- - - -

- -

-

Final Report 

RTI Project No. 0215472 

FSIS Contract No. 

AG 3A94 D 16 0130 

September 23, 2020 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Prepared For Prepared By 

Chris Bernstein Sheryl C. Cates 

Aaron Lavallee Ellen Shumaker 

Carol Blake Jenna Brophy 

USDA, FSIS, OPACE, RTI International 

Food Safety Education Staff 3040 E. Cornwallis Road 

1400 Independence Ave., S.W. Research Triangle Park, NC 

Washington, DC 20250 3700 27709 2194 

Benjamin Chapman 

Lisa A. Shelley 

Rebecca M. Goulter 

Lydia Goodson 

Margaret Kirchner 

Catherine Sander 

Lee Ann Jaykus 

North Carolina State University 

Raleigh, NC 27695 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERNATIONAL RTI _________________________________ 

RTI Project Number 0215472 

Food Safety Consumer Research 

Project: Meal Preparation 

Experiment on Raw Stuffed 

Chicken Breasts 

Final Report 

September 23, 2020 

Prepared for 

Chris Bernstein 

Aaron Lavallee 

Carol Blake 

USDA, FSIS, OPACE, 

Food Safety Education Staff 

1400 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20250-3700 

Prepared by 

Sheryl C. Cates 

Ellen Shumaker 

Jenna Brophy 

RTI International 

3040 E. Cornwallis Road 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Benjamin Chapman 

Lisa A. Shelley 

Rebecca M. Goulter 

Lydia Goodson 

Margaret Kirchner 

Catherine Sander 

Lee-Ann Jaykus 

North Carolina State University 

Raleigh, NC 27695 

RTI International is a registered trademark and a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. 
 

Contents 

Section Page 

Executive Summary ES-1 

1. Introduction 1-1 

1.1 Background and Project Overview ....................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Objectives of NRTE Meal Preparation Experiment..................................... 1-2 

1.3 Organization of Report...................................................................... 1-3 

2. Study Methods 2-1 

2.1 Meal Preparation Experiment Methodology............................................. 2-1 

2.1.1 Research Design.................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.2 Study Procedures................................................................... 2-2 

2.1.3 Pilot Testing.......................................................................... 2-5 

2.2 Recruitment Procedures.................................................................... 2-5 

2.3 Coding of Observation Data and Analysis............................................... 2-8 

2.4 Post-observation Interviews and Analysis .............................................. 2-8 

3. Results 3-1 

3.1 Sample Characteristics ..................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Preparation and Thermometer Use for NRTE Chicken Products .................... 3-8 

3.3 Preparation of Corn and Black Bean Salad ............................................3-14 

3.4 Handwashing Compliance.................................................................3-17 

3.5 Participants’ Responses to Intervention (Treatment Group Only) ................3-23 

3.6 Comparison by Study Year for Control Group Participants .........................3-24 

4. Conclusion 4-1 

4.1 Thermometer Use for NRTE Chicken..................................................... 4-1 

4.2 Thermometer Use for Frozen NRTE Corn ............................................... 4-2 

4.3 Impact of the Food Safety News Segment on Participants’ Behavior ............. 4-2 

4.4 Handwashing................................................................................. 4-3 

References R-1 

iii 
Appendixes 

Appendix A: Transcript of Food Safety News Segment Intervention 

Appendix B: List of Equipment Provided in Each Test Kitchen 

Appendix C: Observation Script and Recipe 

Appendix D: Post-observation Interview Guide 

Appendix E: Screening Questionnaire 

Appendix F: Observation Rubric for Coding Participant Actions in the Kitchen 

Appendix G: Pilot Exploration of Air Pockets 

iv 
 

 

 

 

Figures 

Number Page 

2-1. Study Procedures for Meal Preparation Experiment on NRTE Chicken Products..... 2-3 

2-2. Packaging for NRTE Chicken Product Used in Meal Preparation Study ................ 2-4 

3-1. Packaging for NRTE Frozen Corn Used in Meal Preparation Study ....................3-14 

3-2. Handwashing Compliance before Onset of Meal Preparation...........................3-21 

3-3. Handwashing Compliance during Meal Preparation.......................................3-22 

3-4. Number of Handwashing Attempts per Participant Observation Before and 

During Meal Preparation (All Participants) .................................................3-22 

v 
 

 

 

 

Tables 

Number Page 

1–1. Research Questions, Data Sources, and Location of Results in Report................ 1-3 

2-1. Comparison of the Recruitment Targets with Census Data (2016) and 

Consumption Data for Prepared, Frozen Chicken Products f rom FoodNet 

Population Survey (2006–2007) .............................................................. 2-6 

2-2. Summary of Information Collected in the Post-observation Interviews............... 2-9 

3-1. Sample Characteristics.......................................................................... 3-2 

3-2. Comparison of the Study Sample with Recruiting Targets............................... 3-4 

3-3. Self-Reported Participant Experience with Frozen Breaded Chicken Products 

by Whether Children in Household............................................................ 3-5 

3-4. Observed Preparation of NRTE Chicken Product ........................................... 3-8 

3-5. Responses to Questions on Preparing NRTE Chicken Product Asked in the 

Post-observation Interviews ................................................................... 3-9 

3-6. Visible Temperatures of Participants Who Used Thermometer to Check 

Doneness of NRTE Chicken Products........................................................3-13 

3-7. Observed Preparation of Corn and Black Bean Salad....................................3-15 

3-8. Self-Reported Practices for Preparing Corn and Black Bean Salad....................3-16 

3-9. Handwashing Compliance before Onset of Meal Preparation...........................3-18 

3-10. Handwashing Compliance during Meal Preparation.......................................3-19 

3-11. Treatment Participants’ Responses to Food Safety News Segment Intervention...3-23 

3-12. Comparison of Handwashing Compliance and Thermometer Use for Annual 

Meal Preparation Experiments (Control Group Participants)............................3-25 

vi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) contracted with RTI International and its subcontractor North Carolina State 

