Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction of Singaporean Diners Choi

7/29/2019 Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction of Singaporean Diners Choi

1/23

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [National University Of Singapore]

On: 5 September 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 779896407]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Foodservice Business ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792304001

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction of Singaporean DinersHwansuk Chris Choia; Tanya MacLaurina; Ju-Eun Choa; Sung-Pil Hahmba Tourism Research & Information Laboratory, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management,

University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada b School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Kyung SungUniversity, Busan, Korea

Online publication date: 20 August 2010

To cite this Article Choi, Hwansuk Chris , MacLaurin, Tanya , Cho, Ju-Eun and Hahm, Sung-Pil(2010) 'Food HygieneStandard Satisfaction of Singaporean Diners', Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 13: 3, 156 177

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2010.500225URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2010.500225

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792304001http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2010.500225http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2010.500225http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792304001


2/23

Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 13:156177, 2010Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1537-8020 print/1537-8039 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15378020.2010.500225

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfactionof Singaporean Diners

HWANSUK CHRIS CHOI, TANYA MACLAURIN, and JU-EUN CHOTourism Research & Information Laboratory, School of Hospitality and

Tourism Management, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

SUNG-PIL HAHMSchool of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Kyung Sung University,

Busan, Korea

This study examines issues related to food hygiene and non-hygiene attributes of the foodservice industry, food safety knowl-edge of diners, and their satisfaction with a food hygiene disclosure

system. Using data collected at four food courts and four hawkercenters in Singapore, the results of this study indicate that foodhygiene attributes are a key driver when dining out. Significantrelationships were found to exist between food hygiene attributes

and food safety knowledge of diners and food hygiene stan-dard satisfaction. Non-hygiene attributes exhibited a significantrelationship to food hygiene standards. The study discusses boththeoretical and practical implications of the results for foodserviceoperations and governments.

KEYWORDS food hygiene, food safety knowledge, food safetygrading standard, structural equation modeling, Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Foodservice establishments have had a long history regarding food safetyand hygiene inspection. Poor hygiene and safety procedures, including inad-equate food temperature, inadequate cooking, poor personal hygiene, andcontaminated food and drinking water, have resulted in foodborne illness

Address correspondence to Hwansuk Chris Choi, School of Hospitality and TourismManagement, University of Guelph, 117F Macdonald Steward Hall, 50 Stone Road East,

Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

156


3/23

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction 157

outbreaks at foodservice establishments in both industrialized and less indus-trialized countries (Bucholz, Run, Kool, Fielding, & Mascola, 2002; Irwin,Ballard, Grendon & Kobayashi, 1989). There are more than 200 known food-borne illnesses reported and caused by viruses, bacteria, parasites, toxins,

metals, and prions. Their symptoms range from mild gastroenteritis to life-threatening neurologic, hepatic, and renal syndromes (Mead et al., 1999). Anestimated 1.8 million people died due to foodborne diseases in 2005 (WorldHealth Organization [WHO], 2007).

Accordingly, consumers are highly concerned about foodborne diseasesat foodservice establishments. Responding to this concern, many govern-ments have made a great deal of effort to inspect foodservice establishmentsproperly. Restaurants that fail to meet the minimum requirements and stan-dards of food safety and hygiene can face enforcement penalties. Foodsafety inspectors have a range of options, including voluntary and invol-

untary enforcement action, to ensure that an adequate level of enforcementis available for offending restaurant owners.

A growing number of cities, provinces/states, and countries have intro-duced a letter-grading system for food safety inspection results and websitesto provide inspection results to the public. The grading system providesconsumers with accurate information intended to increase consumer con-fidence. For example, in Toronto, Canada, the Dinesafe inspection systemallows consumers to check the restaurants food safety inspection resultson its website and has obliged restaurant owners to display a colored let-ter grade (green = pass; yellow = conditional pass) on a place clearly

visible to consumers (City of Toronto, 2008). In 2001, Denmark intro-duced the Its in Danish program and posted the inspection results usinga 5-point smiley scheme (ranging from happy to sad) on the website(www.findsmiley.dk). Restaurant owners must display the smiley report(Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries [MFAF], 2008).

Several studies have indicated that a food safety and hygiene standardhelps restaurants adhere to standards and reduces the risk of foodborneillness. Moreover, it helps consumers to choose a safer restaurant, result-ing in increasing revenue for those restaurants that have received high

grades (Cramer, Gu, Durbin, & the Vessel Sanitation Program EnvironmentalHealth Inspection Team, 2003; Jin & Leslie, 2003; MFAF, 2008; Simon et al.,2005). However, relatively little research has been conducted to under-stand consumer perception and behavior toward food safety and hygienestandards.

A few studies have reported that there are some deficiencies. First, theexisting empirical literature is mainly focused on a few countries such as theUnited States, Canada, and Denmarkeven though food safety and hygienestandards have become a key factor in choosing where consumers choose toeat in many countries and influences the level of satisfaction with their dining

experiences (Elder, Ayala, & Harris, 1999; Seo & Shanklin, 2005). Second,


4/23

158 H. C. Choi et al.

the existing literature is almost exclusively descriptive, because the safetyand hygiene standard research is still in its infancy. Worsford (2006) andLeach (2003) investigated the understanding of the publics perception ofhygiene standards in foodservice establishments and their knowledge of the

inspection system by using a descriptive approach. Henson and colleagues(2006) and Dundes and Rajapaksa (2001) explored consumer assessment offood safety (standards) in restaurants.

The objective of this study was to explore and understand relationshipsbetween consumer experiences and satisfaction with food hygiene gradingstandards, and food hygiene and food safety knowledge, regarding food-service establishments in Singapore. Based on a thorough review of theliterature, it is evident that no known study has yet attempted to test a struc-tural model. Thus, this study proposes a theoretical model focusing on thepossible relationships between non-hygiene attributes, hygiene attributes,

food safety knowledge, and satisfaction with food hygiene standards (FHSs).

