes of early elementary teachers. Journal of Nutrition Education 4:11-15, 1972. 153 Ross, J.K. Nutrition attitudes and knowledge of nursing students. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 842687-688, 1984. Sabers, P.L. and G.W. White. The effect of differential weighting of individual item responses on the predictive validity and reliability of an aptitude test. Journal of Educational Measurement 6:93-96, 1969. Schwartz, N.E. Nutritional knowledge, attitudes and practices of high school graduates. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 66:28-31, 1975. Schwartz, N.E. Nutrition knowledge, attitudes and practices of Canadian public health nurses. Journal of Nutrition Education 8:28-31, 1976. Schwartz, N.E. and 8.1. Barr. Mothers - their attitudes and practices in perinatal nutrition. Journal of Nutrition Education 9:169-172, 1977. Shaw, M.E. and J.M. Wright. Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Sims, L.S. Dietary status of lactating women. 11. Relation of nutritional knowledge and attitudes to nutrient intake. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 73:147-154, 1978. Sims, L.S. Measuring nutrition-related attitudes: State of the art. In Attitude Theory and Measurement in Food and Nutrition Research, L.S. Sims and J.H. MacNeil, eds. College of Human Development: The Pennsylvania State University, 1980, pp. 69-75. Singleton, N. and D.S. Rhoads. An assessment of the nutrition education of students in grades 3 to 12. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 4:59-63, 1984. Spitze, R.T. Nutrition knowledge of a sample of university-employed men. Journal of Nutrition Education 15:54-55, 1983. Stanley, J.C. Reliability. In Educational Measurement, R.L. Thorndike, ed. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1971, pp. 356-442. Stansfield, P. and H. Fox. Grocers - Nutrition knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Nutrition Education 9:69-71, 1977. 154 Strobl, C.M. and L. Groll. Professional knowledge and attitudes on vegetarianism: Implications for practice. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 79:568-574, 1981. Swanson, J.C. Second thoughts on knowledge and attitude effects upon behavior. Journal of School Health 42:363-365, 1972. Talmage, H. and S.P. Rasher. Validity and reliability issues in measurement instrumentation. Journal of Nutrition Education 13:83-85, 1981. Thorndike, R.L. Educational measurement. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971. Thurstone, L.L. The measurement of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 26:249-269, 1932. Tinkleman, S.N. Planning the objective test. In Educational Measurement, R.L. Thorndike, ed. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971, pp. 46-80. Vickstrom, J.A. and H.M. Fox. Nutritional knowledge and attitudes of registered nurses. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 68:453-456, 1976. Warner, P.D. and J.A. Christenson. The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984. Warwick, D.P. and C.A. Lininger. The Sample Survgy: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Werblow, J.A., H.M. Fox and A. Hennenman. Nutritional knowledge, attitudes and food patterns of women athletes. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 73:242-245. 1978. Wicker, A. Attitudes versus action: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues 25:41-78, 1969. Wolf, 1., E. Zottola and A. Levine. Home canning survey: Special report. Agricultural Extension Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1973. Woolcott, D.M., G.F. Kawash and J.H. Sabry. Correlates of nutrition knowledge in Canadian businessmen. Journal of Nutrition Education 13:153-156, 1981. 155 Yetley, E.A. and C. Roderuck. Nutritional knowledge and health goals of young spouses. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 77:31-41, 1980. Young, C.M., B.G. Waldner and K. Berresford. What the homemaker knows about nutrition. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 32:218-222, 1956. Zar, J. Biostatistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1974. Zimbardo, P.G., E.B. Ebbesen and C. Maslach. Influencing Attitudes and ChanginggBehavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977. Zottola, E., I. Wolf, K. Nordsiden and D. Thompson. Home canning of food: Evaluation of current methods. Journal of Food Science 43:1731-1734, 1978.