University (NCSU) to conduct meal preparation studies to evaluate consumer food handling 

behaviors in a test kitchen. The research team is conducting five separate iterations of the 

meal preparation study. Each iteration addresses a specific consumer behavior and assesses 

the ef fectiveness of a related behavior change intervention. The meal preparation studies 

are part of a larger 5-year annual study that also includes focus groups (two iterations) and 

web surveys (two iterations). This report describes the results of the third iteration of the 

meal preparation study that examined participants’ use of a food thermometer to check the 

doneness of raw stuffed chicken breasts prepared f rom f rozen and also examined the 

ef fectiveness of a related educational intervention about the importance of using a food 

thermometer to check the doneness of not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) f rozen foods. NRTE foods 

are foods that have not been fully cooked during processing and require cooking by the 

consumer for safety. These foods are required to have a label deeming them as not fully 

cooked and that cooking is required to ensure safety. However, these foods may appear to 

be fully cooked, causing some consumers not to cook before consuming and resulting in 

foodborne illness. 

RTI and NCSU conducted the study in a test kitchen facility located in Raleigh, North 

Carolina (Wake County). Before preparing the meal, participants were told the study was 

behind schedule and were asked to wait in the waiting area for 10 minutes. During this 

time, a series of news stories was played on a continuous loop. For the treatment group, the 

loop included a 1:47-minute segment about safely preparing f rozen NRTE foods. The food 

safety news segment communicated that although f rozen NRTE foods may appear ready to 

eat, they are not fully cooked, and the endpoint temperature should be checked with a food 

thermometer to ensure safety. The series of news stories for the control group was similar, 

with the exception that instead of showing the food safety segment, one of the other 

segments was shown twice. Thus, the purpose of this experimental intervention was to 

evaluate the potential impact of proactive media placements USDA achieves throughout the 

year during seasonal outreach. These segments are usually presented to the public in the 

middle of newscasts and when people are preoccupied with other tasks. 

In each of three identical test kitchens, eight cameras recorded participants preparing the 

meal f rom beginning to end. Participants were observed while cooking NRTE f rozen, breaded 

stuf fed chicken breasts and preparing a salad made f rom NRTE f rozen corn, canned black 

beans, and f resh produce. The main outcome variables were (1) whether participants used a 

food thermometer to determine when the NRTE products were done and (2) whether 

participants adhered to other recommended food safety practices throughout the meal 

ES-1 
 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

preparation. Participants participated in a post-observation interview to collect information 

on their usual food preparation practices. A total of 403 people participated in the study 

(197 control, 206 treatment). 

The key findings f rom the study are summarized below: 

▪ The rate of thermometer use was high among both the control (77%) and treatment 

(88%) groups. Among participants using a thermometer, most checked the 

temperature of both chicken breasts. 

– Nearly all participants reported reading instructions on the package before 

preparing the product; the package displayed validated cooking instructions 

provided by the manufacturer that instructed consumers to use a thermometer to 

check for doneness. 

– About 70% of participants did not have experience preparing stuffed chicken 

breasts f rom f rozen, which may have led some participants to read the 

manufacturer’s cooking instructions. 

– In the post-observation interviews, among thermometer owners, nearly half of 

participants said they do not typically use a thermometer when cooking NRTE 

chicken products at home; thus, for some participants,their behavior in the test 

kitchen dif fered f rom their typical practices. 

▪ The most common method to prepare the f rozen NRTE corn for the corn and black 

bean salad was stovetop (58%), followed by microwave (38%). Three percent of 

participants did not cook the corn. 

– Participants reported relying on time (37%) and visual indicators such as steam 

(31%) to determine the doneness of the corn. 

– Few participants used a food thermometer to check the doneness of the corn (1% 

control, 3% treatment). 

▪ Consistent with Years 1 and 2, handwashing compliance was low. 

– About 72% of participants attempted to wash their hands before beginning meal 

preparation. Among handwashing attempts, 5% of attempts contained all steps 

of correct handwashing and were considered successful according to the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention’s criteria. 

– During meal preparation, handwashing was attempted 5% of the time that it was 

required (e.g., af ter touching the NRTE chicken product). There were no 

successful attempts. 

– The most common reason for unsuccessful handwashing attempts was not 

rubbing hands with soap for 20 seconds. 

The results of this study suggest that the food safety segment on safe cooking of frozen 

NRTE products played as part of a series of news stories shown in the waiting room did not 

significantly affect thermometer use. 

– About 40% of the treatment group participants recalled the food safety news 

segment; thus, not all participants received exposure, which is not surprising 

given the more passive nature of the intervention. 

ES-2 
 

 

Executive Summary 

– Among participants who recalled the food safety news segment, about half said it 

influenced their actions in the kitchen in that they used a thermometer to check 

the doneness of the NRTE chicken product, which may have served to reinforce 

what they read on the product packaging. Thus, exposure to the news segment 

may have led to the slightly higher rate of thermometer use among the 

treatment group compared with the control group, although the dif ference 

between the two groups was not statistically significant. 

ES-3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

This report describes the study methods and presents the results f rom a meal preparation 

study related to preparing not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) breaded chicken products f rom f rozen 

that appear to be ready-to-eat (RTE), conducted as part of the Food Safety Consumer 

Research Project. The study, conducted in test kitchens, used an experimental design to 

measure consumers’ adherence to the “cook” message by measuring the f requency with 

which consumers use a food thermometer to check the doneness of raw stuffed chicken 

breasts prepared f rom f rozen between participants who received an educational intervention 

and those who did not. The NRTE study is the third of five iterations of a meal preparation 

experiment in which consumers are observed while preparing meat and poultry products 

regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS). This report details the study design, data collection procedures, and data 

analysis approach and presents the results of the study. Additionally, the report compares 

key behavioral outcomes for Years 1, 2, and 3 of the study. 