LITERATURE REVIEW

On a daily basis, people all over the world get sick from the food or bever-age they consume (Dietitians of Canada, 2007; WHO, 2006). This illness isfoodborne disease caused by dangerous microorganisms and/or toxic levelsof chemicals in food or beverages. In industrialized countries, the percent-age of the population suffering from foodborne disease each year has beenreported to be up to 30%. In the United States, approximately 76 millioncases of foodborne disease, resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000deaths, occur each year (Mead et al., 1999). In Canada, about 11 millioncases of foodborne illness are estimated to occur each year, totaling anannual projected cost of $3.7 billion dollars (Majowicz et al., 2004, 2005).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimatedthat a single pathogen, Escherichia coli O157 (O157 STEC), causes approxi-mately 73,000 illnesses annually in the United States, resulting in more than

2,000 hospitalizations and 60 deaths with an economic cost of $405 million(in 2003 dollars), including $370 million for premature deaths, $30 millionfor medical care, and $5 million in lost productivity (Frenzen, Drake, &

Angulo, 2005). Calculations for foodborne illness costs may vary from coun-try to country based on projected costs included. Irrespective of the formulaused or costs included, the projected costs demonstrate the onerous financialburden that foodborne disease can have.

Most foodborne disease is preventable with proper food handling.Measures necessary to ensure that food will not cause harm to the consumer

when it is prepared and/or eaten according to its intended use are defined

as food hygiene, all conditions and measure necessary to ensure the safety


5/23


and suitability of food at all stages of the food chain (Food AgricultureOrganization [FAO], 2008, n.p.).

Restaurants and Food Safety

Commercial foodservice operations have been implicated as the most com-mon site for the origin of foodborne illness (Knight, Worosz, & Todd, 2007).Outbreaks in restaurants account for 31.3% of the total foodborne illnessincidents in Japan (Lee, Lee, Kim, & Park; 2001). A food hygiene mistake ina restaurant serving hundreds or thousands of customers has the potentialto make many people ill. The five main risk factors that contribute to food-borne illness outbreaks in restaurants are improper holding temperature offood, poor personal hygiene of food handlers, inadequate cooking, contam-inated equipment, and unsafe food (Hertzman & Barrash, 2007; U.S. Food

and Drug Administration, 2000).

Consumers Selection Factors for Restaurants

Restaurant consumers have an implicit established expectation that the foodthey eat in restaurants will not make them sick. This expectation is soentrenched that it is assumed and taken for granted. In reviewing the litera-ture, it can be argued that consumers may place food safety under the broadcategory of food quality. Aksoydan (2007) reported that the InternationalUnion of Food Science & Technology (IUFST) defines food quality as foodthat should be safe, fresh, of appropriate size, of nutritional completeness,and free from impurities. Food quality means that food is safe to consume.This relates directly to consumers implicit and implied expectation that foodserved in restaurants is safe and not going to make them sick.

Research studies determining selection factors and their level ofinfluence on consumer restaurant choice can be divided into two broad cate-gories: hygienic and non-hygienic. Non-hygienic factors include price, valuefor money, menu variety, food type, atmosphere, convenience, location,friendliness of the staff, hours of operation, and service. Hygienic factors

encompass all aspects of cleanliness in the restaurant (infrastructure, equip-ment, cutlery and dishes, personnel) and food quality. Research conductedby Mona and Roy, (1999); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Luke (1997); Kivela(1997); Gregoire, Shanklin, Greathouse, and Tripp (1995); Auty (1992), andLewis (1981) found food quality, including food safety and hygiene, to beeither the first or second most important restaurant choice factor.

Although restaurant environment is often classified as a non-hygienefactor, consideration should be given to include it as a hygienic factor.The environment can be an indicator of the restaurants commitment tofood safety standards. The level of cleanliness in the environment affects

the possible opportunities for food to become contaminated or improperly


6/23


handled, resulting in unsafe food. Poor personal hygiene of food handlers,contaminated equipment, and work surfaces provide many possible avenuesfor cross-contamination. Researchers investigating restaurant hygiene selec-tion factors found cleanliness (of the kitchen, equipment, food preparation

and dining surfaces, cutlery, and restrooms) to be an important factorinfluencing restaurant choice (Aksoydan, 2007; Henson et al., 2006; Leach,Mercer, Stew, & Denyer, 2001).

J.D. Power and Associates (2004) found that highly satisfied customersvisit restaurants more frequently, recommend them more often, and spendmore money compared to customers who experience low levels of satisfac-tion, as observed by the Restaurant Satisfaction Study conducted with U.S.dining consumers. Zeithaml and Bitner (1996) defined service quality as thedelivery of excellent or superior service relative to customer exceptions.Based on their definition, a case could be made that safe food is a compo-

nent of the delivery of superior service, meeting consumer expectations andbuilding customer loyalty (Clark & Wood, 1998).

Consumer Food Safety Knowledge and Behaviors

Consumers are becoming more food safety conscious, but often that doesnot translate into increased knowledge or changed behavior (Altekruse,

Yang, Timbo, & Angulo, 1999; Fein, Lin, & Levy, 1995; MacLaurin, 2001).Various segments of a population demonstrate different levels of knowl-

edge and commitment to food safety behaviors. Research conducted withAmerican consumers (Altekruse et al., 1999; Byrd-Bredbenner, Abbot,Wheatley, Schaffner, Bruhn, & Blalock, 2008; Fein, Levy, & Lando, 2002;Kurtzweil, 1999; Williamson, Gravani, & Lawless, 1992) has shown that

young adults (aged 1829 years) and individuals with education beyond highschool are more likely to engage in risky eating behaviors. Byrd-Bredbenneret al. (2008) found that young male respondents consumed more risky foodscompared with females. Altekruse et al. (1999) reported that men were morelikely to report risky practices than women and that the prevalence of mostuncertain behaviors increased with increasing socioeconomic status.

Consumers Using Food Safety Information

As consumers become even more food safety aware and dine out morefrequently, understanding information needs or cues used to make restau-rant selection is vital to understanding consumer choice and raising foodsafety standards and performance of the foodservice industry. Food hygieneschemes are used in numerous countries around the world (Worsfold, 2005a,2005b). There is much debate and no clear consensus on the impact of food

hygiene schemes on consumer behavior. Providing context-specific food


7/23


safety information in the form of inspection notices or grades can have asignificant impact on restaurant choice (Henson et al, 2006; Jones, Pavlin,Lafleur, Ingram & Schaffner, 2004; Simon et al. 2005).

