ArticleHeliyon2024
Assessing reliability and validity of food safety culture assessment tools.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring Food Safety Culture: A Systematic Review of Questionnaire Dimensions and Validation Practices.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026Pooled it
- Turn-Key Protocols for Food Safety Culture Improvement: A Narrative on Theory and Best Practice.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Prevailing Food Safety and Sustainability Practices in Grocerants: A Cross-Sectional Study in Three Countries.International journal of food science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since its recognition as a plausible direction to assure food safety, food safety culture research has evolved with several commercial and scientific assessment tools developed to evaluate the food safety culture in food businesses. However, existing research does not specify the validity and reliability checks required to demonstrate rigor in the tool development process and there is no unified methodology to confirm robustness of the tools to ensure trustworthiness and usefulness of findings and inferences generated. The purpose of the study was to develop a method to evaluate food safety culture assessment tools and to assess the reliability and validity of existing food safety culture assessment tools using the developed method. Eleven elements were found to be key in validating food safety culture assessment tools. Of the eight tools assessed, only one tool (CT2) was validated on each of the elements. The depth of validation strategies differed for each tool. Three out of the five commercial tools published peer reviewed publications that demonstrated the validation checks that were done. Face validation, and pilot testing were evident and appeared to be done the most. Whilst content, ecological, and cultural validity were the least validated for scientific tools, factor analysis and reliability checks were the least evaluated for commercial tools. None of the tools were assessed for postdictive validity, concurrent validity and the correlation coefficient relating to construct validity. Having an established science-based approach is key as it provides a way to determine the trustworthiness of established assessment tools against accepted methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.