1.1 Background and Project Overview 

USDA FSIS’ Of fice of Public Af fairs and Consumer Education (OPACE) ensures that all 

segments of the farm-to-table chain receive valuable food safety information. The consumer 

education programs developed by OPACE’s Food Safety Education Staff inform the public on 

how to safely handle, prepare, and store meat, poultry, and egg products to minimize the 

incidence of foodborne illness. 

OPACE strives to continuously increase consumer awareness of recommended food safety 

practices with the intent to improve food handling behaviors at home. OPACE shares its 

messages through the Food Safe Families campaign, social media, the Meat and Poultry 

Hotline and Ask USDA (an online database of f requently asked food safety questions), the 

FSIS web site, FoodSafety.gov, publications, and events. These messages are focused on 

the four core food safety behaviors: clean, separate, cook, and chill. Additionally, OPACE’s 

public education and outreach initiatives reach vulnerable and underserved populations. 

By testing new consumer messaging and tailoring existing messaging, FSIS can help ensure 

that it is ef fectively communicating with the public and promoting behavior change with a 

goal of improving consumer food safety practices. FSIS contracted with RTI International to 

conduct consumer research over a 5-year period, fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2022. 

RTI is teaming with researchers at North Carolina State University (NCSU) to conduct the 

project. This behavioral research will include observation studies of food preparation in test 

kitchens using an experimental design (five iterations), focus group studies (two iterations), 

and web surveys (two iterations). Each iteration of each data collection activity will address 

dif ferent research questions and use a dif ferent sample of consumers. This research will 

provide insight into the ef fect FSIS consumer outreach campaigns have on consumers’ food 

1-1 
 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

safety behaviors. FSIS will use the results of this research to enhance messaging and 

accompanying materials to improve food safety behaviors of consumers. 

1.2 Objectives of NRTE Meal Preparation Experiment 

Previous research suggests that self-reported data collected through surveys on consumers’ 

food safety practices may be unreliable because consumers tend to overreport their 

behavior (e.g., simply rinsing their hands instead of washing with soap and water for 20 

seconds as recommended) (Redmond & Grif fith, 2003). Because of this limitation, 

observation is of ten a preferred approach for collecting information on consumers’ food 

safety practices. 

Studies that have used direct observation of consumer food handling have reported that 

many consumers commit errors during preparation and self-report actions that are different 

f rom the ones they took (Anderson et al., 2004; DeDonder et al., 2009; Jay, Comar, & 

Govenlock, 1999; Kendall et al., 2004; Redmond, Griffith, Slader, & Humphrey, 2004). The 

results of the meal preparation experiments will help FSIS assess adherence to the four 

recommended food safety behaviors of clean, separate, cook, and chill; determine whether 

food safety messaging focused on those behaviors affects consumers’ safe food handling 

behaviors; and determine whether consumers introduce cross-contamination during food 

preparation for certain raw meat and poultry products. 

Each iteration of the meal preparation experiment addresses a specific consumer behavior. 

The third iteration examined preparation of NRTE poultry products that appear RTE, 

including thermometer use and handwashing practices. Additionally, to provide information 

to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), participants prepared a corn and black bean 

salad to examine preparation of NRTE packaged f rozen corn and washing of f resh produce 

(i.e., cucumbers). A microbiology testing strategy was not included as a component of Year 

3 as it was in the previous 2 years because studies have reported no significant risk for 

cross-contamination posed by the handling of f rozen products themselves given that no 

liquid matrix is associated with these foods (Schaffner & Schaffner, 2007). Additionally, 

using surrogates to inoculate breaded products poses challenges. 

For this study, participants randomized to the control or treatment group (exposed to a 

news segment intervention on safely preparing f rozen foods) were asked to prepare raw 

stuf fed chicken breast cordon bleu f rom f rozen and prepare a corn and black bean salad 

made with packaged f rozen corn. We observed participants throughout the meal preparation 

to determine whether they used a food thermometer, adhered to recommended 

handwashing practices, and safely prepared the f rozen corn and cucumber. Postobservation interviews collected information on participants’ reasons for following or not 

following recommended food safety practices during the meal preparation and their 

response to the intervention (treatment group). 

1-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 1 — Introduction 

Table 1-1 lists the study’s research questions, data sources, and the corresponding section 

of this report with the results of the analysis conducted to address each research question. 

Table 1–1. Research Questions, Data Sources, and Location of Results in Report 

Research Question Data Source Location in Report 

Is the rate of thermometer use on the NRTE 

chicken product and corn higher for the 

treatment group compared with the control 

group? 

Observations Section 3.2, Tables 3-4, 3-6 

Section 3.3, Table 3-7 

What methods are used to determine 

doneness of the NRTE chicken product and 

corn in lieu of a food thermometer for the 

control and treatment groups? 

Observations, postobservation 

interviews 

Section 3.2, Table 3-4 

Section 3.3, Table 3-8 

What is the rate of successful handwashing 

attempts for the control and treatment 

groups? What are the reasons for 

unsuccessful handwashing attempts? 

Observations Section 3.4, Tables 3-9, 

3-10, Figures 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 

What is the rate of washing cucumbers? Observations Section 3.3, Table 3-7 

Did participants recall the food safety news 

segment? If so, did participants report that 

the news segment influenced their actions? 

(treatment group only) 

Post-observation 

interviews 

Section 3.5, Table 3-11 

Did the food safety news segment affect how 

consumers prepare NRTE foods? 

Observations, postobservation 

interviews 

Section 3.2, Table 3-4 

Section 3.3, Table 3-7 

What differences are there between key 

behavioral outcomes for Years 1, 2, and 3 of 

the study? 

Observations Section 3.6, Table 3-12 

1.3 Organization of Report 

This report is organized as follows: 

▪ Section 2 describes the research design, data collection procedures, and analysis 

approach. 

▪ Section 3 presents and discusses the results of the study for thermometer use, 

handwashing compliance, and other behaviors, as well as participants’ responses to 

the intervention. 