The Los Angeles County restaurant hygiene grade card system was put

into effect in 1998. Researchers have taken an active interest in analyzing itsimpact. Jin and Leslie (2003) found that health inspection scores increased,consumers became aware of changes in the restaurants, and the number offoodborne illness hospitalizations decreased. Simon et al. (2005) calculateda 13.1% decrease in the number of foodborne illness hospitalizations one

year following the implementation of the program. Fielding, Aguirre, andPalaiologos (2001) found that inspection scores continued to rise in thesecond year of the program.

The Toronto Food Premise Inspection and Disclosure System was thefirst of its kind in Canada, starting in 2001 (Thompson, de Burger & Kadri,

2005). Data analysis showed completion dates (number of high-risk premisesinspected) had improved, compliance rates increased, and there was areduction in the infractions that are known to be associated with food-borne illness. A consumer study conducted by the City of Hamilton, Ontario,Canada, found that consumers (N = 321) based their assessment of foodsafety in restaurants using a range of visible indicators, one of which was theposted inspection notice. On a 5-point importance scale, cleanliness of thekitchen, cutlery, dishes, and other equipment was significantly more impor-tant than all other factors. Appearance and/or attitude of staff, inspectionnotice in window, and general appearance were the second most important

group of selection factors (Henson et al., 2006).

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Customer satisfaction is the sum of various factors. Silvestro and Johnston(1990) identified three major factors that influence satisfaction: satisfier, dis-satisfier, and dual-factor. In this sense, a hygiene factor is considered a

dissatisfier if it is incapable of satisfying customers. For this reason, a hygienefactor has garnered minimal attention by hospitality researchers and hasoften been considered a part of the tangible dimension when testing aSERVQUAL model, which has been the subject of some criticism due totheir usability in various settings (e.g., Cronin & Taylor, 1992). Interestingly,Brown, Cummesson, Edvardsson, and Gustavsson (1991) argued that ahygiene factor should be recognized as a dual-factor, either providing greatercustomer satisfaction or becoming a source of dissatisfaction. Johnston(1997) supported this view by identifying cleanliness as an independentdimension of service quality. In addition, various researchers have reported

that hygiene is a key factor in consumers selection of a restaurant and also a


8/23


critical determinant of satisfaction (Auty, 1992; Gregoire et al., 1995; Kivela,1997; Lewis, 1981; Mona & Roy, 1999; Pettijohn et al., 1997).

As mentioned earlier, when consumers select a restaurant and evaluatethe dining experience, several research studies used two broad factor cate-

gories: hygienic and non-hygienic (Elder et al., 1999; Seo & Shanklin, 2005).Non-hygienic factors included price, value for money, menu variety, foodtype, atmosphere, convenience, location, friendliness of the staff, word ofmouth, reputation, and hours of operation and service (Heslop, 2007; Oh,2000; Yksel & Yksel, 2003). These researchers reported that both hygienicand non-hygienic factors are positively related to satisfaction and/or choice.Based on these findings, two hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 1: The food hygiene attributes will have a negative effect onFHS satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: The non-food hygiene attributes will have a positive effecton FHS satisfaction.

In marketing literature, consumer knowledge about products, services,or brand has been extensively discussed and measured using various con-structs and sub-constructs (Akshay & Monroe, 1988; Bettman, 1979; Burt,Shipman, White, & Addington-Hall, 2006; Esch & Langer, 2006; Keller,1993). Past experience, familiarity, and expertise have often been usedas a representation of consumer knowledge (Akshay & Monroe, 1988;

Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). It is noted that consumer knowledge may leadto subsequent actions of the consumer (e.g., satisfaction; Brucks, 1985;Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). In addition, some researchers, such as Rodgers,Negash, and Suk (2005) show that consumer knowledge may mediateand/or moderate the relationship between quality attributes and satisfac-tion. In the context of this study, food safety knowledge refers to overallfood safety knowledge expertise, which includes information about thefunctional attributes of the FHSs, and a high-knowledge consumer isdefined as an individual whose knowledge of overall food safety is high.Therefore, high-knowledge consumers tend to be more satisfied with thehygiene standard system implemented and have richer food safety andhygiene information that can lead to more firmly entrenched beliefs andhigher satisfaction with regard to FHSs. In addition, consumers that con-sider the hygiene factor as a key driver when selecting a food stall arelikely to possess higher knowledge about food safety, whereas consumersthat evaluate the non-hygiene factor as an important issue were less likelyto be knowledgeable on food safety. Thus, food safety knowledge medi-ates the relationship between non-food hygiene and hygiene attributes andsatisfaction.


9/23


Hypothesis 3: Food safety knowledge will have a positive effect on FHSsatisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: The food hygiene attributes will have a positive effect onfood safety knowledge.

Hypothesis 5: The non-food hygiene attributes will have a negative effecton food safety knowledge.

STUDY METHOD

This study was conducted in food courts and hawker centers in Singapore.

Food courts are usually located in shopping malls and are similar to aWestern food court except for the offering of food items. Hawker centersare much different, and are usually an open-air food hall containing anarray of individual food stalls approximately 6 8 feet in size. Many of thehawkers sell only one item, while others offer many items but usually in onemenu category, such as beverages, savory snacks, or sweets.

A mall intercept survey was conducted across four food courts and fourhawker centers in Singapore. Singapore was divided into four geographicsections for the study: north, east, west, and central. The geographic loca-tions of the four food courts and four hawker centers in the different regions

of Singapore provide some amount of generalizability for study results. Thisapproach also provides a broad geographic population spectrum from whichthe sample was drawn.

The study population was drawn using the convenient sampling method(Zikmund, 2003) at each venue due to several preventive factors, includ-ing only off-peak hour allowance from the management and uncooperative

venues.The survey questionnaire was divided into four sections: food safety

knowledge, food hygiene, service quality, and socio-demographics. A pretestwas conducted with undergraduate students (N = 25) at a university inSingapore. The students were asked to evaluate a survey questionnaire onreadability, understandability, and clarity. The food safety knowledge com-ponent consisted of 11 awareness and knowledge items. These items wereoriginally drawn from previous studies, public health agencies, and the foodgrading system (FGS) in Singapore ((Singaporean Ministry of Environment,1997).