▪ Section 4 concludes the report by summarizing the key findings and discussing the 

implications of the study results for OPACE’s consumer food safety education and 

outreach efforts. 

1-3 
 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

The report includes the following appendixes: 

▪ Appendix A: Transcript of Food Safety News Story Intervention 

▪ Appendix B: List of Equipment Provided in Each Test Kitchen 

▪ Appendix C: Observation Script and Recipe 

▪ Appendix D: Post-observation Interview Guide 

▪ Appendix E: Screening Questionnaire 

▪ Appendix F: Observation Rubric for Coding Participant Actions in the Kitchen 

▪ Appendix G: Pilot Exploration of Air Pockets 

1-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Study Methods 

This section describes the methodology for the meal preparation experiment, the 

recruitment procedures, and the approach for coding and analyzing the observations and 

post-interview data. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB control number 

0583-0169, expiration date 6/30/2020) and NCSU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) 

approved the study protocol and materials. 

2.1 Meal Preparation Experiment Methodology 

2.1.1 Research Design 

The third iteration of the meal preparation experiment focused on the food safety behavior 

of “cook,” specifically whether participants used a food thermometer when preparing NRTE 

poultry products f rom f rozen that appear to be RTE. We recruited adult individuals who selfreported preparing f rozen breaded chicken products (such as chicken nuggets or stuffed 

chicken breasts) or who reported having children (0 to 18) who prepared these products 

during the past 6 months. We recruited these individuals to include people who may not 

consume the product themselves but may instruct children on preparing the product. 

Eligible participants were randomly assigned to a control group (no exposure) or a 

treatment (intervention) group. 

Upon arrival for their scheduled appointment, recruited participants were told the study was 

about 10 minutes behind schedule and instructed to sit in a waiting room in which a series 

of news segments played on a looped video. The 8.5-minute loop comprised six separate 

news segments on topics such as vaping and emergency preparedness. The loop for the 

treatment group included a 

1:47-minute news 

segment (shown as the 

fif th story) about safely 

preparing f rozen NRTE 

foods. The video 

comprising news segments 

was developed by OPACE’s 

subcontractor, Subject 

Matter. Other news 

segment topics were 

determined based on 

relevant current topics. 

The food safety news 

segment communicated 

Screenshot of Intervention: News Segment on Safely 

Preparing NRTE Frozen Foods 

Appendix A provides a transcript of the news segment. 

2-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

that although f rozen NRTE foods may appear RTE, they are not fully cooked, and the 

endpoint temperature should be checked with a food thermometer to ensure safety (see 

Appendix A for a transcript of the food safety news segment). The food safety news 

segment showed a variety of f rozen NRTE foods, including stuf fed chicken breasts and 

bagged f rozen corn, as well as products that were not being prepared in the meal 

preparation study (e.g., f rozen peas). The control group was exposed to a similar news 

segment loop, with the exception that instead of showing the food safety news segment the 

segment on adoption of older children was shown twice during the loop. The purpose of this 

experimental intervention was to evaluate the potential impact of proactive media 

placements USDA achieves throughout the year during seasonal outreach. These segments 

are usually presented to the public in the middle of newscasts and when people are 

preoccupied with other tasks. 

This study had the capacity to include up to 400 participants in each iteration of the meal 

preparation experiment. The baseline estimate of thermometer use was obtained f rom 

DeDonder et al.’s (2009) observational study of thermometer use among primary meal 

preparers cooking NRTE chicken, which stated that 19.5% of adults reported using 

thermometers to determine the internal temperature of raw, breaded chicken products. 

Based on this assumption, analysis of minimum detectable effects indicated that the 

intervention would need to be strong enough to encourage an additional 12.6% of the 

treatment group to use food thermometers (h = 0.28) to provide 80% statistical power and 

a 95% level of confidence. Because balanced designs are the most efficient in terms of 

statistical analysis, we randomly assigned half of the participants (n = 200) to the 

treatment group and the remaining 200 participants to the control group. 

2.1.2 Study Procedures 

Figure 2-1 summarizes the study procedures. We conducted the study in a test kitchen 

facility located in Raleigh, North Carolina (Wake County) with three identical test kitchens. 

Each test kitchen has a sink, ref rigerator, and stove/oven and was stocked with the same 

meal preparation equipment (dishes, knives, utensils, cutting boards, thermometer). In 

each test kitchen, eight cameras recorded participants’ actions at various locations 

throughout the kitchen and recorded the meal preparation f rom beginning to end. 

We used convenience sampling to recruit participants using a variety of approaches. Section 

2.2 describes the participant screening criteria and recruitment procedures. Participants 

received a $75 gif t card and gif t (food thermometer, mentioned after the completion of the 

research) for taking part in the 1.5-hour study. Participant recruitment began April 23, 

2019. We conducted observations starting April 29, 2019, and ending September 5, 2019. 

2-2 
 

 

i 

t 

i 

i 

Section 2 — Study Methods 

Figure 2-1. Study Procedures for Meal Preparation Experiment on NRTE Chicken 

Products 

Recruit Participants 

• Control (n=197) 

• Treatment (n=206) 

Cooking Task 

• NRTE frozen, breaded 

stuffed chicken breasts 

• Salad made from NRTE 

frozen corn and fresh 

produce 

Video Recording 

Post-observation 

Interviews 

Coding and 

Notational Analysis 

Final Report and 

Dissemination 

We randomly assigned participants to the treatment or control group when the appointment 

was scheduled with the goal of 200 participants in each group. 