The first section of the questionnaire asked respondents to what extentthey agreed or disagreed with each of the 11 food safety and hygiene behav-ior items taken from various studies (Boehnke, 2000; Dundes & Rajapaksa,

2001; Fielding, Aguirre, Spear, & Frias, 1999). Section 2 required respondents


10/23


to rate, in accordance with their personal preferences, how much importancethey assigned to each of the 14 question items concerning restaurant serviceattributes (8 items; adapted from Heslop [2007], Oh [2000], Qu [1997], and

Yksel & Yksel [2003]) and food hygiene attributes (6 items; modified from

Angelillo, Viggiani, Greco, Rito, & the Collaborative Group [2001] and theSingaporean FGS policy [Singaporean Ministry of Environment, 1997]) whenselecting their choice of a food stall. These questionnaire items were alsomeasured using a 5-point Likert-based scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to5 (strongly agree). Section 3 of the questionnaire consisted of seven foodsafety knowledge statements developed based on the Singaporean FGS pol-icy (Singaporean Ministry of Environment, 1997) and taken from Mannings

work (1994) to determine the respondents level of food safety knowledge.The scale used to measure these responses was Likert-based, with 1 signi-fying strongly disagree and 5 denoting strongly agree. Finally, Section

4 was devoted to socio-demographic information that would be used forclassification purposes, including gender, age, marital status, education, typeof occupation, and monthly personal income.

The self-administered questionnaire was distributed by university stu-dents. A 2.5 hour training session was held for all student interviewers,regardless of their previous experiences in similar studies. The training ses-sion included an explanation of the questions on the survey, site set-up,basic interview skills, and informed consent procedure. Interviewers inter-cepted on a convenient sample of food court and food hawker diners atthe exit areas. Potential respondents were approached to participate in the

study when they were about to finish their meals, and diners aged 16 orolder were selected to complete the survey. Participants were asked to tellthe interviewer the grade of the food stall from which they purchased theirfood. If they answer immediately without turning to read the grade, it mightbe assumed that they knew the grade from dining at the stall before or thatthey obtained that information on the day of the completion of the survey.

To avoid the potential bias due to the use of convenient sampling,the intercept surveys were conducted during five full days of the weekand two full days of the weekend. The surveys were mainly carried out

in the afternoon hours during weekdays and in the morning hours duringweekends. A total of 700 self-administered questionnaires were collectedfrom Singaporean patrons, resulting in 688 valid questionnaires.

RESULTS

Among the total of 688 usable questionnaires (Table 1), male participantsaccounted for 55.0% of the total respondents, while female participants

accounted for 45.0%. The age range, for the majority, was under 25 (68.4%).


11/23


TABLE 1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Variables Frequency Percent

GenderMale 378 55.0

Female 309 45.0Marital status

Single 561 81.3Married without children 55 8.0Married with children 74 10.7

Educational LevelHigh school diploma and below 250 36.5College diploma and above 435 63.5

OccupationBlue-collar 60 8.8

White-collar 184 27.0Student 345 50.6Housewife 18 2.6Others 75 11.0

Age24 or younger 472 68.42535 150 21.73645 44 6.44655 18 2.656 or older 6 0.9

Dining frequency per week12 days 205 30.934 days 194 29.256 days 170 25.67 days 95 14.3

In educational attainment, college diploma and above accounted for 63.5%of total respondents. As for marital status, singles accounted for the majority(81.3%). In occupation, students accounted for the majority at 50.6%, fol-lowed by white-collar workers (27.0%). Dining frequency per week amongrespondents was 30.9% for 12 times per week, 29.2% for 34 times per

week, and 25.6% for 56 times per week.Table 2 presents overall results for chi-square tests based on diner

behaviors by gender, marital status, and age. Segmentation factors includedthree age categories: 24 years or younger, 2535 years, and 36 years orolder, as it is expected that younger people are more likely to dine at theseestablishments. Gender and marital status (single and married) were alsoprofiled.

Respondents who were aware of the food hygiene grade posted forthe food stall where they ate accounted for 57.9%, while 42.1% were notsure of, or had forgotten, the grade posted. Awareness of grade posted wasfound to be significantly different associated with marital status (p < 0.05)and age (p < 0.1). These results indicate that married and older age persons

were more likely to care about the food stall grade. This may be attributed


12/23


TABLE 2 Respondents Awareness and Behaviors Toward Food Hygiene (%)

Gender Marital status Age

Variables Overall Male Female Single Married24 or

younger 253536 orolder

Awareness of grade postedYes 57.9 59.0 56.4 55.7 67.5 55.6 59.3 70.8

Not sure/forgot 42.1 41.0 43.6 44.3 32.5 44.4 40.7 29.2

Check grade postedAlways 8.5 8.1 9.1 7.3 14.0 7.0 10.0 16.0

Occasionally 52.2 48.4 56.6 54.0 44.2 54.2 51.3 39.7Not at all 39.3 43.4 34.3 38.7 41.9 38.8 38.7 44.1

Eat at a food stall with Grade DYes 48.3 54.1 40.9 48.7 46.5 47.1 55.0 41.2No 51.7 45.9 59.1 51.3 53.5 52.9 45.0 58.8

Willingness to pay more to eat at a food stall with Grade AYes 22.9 23.5 22.1 21.4 29.7 21.8 20.1 36.8

No 60.8 65.9 54.5 60.6 61.7 57.2 72.5 60.3Dont know 16.3 10.6 23.4 18.0 8.6 21.0 7.4 2.9

Note: Main reasons to eat at a food stall with Grade D: cheap, food taste, no trust in grading system.Main reasons to eat at a food stall with Grade A: healthy, comfortable, feel better, clean, less chance offood poisoning.p < 0.1; p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001.

to health concerns for the older group (36 or older) and wellness concernsof parents for their children.

Only 8.5% of respondents always checked grades posted; 52.2% occa-sionally and 39.3% of respondents never checked the food hygiene grade.Direct significant association (p < 0.1) was observed between gender andage and grade checking behavior. There was also a significant differencebetween marital status and grade checking behaviour (p < 0.05).