The study team scheduled appointments at the test kitchen location based on kitchen 

availability with observations scheduled during the week, on weekends, and at dif ferent 

times of day (e.g., morning, afternoon, and evening). Once participants arrived at the test 

kitchen, a study team member greeted them and instructed them to read and sign an 

informed consent form. As previously noted, participants were told the study was behind 

schedule and asked to wait in the waiting area for 10 minutes while the news loop was 

2-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel 

KOSA FOODS 

2individually wrapped KEEP FROZEN NET WT. 8 OZ. (227g) 

entrees Enlarged lo show quality serving suggestion after baking 

~~W • fOR fOOD mm, COOKTO A MINIMUM INHRNAl HMPERArnRE Of m'f MEASURED BYA MEATrnERMOMETER 

Back Panel 

Nutrition Facts Serving Size: 1 piece (11 2 g) 

Servings Per Container: 2 

Amount Per Serving 

Calories 210 Calories from Fat 100 

'!ll,,l)allyYalue• 

Tota l Fat 11g 17% 

Saturated Fat 29 10% 

Trans Fat 0g 

Choleaterol 1Dmg 3% 

Sodium 400mg 17% 

Total Carbohydrate 9g 3% 

Dietary Fiber 0g 0% 

Sugars 1g 

Protein 19g 

Vitamin A 2% • Vitam in C 6% 

Calcium 10% Iron 6% 

'Percoo! DailyValues arebasedOfla 2,000 

calorie diet. YourdallyYllluesmaybe 

:::;orlowerdepeodngonyo,.calorie 

2,000 2,500 

.... s.all.ntedFat Lesslhan 2011 Zig 

Ltnlhan lOOmg 300mg 

SOdll.WII wslhan 2,.oomg 2,"°81119 To(.aj Ca1>ahychte lOOmg 375mg 

l:.ttaryfiber ~ llllJ 

116AEIUNTS: CIICKEN8R£ASTW1THRIBM£AT, 

(COOAINIHG UPTO 1('ro <fA SOl.l/TIONCJWATER. RICE 

STAACH, ROAST'EOCHICk:EN, SN..T,HATUIW.FU.VORS, 

SI.W), TM1RlRIZED f'WXESS S'MSS .\NO ,l,MERICNI 

CHEESE(SWISSCHEESE[CU.TURBJMIUANDSKIMMJLK. 

SAL'ENMfSl,AMERICANCHEESE[CULTUREOIIJIJ(AI() 

SKlMMILK.SAU, ENZYlil:Sl,CREAM.SOOIUt.lPmSl't\\TE. 

SALT), A.llYCOO<ED HAM-WATEA .I.DDED iCUFIED WITH 

WATER, SALT, DEXTROSE. SOOIJt.l PmSffilTE, SOOIUt.l 

ASCUIB,l,lE,SOOIIMNITAflE), ENRICl£0BI.E.lffl:DWHEAT 

fLOOR(ENIUCIEDWITHMACIN,REOIJCEDIRCW,THtAMINE 

MOHOfrilTRATI:,ROBCRAVIN.FOUCo\CID), VEGETAll.EOIL 

WATER, CON'JAINS2'r. DA LESS OF DRIED WlfY, l'IHTE 

WltOl.E WIOT R.OOR, IWUY fUUI, YH.LOW CORN 

fLOOR,~TUR.IJ.R.AYORS,SALT.SPICES,PAPRIKAOORACT 

(C(ll)A), BUTTHll,HLKPOYiOER.DEXTROSE, fO,WIOAI() 

PARt.lESANCHEESES(PA.STURIZEOMILK.ctEESECOlnlFIES, 

SAL'ENZl'MESJ, DRIEOYEAST, ORIEOPARSlfY,A/jHATO 

EXTIIACT (CClDA), TUIMERIC EXTRACT (COCOA), 

PREBROWHEDINYE<lETABI..EllL 

CONIAIHS:MILK,WlfAT 

RAW- DO NOT MICROWAVE: to help prevent!ooobcme illness caused by eating raw pou 

CONVENTIONAL ov~ COOKING INSmUCTIONS: ~ 

[)Jet1mblns1ncwa,s,cookingtimesmayvM) \6'Ml~~lV1: QPREHEATOVENto375°f. 

0 P.e1Tl11fe frozen RAW breast(s) from pouch(es). Place each breast AT 

LEAST 2 INCHES APART oo a FUT METAL BAKING SHEET. 

E) Bake inPREHEATEO OVENlor: 

-lml:li!l!lll lmlCllll!ilmll!lmlilllil,I 

F«foodSalety,cookbaMtllllllMINlERNAlTEMPEPATURE 

of165"Fmeasir00bojameatlherm.:meter. 

~

375'f Own Bake .,,, 

INSTRUCTIONS:ffifflmeatlhenrome\efintomeatlayeron ~ Section Wlnaslcooked(seeliag1311j of Breast 

() 

CAUTKIN: 

After bakilg, 

Fill

LfT

ing 

COOL 

wi ll be 

for 

hot 

AT 

and 

LEAST 

may 

3 

splatter 

MINIITES

if not 

betore 

cooled. 

servnQ. ~ 

.. OUR PROMISE TO YOU 

When James Kosa~ed the OOOl'sofhis meat ~arketi~ 1962, he made a promise to his customers- to serve the very best iHl we keep h.s promise today. If you're not completely 

saHsfied,please let us know.and we'I! make you ~PY 

FOR ~IORE INFO ON COOK NG & SAFE HANDLING VISIT 

WWW KOSAFOODS COM 

-

KOSA FOODS 

CONNECT WITH US AT: 

WWW.KOSAFOODS.COM/OURPROMISE 

1-555-555-5555 

Distributed by: 

Kosa Foods, IJlC., Harrisburg, PA 17111 

1-555-555-5555 

SAFE HANDLING 

INSTRUCTIONS TIISl'IXIOCl~l'RDllBlfllllllMffillNf) 

MSS(DMI),JAllll{l»l'(Ulft'.$Cll[RXIIPIOOXIS 

ltlATCIIIWlll£IIIIAlH.\JClUJICAw:11116S J 

T!ll'IXIOClr;MISIWllllltaCOClEDWllftBI. 