Even if the food stall grade was D, 48.3% of participants would eat atthis establishment. The three main reasons a person ate at a food stall witha D grade were that it was cheap, he/she liked the taste, and he/she did nottrust the grading system. Further, eating out at a food stall with a grade D was

found to be directly associated with gender (p < 0.001). Female respondentscared more about the food hygiene grade than males. Altekruse et al. (1999)reported that men were more likely to report risky practices than women.

Only 22.9% of respondents were willing to pay more to eat at a foodstall with an A grade. The main reasons to eat at a food stall graded

A included it was healthy, was comfortable, felt better, was clean, and hadless probability of food poisoning. Willingness to pay more to eat at a foodstall with an A grade was found to be significant, with differences asso-ciated with gender (p < 0.001), marital status (p < 0.05), and age (p 0.10; GFI, AGFI, NFI, CFI > 0.9, RMSEA < 0.05; Byrne,1994; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). The conclusion from variousindicators (GFI = 0.938 > 0.9, AGFI = 0.918 > 0.9, NFI = 0.936 > 0.9,CFI = 0.937 > 0.9, RMSEA = 0.000 < 0.05) is that the test for goodness-of-fitof the theoretical structure of this study is statistically acceptable (Table 4).

The structural model applied the causal relationships among these latentvariables to test the hypotheses (Figure 1). Given the satisfactory fit of the


14/23


TABLE 4 Goodness of LISREL Fit Indices

Chi-square RMSEA GFI AGFI NFI CFI

4,223.546 (p = 0.587) 0.0000 0.938 0.918 0.936 0.937

RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; GFI = Goodness-of-fit Index; AGFI =Adjusted Goodness-of-fit Index; NFI = Norm Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index.

model, the hypotheses were evaluated by examining the estimated struc-tural coefficients. The results are illustrated in Figure 2. Four out of fivehypotheses were supported by the results. The fifth unsupported hypothe-sis tested the relationship between non-hygiene attributes and food safetyknowledge. Hygiene attributes positively affected food safety knowledge(coefficient = 0.859, t = 8.222, p < 0.05) and negatively affected FHS sat-isfaction (coefficient = 0.634, t= 5.29, p < 0.05). Non-hygiene attributes

had a positive influence on FHS satisfaction (coefficient=

1.533, t=

12.626,p < 0.05), whereas food safety knowledge had a positive influence on FHSsatisfaction (coefficient = 0.048, t= 3.686, p < 0.05). However, there was nosignificant direct effect of non-hygiene attributes on food safety knowledge(coefficient = 0.148, t= 1.409, p > 0.05).

To assess the measurement model, all observed indicators were setfree by standardizing all exogenous and endogenous latent variables. Thisprocedure was based on the magnitude of the coefficient matrix (s or s)for latent variables on one observed indicator that was arbitrarily selected asa referent for the latent variables (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993).

The estimated measurement model presented in Table 5 consisted ofsix observed X variables (X1X6) for hygiene attributes, eight observed X

variables for non-hygiene attributes (X7X14), one observed Y variable for

Non-Hygiene

Attributes

Food Safety

Knowledge

Food Hygiene

Standards

Satisfaction

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

Hygiene

Attributes

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model of food safety knowledge and FHS satisfaction.


15/23


FHS

Satisfaction

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X1

X13

X7

X12

X8

X9

X10

X11

X14

Food Safety

Knowledge

Hygiene

Attributes

Non-hygiene

Attributes

Y1Y2

.561

.588

.929

.566

.647

.595

.589

.622

.637

.604

.653

.598

.605

.859(8.222)

.148(1.409)

.634(5.290)

.048(3.686)

1.000

.634

1.000

1.533(12.626)

FIGURE 2 Results of LISREL parameter estimates (notes:1dashed arrow mark indicates that

there is no significance at the p-value < 0.05 between two constructs; 2numbers in figureare parameters standard estimates and numbers in parentheses indicate t-values; 3X1 =hygiene grade obtained, X2 = personal hygiene of hawkers, X3 = food held at appropriatetemperature, X4 = food handlers wear gloves, X5 = use of disposable crockery, X6 = stallis clean and organized, X7 = convenient location, X8 = food taste, X9 = reasonable price,X10 = recommendation by others, X11 = reputation, X12 = preference for particular kindsof food, X13 = attractiveness of the stall, X14 = service attitude, Y1 = average food safetyknowledge score, and Y2 = FHS satisfaction).

food safety knowledge (Y1), and one observed Y variable for FHS satis-

faction (Y2). Overall, the coefficients of factor loading (ij) on the latentconstructs ranged from 0.56 to 0.93. All the standardized estimates of theobserved variables exceeded 0.500, and all the corresponding t-values werestatistically significant (at the 5% significance level). Together, these indicateconvergent validity of measurement variables as designed in this article.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There is some agreement among researchers, government officials, and prac-

ticing managers regarding the value of utilizing a FHS disclosure system in


16/23


TABLE 5 Results of LISREL Parameter Estimates

Paths ParameterStandardestimate

Standarderror t-Value

Food safety knowledge (1) FHS

satisfaction (2)

21 0.048 0.013 3.686

Hygiene attributes (1) food safetyknowledge (1)

11 0.859 0.011 8.222

Non-hygiene attributes (2) food safetyknowledge (1)

12 0.148 0.051 1.409

Hygiene attributes (1) FHS satisfaction(2)

21 0.634 0.032 5.290

Non-hygiene attributes (2) FHSsatisfaction (2)

22 1.533 0.009 12.626

Hygiene grade obtained (X1) hygieneattributes (1)

X11 0.561 0.051 5.749

Personal hygiene of hawkers (X2) hygiene attributes (1)

X21 0.929 0.013 13.645

Food held at appropriate temperature (X3) hygiene attributes (1)

X31 0.566 0.051 5.858

Food handlers wear gloves (X4) hygiene attributes (1)

X41 0.588 0.05 6.354

Use of disposable crockery (X5) hygiene attributes (1)

X51 0.647 0.049 7.699

Stall is clean and organized (X6) hygiene attributes (1)

X61 0.595 0.057 6.509

Location (X7) non-hygiene attributes(2)

X72 0.589 0.058 6.379

Food taste (X8) non-hygiene attributes(2)

X82 0.622 0.051 7.117

Reasonable price (X9) non-hygieneattributes (2)X92 0.637 0.05 7.474

Recommendation by others (X10) non-hygiene attributes (2)

X102 0.604 0.052 6.722

Reputation (X11) non-hygieneattributes (2)

X112 0.653 0.048 7.815

Preference for particular kinds of food(X12) non-hygiene attributes (2)

X122 0.598 0.057 6.574

Attractiveness of the stall (X13) non-hygiene attributes (2)

X132 0.605 0.052 6.744

Service attitude (X14) non-hygieneattributes (2)

X142 0.634 0.05 7.385

Food safety knowledge (Y1) food

safety knowledge (1)

Y11 1 0.089 37.121

FHS satisfaction (Y2) FHS satisfaction(2)

Y22 1 0.089 37.121

foodservice establishments (Fielding et al., 2001; Henson et al., 2006; Jinand Leslie, 2003; Jones et al., 2004; Simon et al., 2005; Thompson et al.,2005; Worsfold, 2005a, 2005b). This study provides empirical support, usinga structural model, for a new approach to understanding consumer percep-

tions toward FHSs by testing relationships with hygiene and non-hygiene


17/23


attributes and food safety knowledge. The results of this study suggest sev-eral conclusions. Particularly, the study results show that patrons who ratedhygiene quality as an important issue were less likely to be satisfied with thecurrent FHS in Singapore, while patrons who evaluated non-hygiene factors

as a key driver in selecting a food vendor were more likely to be satisfiedwith the current hygiene grading system.Surprisingly, the Singaporean patrons were somewhat less aware of

a posted grade and less willing to pay more to eat at food stalls with anA grade. Less than 10% always checked a posted grade, and almost halfof respondents would eat at a food court and hawker center with a Dgrade. Male, single, and younger patrons were more likely to engage inhigher risk food consumption behaviors and had less optimal levels of foodsafety knowledge than other respondents. Singaporean patrons seemedto consider non-hygiene factors, such as food taste, service attitude, and

reasonable price, as more important factors than hygiene factors whenselecting a food stall.

Second, inadequate food safety practices are practiced at many restau-rants. The foodservice industry associations and business owners must beaware that it can be extremely costly to a restaurant implicated with sub-standard performance and can be questionable for sustainable success ofthe entire industry. The Singaporean and other national governments needto rethink a current grade posting system where only a letter grade is postedin many cases. However, a letter grade system does not provide consumers

with enough reliable information to make a better decision. With a letter

grade, the key element of food safety and hygiene inspection results shouldalso be displayed using a 100-point system. This method would provide aneasy way for consumers to understand the inspection results instead of thecurrent ABCD system.

Third, many researchers reported that micro- and small-sized foodser-vice establishments suffered from lack of expertise, employees having a lackof interest and negative attitudes toward food safety and hygiene standards,and financial constraints in maintaining high-quality food safety and hygienestatus (Azanza & Zamora-Luna, 2005; Griffith, 2000; Walker, Pritchard, &

Forsythe, 2003). To overcome this obstacle, and in addition to governmenttraining programs, a responsible safety and hygiene quality assurance(RSHQA) scheme that is an industry-led self-regulation [certification]program would be another alternative. Mandatory government policy andregulation and market-based mechanisms cannot effectively regularize thefoodservice industry and have provided the lack of credibility to the public(Antle, 1995; King & Lenox, 2000; Northen, 2001; Segerson, 1999).

Fourth, industry associations and businesses need to make a great dealof effort to improve food safety culture in foodservice establishments thatmay have both direct and indirect impacts on safety work practices. An

unstable workforce is still a challenge to overcome. When developing a


18/23


program, improving employees knowledge and attitudes toward food safetyand hygiene needs to be considered as a key success factor because thereis an uncontested consensus among researchers that employees proactiveand positive attitude and knowledge make a difference.

Other factors influencing the improvement of safety and hygiene cul-ture are environmental working conditions, safety and hygiene practicesand policies (e.g., training and hazard communication), and general organi-zational climate (e.g., organizational support, coworker support, and partici-pation level by both coworkers and supervisors; DeJoy, Gershon, & Schaffer,2004). DeJoy et al. (2004) insisted that open communication fosters trust

within an organization, and an organization that supports and values itsemployees is more likely to have committed employees. After all, theemployment relationship is basically an exchange relationship (p. 57,emphasis added). The finalbut foremostimportant factor in creating

safety culture within a foodservice establishment is the business ownerscommitment to food safety and hygiene.

No study, including this study, is free of limitations. This study is limitedto Singaporean food courts located in shopping malls and hawker centers.The study intended to maintain the similarity of consumer perception towardfood hygiene while not distinguishing between hawker centers and foodcourts. Further investigation is needed to compare how the type of foodser-

vice establishments affects consumer perception toward food hygiene gradestandards and their behavior in a cross-cultural context. Second, study par-ticipants were not systematically drawn, resulting in a high percentage of

young and student respondents. In addition, due to the data being collectedat food courts and hawker centers, a study station was not changed. Thesetwo limitations have the potential to impede the overall generalizability ofthe findings. Repetition of the study with a random sampling procedure andmore balanced samples would help validate the findings.

This study tested a first-known structural model to better understandconsumers perceptions and knowledge of food safety and hygiene stan-dards within a foodservice establishment context. Future studies are neededto further understand consumer perceptions and behaviors using more com-

plex, multi-variate analyses and modeling based techniques. Based on muchmore reliable findings of academic research in the area of food safety andhygiene, the government, the industry, and business owners can implementbetter food safety and hygiene practices.

REFERENCES

Akshay, R. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowl-edge on cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research,

15(September), 253264.


19/23


Aksoydan, E. (2007). Hygiene factors influencing customers choice of dining-outunits: Findings from a study of university academic staff. Journal of Food Safety,27, 300316.

Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journalof Consumer Research, 13(March), 411454.