F(IY(UI IUKTb. f<ll!JWTlfS[ wt IWllUI(; 

~~ 

~ IUPIAWll(,IIANIJIO.Jl!ll'l'SSUNl 

OOM!!MIFOOIIS.NUHW181NG 

Sla,IC(S(lll(llllN,ClllTIIK;Dlm). ::i::~All(R!OOJ+N; 

~IJXUIDllllillJ. 

lllPIDfOOIISl«IE--.m 

L£fTO'lllSIUIIMIOJOl(ISCAR(). 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

playing. Using a script to ensure 

consistency in delivery (see Appendix 

C for the script), the study team 

member described what participants 

could expect during the study. 

Initially, we told participants the 

purpose of the study was testing a 

new product formulation for a f rozen 

chicken entrée. Consistent with the 

approach used in other observation 

studies, we informed participants of 

the real purpose of the study 

following the post-observation 

interview and why it was important 

f rom a scientific perspective to inform 

them af ter the study was complete1 

(Chapman, Eversley, Fillion, 

MacLaurin, & Powell, 2010; DeDonder 

et al., 2009). 

A study team member instructed 

participants as follows: “The chicken 

entrée is in the f reezer. Please 

prepare it first, and as you would at 

home. For any instructions on how to 

prepare it, please see the package.” 

(the oven was preheated). For the 

salad, participants were provided 

with a laminated recipe card with a 

corn and black bean salad recipe and 

told the location of the ingredients 

(see Appendix C for recipe). A study 

team member pointed out that 

cabinets contained utensils, dishes, 

pans, and cleaning supplies and were 

labeled accordingly (see Appendix B 

for a complete list of equipment 

Figure 2-2. Packaging for NRTE Chicken 

Product Used in Meal 

Preparation Study 

provided in each test kitchen and a picture of one of the test kitchens). The chicken entrée 

1 After being informed of the study’s purpose, participants could opt out of the study and have their 

data excluded from the analysis. No participants chose to opt out of the study. 

2-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 2 — Study Methods 

was packagedto resemble a commercially available product including manufacturer cooking 

instructions and the Safe Handling Instructions (see Figure 2-2). 

Supplementing the observations, we conducted semistructuredpost-observation interviews 

to provide insight into participants’ views, opinions, and experiences during the meal 

preparation experiment. The interviews also collected information on potential behavioral 

antecedents such as concerns about food safety and previous experience with foodborne 

illness. Interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes (see Appendix D for the postobservation interview guide). The total time for the observation and interview was 80 to 90 

minutes. 

2.1.3 Pilot Testing 

Before initiating the full-scale data collection, we conducted pilot studies to test the study 

materials, procedures, and the time allotted for data collection. We conducted the pilot with 

five subjects recruited through mutual acquaintances of NCSU staff working on the project. 

Based on the pilot observations, we made significant changes to the post-observation 

interview guide to remove questions that did not specifically address the study’s research 

questions and to streamline and simplify the interview guide.2 Additionally, we revised the 

script so that participants were instructed to prepare the chicken entrée first in order to 

minimize the length of each observation and participant burden. 

2.2 Recruitment Procedures 

The study team used convenience sampling with quotas to help ensure that study 

participants reflected the demographic characteristics of U.S. consumers who consume 

NRTE f rozen breaded chicken products. We developed demographic quotas primarily based 

on data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention f rom the FoodNet 

Population Survey, 2006–2007, in which respondents were asked whether they consumed 

f rozen chicken strips or nuggets or other chicken products in the past 7 days. We 

supplemented the FoodNet survey data with Census data to inform the quota for household 

status (i.e., presence of children in household, age category, and level of education) and 

also considered our recruitment experience for Years 1 and 2). Table 2-1 compares the 

recruitment targets with the FoodNet survey and Census data. 

2 Because the revisions to the interview guide were significant, it was necessary for NCSU to obtain 

IRB approval for the revised instrument. IRB approval took longer than anticipated; thus, we used the 

original interview guide for the first 206 observations and the revised interview guide for the 

remaining 197 observations. 

2-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Table 2-1. Comparison of the Recruitment Targets with Census Data (2016) and 

Consumption Data for Prepared, Frozen Chicken Products from 

FoodNet Population Survey (2006–2007) 

Recruitment Census FoodNet 

Characteristic Target (%) Data (%) Survey (%) 

Race 

White 69% 73% 69% 

Nonwhitea 31% 27% 31% 

Ethnicity 

Not Hispanic or Latino 91% 83% 91% 

Hispanic or Latino 9% 17% 9% 

Ageb 

<19 NA NA 39% 

18–34 37% 28% 21% 

35–54 48% 36% 25% 

55+ 15% 36% 15% 

Educationc 

Less than high school, high school 30% 40% 30% 

diploma/GED, or technical or vocational school 

Some college 34% 29% 70% 

Bachelor’s degree 22% 19% NA 

Graduate or professional degree 14% 12% NA 

Household statusd 

Family household (children) 48% 66% NA 

Nonfamily household (no children) 52% 34% NA 

a Nonwhite includes Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, other races, or two or more races. 

b For the Census data, the first age category was 20–34 years instead of 18–34 years. For the 

FoodNet data, the first category was less than 19 years (and the second category was 19–34). To 

develop the quotas for age, we allocated 15% to the “55+” category consistent with the FoodNet 

survey data, then split the remaining 85% by the same allocation for the remaining two age 

categories using the distribution from the Census data. 

c For the FoodNet data, the 70% represents respondents with some college or better. To develop the 

quotas for education, we allocated the 70% using the distribution from the Census data for the three 

college categories. 

d For the Census data, family household includes households with children 18 years or younger; 

married-couple families; male householder, no wife; and female householder, no husband. 

Nonfamily household includes people living alone and people 65 years or older. Because FoodNet 

survey data were not available, the quota considers the Census data and our actual recruiting 

experience for the Years 1 and 2 studies. For the current study, we classified a participant as a 

family household if the participant had a child less than 18 years of age living at home. 