Altekruse, S., Yang, S., Timbo, B. B., & Angulo, F. J. (1999). A multi-state survey ofconsumer food-handling and food-consumption practices. American Journal

Preventive Medicine, 16(3), 216221.Angelillo, I. F., Viggiani, N. M. A., Greco, R. M., Rito, D., & the Collaborative

Group. (2001). HACCP and food hygiene in hospital: Knowledge, attitudes, andpractices of foodservices staff in Calabria, Italy. Infection Control and Hospital

Epidemiology, 22(6), 17.Antle, J. M. (1995). Choice and efficiency in food safety policy. Washington DC: AEI

Press.Auty, S. (1992). Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry.

Service Industries Journal, 12(3), 324339.Azanza, M. P. V., & Zamora-Luna, M. B. V. (2005). Barriers of HACCP team members

to guideline adherence. Food Control, 16(1), 1522.Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Boehnke, R. H. (2000). International survey on public posting of restaurant inspec-

tion reports, and/or grade card posting schemes based upon health inspections.Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada: Region of Ottawa-Carleton Health Department.

Brown, S. W., Cummesson, E., Edvardsson, B., & Gustavsson, B. (1991). Servicequality: Multidisciplinary and multinational perspectives. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.

Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information searchbehavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(June), 116.

Buchholz, U., Run, G., Kool, J. L., Fielding, J., & Mascola, L. (2002). A risk-basedrestaurant inspection system in Los Angeles County. Journal of Food Protection,65(2), 367372.

Burt, J., Shipman, C., White, P., & Addington-Hall, J. (2006). Roles, service knowl-edge and priorities in the provision of palliative care: A postal survey of LondonGPs. Palliative Medicine, 20(5), 487491.

Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Abbot, J. M., Wheatley, V., Schaffner, D., Bruhn, C., & Blalock,L. (2008). Risky eating behaviors of young adultsImplication for food safety

education. Journal of the American Dietetics Association, 108(3), 549552.Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows:Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

City of Toronto. (2008). Torontos Dinesafe program. Retrieved May 12, 2008, fromhttp://app.city.toronto.on.ca/food2/index.jsp.

Clark, M. A., & Wood, R. C. (1998). Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industryA preliminary exploration of the issues. International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, 10(4), 139144.

Cramer, E. H., Gu, D. X., Durbin, R. E., & the Vessel Sanitation ProgramEnvironmental Health Inspection Team. (2003). Diarrheal disease on cruise


20/23


ships, 19902000: The impact of environmental health programs. AmericanJournal of Preventive Medicine, 24, 227233.

Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination andextension. Journal of Marketing, 56(July), 5568.

DeJoy, D. M., Gershon R. R. M., & Schaffer, B. S. (2004). Safety climate: Assessingmanagement and organizational influences on safety. Professional Safety, 49(7),5057.

Dietitians of Canada. (2007, December). Microbial food safety and reportedconsumer practices. Current Issues newsletter, pp. 16.

Dundes, L., & Rajapaksa, S. (2001). Scores and grades: A sampling of how collegestudents and food safety professionals interpret restaurant inspection results.

Journal of Environmental Health, 64(5), 1419.Elder J. P., Ayala G. X., & Harris, S. (1999). Theories and intervention approaches

to health-behavior change in primary care. American Journal of PreventiveMedicine, 17(4), 275284.

Esch, F., & Langer, T. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge andrelationships affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product & Brand

Management, 15(2), 98105.Fein, S., Levy, A., & Lando, A. (2002). Food safety survey: Summary of major

trends in food handling practices and consumption of potentially risky foods.Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Retrieved April 2, 2008, fromhttp://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fssurvey.html

Fein, S. B., Lin, C. T. J., & Levy, A. S. (1995). Foodborne illness: Perceptions, experi-ence, and preventive behaviors in the United States. Journal of Food Protection,

58(12), 14051411.Fielding, J. E., Aguirre, A., & Palaiologos, E. (2001). Effectiveness of altered

incentives in a food safety inspection program. Preventive Medicine, 32(3),239244.

Fielding, J. E., Aguirre, A., Spear, M. A., & Frias, L. E. (1999). Making the grade:Changing the incentives in retail food establishment inspection. American

Journal of Preventive Medicine, 17(3), 243247.Food Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2008). Hygiene and fish safety. Retrieved

April 2, 2008, from http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic.12328Frenzen, P. D., Drake, A., Angulo, F. J., & the Emerging Infections Program

Foodnet Working Group. (2005). Economic cost of illness due to EscherichiaColi O157 infections in the United States. Journal of Food Protection, 68(12),

26232630.Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, andcommitment in customer relationships source. The Journal of Marketing, 63(2),7087.

Gregoire, M. B., Shanklin, C. W., Greathouse, K. R., & Tripp, C. (1995). Factorsinfluencing restaurant selection by travelers who stop at visitor informationcentres. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 4(2), 4150.

Griffith, C. J. (2000). Food safety in catering establishmentsSafe handling of foods.New York: Marcel Dekker.

Hair Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariatedata analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.


21/23


Henson, S., Majowicz, S., Masakure, O., Sockett, P., Jones, A., Hart, R., Carr, D., &Knowles, L. (2006). Consumer assessment of the safety of restaurants: The roleof inspection notices and other information cues. Journal of Food Safety, 26,275301.

Hertzman, J., & Barrash, D. (2007). An assessment of food safety knowledge andpractices of catering employees. British Food Journal, 109(7), 562576.

Heslop, L. A. (2007). Literature review of Canadian consumer attitudes and percep-tions. Ottawa, Canada: Consumer Analysis Section, Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada.

Irwin, K., Ballard, J., Grendon, J., & Kobayashi, J. (1989). Results of routine restau-rant inspections can predict outbreaks of foodborne illness: The Seattle-KingCounty experience. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 586590.

J.D. Power & Associates. (2004). Combination of excellent service and a qualitymeal is common among restaurant chains that achieve top marks in cus-tomer satisfaction (Associates Report). Westlake Village, CA: J.D. Power and

Associates.Jin, G. Z., & Leslie, P. (2003). The effect of information on product quality: Evidence

from hygiene grade cards. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(2), 409451.Johnston, R. (1997). Identifying the critical determinants of service quality in retail

banking: Importance and effect. International Journal of Bank Marketing,15(4), 111116.