NA = not available 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). 2012–2016 American Community Survey 5-year data profiles. 

Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/2016/ 

FoodNet Population Survey data on consumption of frozen chicken strips or nuggets or any other 

frozen chicken product, 2006–2007, were taken from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(2015, May 14). Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet). Retrieved from 

https://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/surveys/population.html 

2-6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 2 — Study Methods 

We recruited participants using social media outlets (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) and online 

advertising platforms (e.g., Craigslist) and by sending emails to Expanded Food and 

Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) participants (to reach low-income consumers). 

Participants had to meet specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were 

as follows: 

▪ age 18 or older 

▪ speak English3 

▪ the participant or their child (18 years or younger) has prepared f rozen breaded 

chicken nuggets or tenders or f rozen stuffed chicken breasts in the past 6 months 

The exclusion criteria were as follows: 

▪ have cooked or worked professionally in a food preparation setting in the past 5 

years 

▪ have received any type of food safety training, such as ServSafe, in the past 5 years 

▪ participated in a study about cooking within the past 2 years 

Recruitment materials directed prospective participants to call or emailthe study team to be 

screened for eligibility or to a web link that hosted the screening questionnaire (see 

Appendix E). For participants screened by phone, we invited eligible participants to 

participate in the study and scheduled an appointment during the screening call. For 

participants who completed the web-based screener, we contacted eligible participants by 

phone, invited them to participate in the study, and scheduled an appointment. 

Appointments were scheduled during work hours, evenings, and weekends to allow for a 

broad participant pool. Af ter an appointment was scheduled, we sent one confirmation email 

and two texts leading up to the scheduled appointment. 

A total of 403 people participated in the study: 197 in the control group and 206 in the 

treatment group. Section 3 provides information on the demographic characteristics of 

participants. The overall eligibility rate (percentage of cases that completed the web-based 

or phone screening and met the eligibility criteria) was 63%. Among the 403 study 

participants, we recruited 71% using social media (Facebook and Twitter), 21% using 

Craigslist, and 8% using other recruiting efforts such as EFNEP email lists. Based on our 

experience with the Year 1 and Year 2 studies, the expected show rate was 80%; however, 

the actual show rate averaged 76%. 

3 The recruiting materials were available in Spanish to reach English-speaking Hispanics, but the study 

was only conducted in English. 

2-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

2.3 Coding of Observation Data and Analysis 

We used notational analysis to assess recorded actions and their f requencies. Notational 

analysis is a generic tool used to collect observed events and place them in an ordered 

sequence (Hughes & Franks, 1997); it has been used to track food safety behaviors because 

it enables the recording of specific details about events in the order in which they occur by 

associating a time stamp with actions (Clayton & Grif fith, 2004). Notational analysis has 

been used in both nonparticipant and participant consumer food safety behavior observation 

studies, as well as participant foodservice observation (Chapman et al., 2010; Clayton & 

Grif fith, 2004; Green et al., 2006; Redmond et al., 2004). 

We developed coding rubrics to characterize the following behaviors: 

▪ thermometer usage and other methods to determine doneness of the NRTE chicken 

product 

▪ method used to prepare the f rozen corn 

▪ method used to wash the cucumber 

▪ handwashing compliance 

A trained coder viewed each video and followed the rubric to indicate level of adherence to 

recommended behaviors while observing participants. Coders were trained by reviewing the 

coding rubric and using practice food safety handling scenarios to compare inter- and 

intracoding reliability. Incorrect and inconsistent coding situations were discussed with 

coders to ensure that proper and consistent training occurred. Appendix F provides the 

coding rubric for thermometer use and handwashing. 

For each behavior of interest, we calculated proportions for the control and treatment 

groups and conducted statistical testing using a chi-squared test for the dif ference in 

proportions between the two groups. We used a p value of ≤.05 to indicate statistical 

significance. 

2.4 Post-observation Interviews and Analysis 

The post-observation interviews collected information on participants’ behaviors while 

preparing the chicken and salad in the test kitchen and their usual behavior at home, 

behavioral antecedents, and other information. Additionally, participants in both groups 

were asked about their recall of the news loop playing in the waiting room and their recall of 

topics addressed in the news segment (unaided recall). For the treatment group, the 

interviewer probed for awareness of the story on safely preparing f rozen foods, if it was not 

specifically mentioned (aided recall). If participants recalled the food safety news segment, 

they were asked if the information influenced their actions in the kitchen during the study 

and whether they believed the information would influence how they cook at home in the 

2-8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 2 — Study Methods 

future. Table 2-2 summarizes the information collected in the post-observation interviews 

(Appendix D provides the interview guide). 

Table 2-2. Summary of Information Collected in the Post-observation Interviews 

Participant Behavior in the Kitchen and at 

Home 

▪ Experience with frozen products, 

including packaged frozen chicken 

products and vegetables 

▪ Washing hands after handling the frozen 

NRTE chicken product during meal 

preparation 

▪ Preparation of the NRTE chicken product 

and food thermometer use 

▪ Preparation of the corn and black bean 

salad (including the method used to 

determine doneness of the frozen corn 

and vegetable washing) 

▪ Concerns about cross-contamination 

when handling frozen NRTE chicken 

products 

Behavioral Antecedents 

▪ Concerns about food safety 

▪ Perception of how common it is for 

people to get food poisoning because of 

the way food is prepared at home 

▪ Confidence in ability to safely prepare 

food at home 

▪ Participant and family experience with 

foodborne illness 

Response to News Segment on Safely 

Preparing Frozen Foods 

▪ Watched any of news segment 

▪ Recalled food safety segment (unaided 

and aided recall) 

▪ Previously aware of recommendation to 

use food thermometer to check 

doneness of NRTE frozen chicken 

products and NRTE frozen vegetables 

▪ Whether food safety segment influenced 

actions during meal preparation (e.g., 

used thermometer, reinforced normal 

practices) 

▪ Whether food safety segment will 

influence actions when cooking at home 

We audio recorded the interviews and had typed transcripts prepared using the service 

TranscribeMe. We coded the transcripts using QSR International NVivo, Version 12 sof tware. 