Jones, T. F., Pavlin, B. I., Lafleur, B. J., Ingram, L. A., & Schaffner, W. (2004).Restaurant inspection scores and food-borne diseases. Emerging Infectious

Diseases, 19(4), 688692.Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with

the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-basedbrand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 122.

King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self regulation without sanctions: Thechemical industrys responsible care program. The Academy of Management

Journal, 43(4), 698716.Kivela, J. J. (1997). Restaurant marketing: Selection and segmentation in Hong

Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(3),116123.

Knight, A. J., Worosz, M. R., & Todd, E. C. D. (2007). Serving food safety:Consumer perceptions of food safety at restaurants. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(6), 476484.Kurtzweil, P. (1999). Keeping food safety surveys honest. FDA Consumer, 33, 1821.Leach J. (2003). A guide to customer perceptions of food hygiene. London: Chadwick

House Publishing.Leach, J., Mercer, H., Stew, G., & Denyer, S. (2001). Improving food hygiene

standardsA customer focused approach. British Food Journal, 103(4),238252.

Lee, W. C., Lee, M. J., Kim, J. S., & Park, S. Y. (2001). Foodborne illness outbreaksin Korea and Japan studied retrospectively. Journal of Food Protection, 64(6),899902.

Lewis, R. (1981). Restaurant advertising: Appeals and consumer intentions. Journal

of Advertising Research, 21(5), 6974.


22/23


MacLaurin, T. (2001). Singaporeans attitudes, perceptions and knowledge of safefood preparation practices. Journal of the Society of Environmental HealthSingapore, 15(4), 2536.

Majowicz, S. E., Dore, K., Flint, J. A., Edge, V. L., Read, S., Buffett, M. C., McEwen,S., McNab, W. B., Stacey, D., Sockett, P., & Wilson, J. B. (2004). Magnitudeand distribution of acute, self-reported gastrointestinal illness in a Canadiancommunity. Epidemiology and Infection, 132(4), 607617.

Majowicz, S. E., Edge, V. L., Fazil, A., McNab, W. B., Dore, K. A., Sockett, P. N.,Flint, J. A., Middleton, D., McEwen, S. A., & Wilson, J. B. (2005). Estimating theunder-reporting rate for infectious gastrointestinal illness in Ontario. Canadian

Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 178181.Manning, C. K. (1994). Food safety knowledge and attitudes of institutional and

temporary foodservice operations. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,94(8), 895897.

Mead, P. S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L. F., Bresee, J. S., Shapiro, C., Griffin,

P. M., & Tauxe, R. V. (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States.Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5(5), 607625.

Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Fisheries (MFAF). (2008). Smileys keep food safetyhigh in Denmark. Danish Veterinary & Food Administration. Retrieved March15, 2008 from http://www.fvst.dk/smiley

Mona, A. C., & Roy, C. W. (1999). Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry.A preliminary exploration of the issues. British Food Journal, 101(4), 317.

Northen, J. R. (2001). Using farm assurance schemes to signal food safety to multiplefood retailers in the U.K. International Food and Agribusiness Management

Review, 5, 3750.Oh, H. (2000). Diners perceptions of quality, value, and satisfaction. Cornell Hotel

and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 5866.Pettijohn, L. S., Pettijohn, C. E., & Luke, R. H. (1997). An evaluation of fast

food restaurant satisfaction: Determinants, competitive comparisons and impacton future patronage. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 2(3),320.

Qu. H. (1997). Determinants factors and choice intention for Chinese restaurantdining: A multivariate approach. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing,2(2), 3549.

Rodgers, W., Negash, S., & Suk, K. (2005). The moderating effect of online experi-ence on the antecedents and consequences of online satisfaction. Psychology &

Marketing, 22(4), 313331.Segerson, K. (1999). Mandatory and voluntary approaches to food safety.Agribusiness, 15, 5370.

Seo, S., & Shanklin, C. W. (2005). Important food and service quality attributesof dining service in continuing care retirement communities. Journal of

Foodservice Business Research, 8(4), 6984.Silvestro, R., & Johnston, R. (1990). The determinants of service quality-enhancing

and hygiene factors. Proceedings of the QUIS II Symposium, St Johns University,New York, July.

Simon, P. A., Leslie, P., Run, G., Jin, G. Z., Reporter, R., Aguire, A., & Fielding,J. E. (2005). Impacts of restaurant hygiene grade cards on food-borne disease

hospitalizations in Los Angeles County. Journal of Environmental Health, 67,3236.


23/23


Singaporean Ministry of Environment. (1997). Food handlers handbook. Singapore:Author.

Thompson, S., de Burger, R., & Kadri, O. (2005). The Toronto food inspection anddisclosure system. British Food Journal, 107(3), 140149.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2000). FDA retail food program data base offoodborne illness risk factors. Retrieved May 28, 2008, from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~acrobat/retrsk.pdf

Walker, E., Pritchard, C., & Forsythe, S. (2003). Hazard analysis critical control pointand prerequisite programme implementation in small and medium size foodbusinesses. Food Control, 14, 169174.

Williamson, D., Gravani, R., & Lawless, H. (1992). Correlating food safety knowledgewith home food-preparation practices. Food Technology, 46, 94100.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2006). Five keys to safer food manual. RetrievedApril 2, 2008, from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/consumer/5keysmanual/en/index.html

World Health Organization (WHO). (2007). Fact sheet No. 237: Food safety andfoodborne illness. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs237/en/

Worsfold, D. (2005a). Protecting consumers: A review of hygiene award schemes.British Food Journal, 107(3), 162172.

Worsfold, D. (2005b). Promoting excellence in food hygiene. Nutrition & FoodScience, 35(1), 614.

Worsfold, D. (2006). Eating out: Consumer perceptions of food safety. InternationalJournal of Environmental Health Research, 16(3), 219229.

Yksel, A., & Yksel, F. (2003). Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restau-rant services: A segment-based approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1),

5268.Zeithaml, V. A., and Bitner, M. J. (1996). Services marketing. Toronto, Canada:

McGraw-Hill International Editions.Zikmund, W. (2003). Essentials of marketing research. Mason, OH: Thompson

South-Western.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jyap62
View:	221 times
Download:	1 times

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction of Singaporean Diners Choi

Documents