We assigned a unique case number to each participant to link the screener data and postobservation data. We output the coded data to Excel and tabulated the responses for the 

control and treatment groups. 

2-9 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Results 

This section describes the characteristics of the study sample and presents the results of the 

meal preparation experiment for preparing the NRTE chicken product, including rate of 

thermometer use; preparing the corn and bean salad, including rate of thermometer use for 

the NRTE f rozen corn and produce washing; and handwashing compliance. 

3.1 Sample Characteristics 

Of the 403 participants in the study sample, 80% were female, 62% were White, and 88% 

were non-Hispanic. Participants represented a variety of ages with 39% in the 18 to 34 

years age category, 43% in the 35 to 54 years age category, and 18% in the 55 years or 

older age category. Participants also represented a variety of education levels; 26% of 

participants were in the lowest education level (high school or less/vocational school). More 

than half of participants (53%) had at least one child (≤17 years) living in the household. 

About 47% of participants had at least one individual in the household at risk for foodborne 

illness (i.e., adult aged 60 years or older; pregnant woman; child aged 5 years or younger; 

or individual diagnosed with diabetes, kidney disease, or another condition that weakens the 

immune system) (see Table 3-1). There were no statistically significant differences between 

the control and treatment groups for these demographic characteristics. 

Table 3-2 compares the demographic characteristics of the study sample with the recruiting 

targets that were set for the study (as described in Section 2.2). Overall, the final study 

sample was similar to the targets reflecting the characteristics of people who prepare 

f rozen breaded chicken products. The study exceeded the targets for non-White, Hispanic or 

Latino, and households with children. For age, the study slightly exceeded the targets for 

the 18 to 34 and 55 or older categories, with fewer than the target number of participants 

in the 35 to 54 age category. For education, the study did not meet the target for the lowest 

education level (high school or less/vocational school), 26% vs. the 30% target. 

Table 3-1 also provides information on participants’ experience with and perceptions 

regarding foodborne illness, as reported in the post-observation interviews. These factors 

may influence participants’ food safety behaviors. We saw no significant dif ferences between 

responses to these questions for the control and treatment group participants. Some 

participants in the study sample have had experience with foodborne illness; 47% reported 

they have personally had foodborne illness, and 47% reported a family member has had 

foodborne illness.4 About 70% of participants had concerns about bacteria or 

4 Participants were asked the following questions: “Have you ever had food poisoning?” and “Has a 

family member ever had food poisoning?” Information was not collected on whether the person was 

diagnosed with food poisoning by a health care professional. 

3-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Table 3-1. Sample Characteristics 

All Participants Control Treatment 

Characteristic (n = 403) (n = 197) (n = 206) p valuea 

Gender .3224 

Female 80% (320) 78% (153) 81% (167) 

Male 19% (78) 20% (40) 18% (38) 

Other/prefer not to answer 1% (5) 2% (4) 1% (1) 

Race .2374 

Caucasian or White 62% (250) 66% (130) 58% (120) 

Black or African American 33% (132) 30% (59) 35% (73) 

Other raceb 5% (21) 4% (8) 6% (13) 

Ethnicity .7495 

Not Hispanic or Latino 88% (354) 87% (172) 88% (182) 

Hispanic or Latino 12% (49) 13% (25) 12% (24) 

Age .2575 

18–34 39% (159) 38% (75) 41% (84) 

35–54 43% (173) 41% (81) 45% (92) 

55 or older 18% (71) 21% (41) 15% (30) 

Education .3375 

Less than high school, high 26% (104) 22% (43) 30% (61) 

school diploma/GED, or 

technical or vocational school 

Some college 36% (146) 38% (74) 35% (72) 

Bachelor’s degree 22% (88) 23% (45) 21% (43) 

Graduate or professional 16% (65) 18% (35) 15% (30) 

degree 

Have child 17 or younger living in 53% (212) 50% (98) 55% (114) .2609 

household 

Have at-risk individual living in 36% (144) 35% (69) 36% (75) .7722 

householdc 

Participant has had foodborne 47% (191) 51% (100) 44% (91) .6223 

illness (self-reported) (n = 401) 

Participant’s family member has 47% (191) 42% (83) 52% (108) .0962 

had foodborne illness (selfreported) (n = 401) 

Participant’s level of concern .7535 

about bacteria or viruses being on 

or inside food (n = 401) 

Depends on the food 1% (6) 1% (2) 2% (4) 

1–3 (Not concerned) 10% (39) 12% (23) 8% (16) 

4 (Neutral) 18% (74) 19% (38) 18% (36) 

5–7 (Concerned) 70% (280) 67% (132) 72% (148) 

Answer unclear/unavailables <1% (2) 1% (1) <1% (1) 

(continued) 

3-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3 — Results 

Table 3-1. Sample Characteristics (continued) 

All Participants Control Treatment 

Characteristic (n =403) (n =197) (n =206) p valuea 

Participant’s confidence in ability .4638 

to safely prepare food when 

cooking at home (n = 401) 

1–3 (Not confident) 1% (2) 0% (0) 2% (2) 

4 (Neutral) 12% (25) 11% (11) 13% (14) 

5–7 (Confident) 83% (172) 85% (88) 81% (84) 

Answer unclear/unavailabled 4% (9) 5% (5) 4% (4) 

Participant’s perception of how .5558 

common it is for people to get 

food poisoning because of the way 

food is prepared at home (n = 

401) 

1–3 (Not common) 25% (101) 27% (53) 23% (48) 

4 (Neutral) 51% (206) 49% (97) 53% (109) 

5–7 (Common) 21% (85) 20% (40) 22% (45) 

Answer unclear/unavailabled 2% (9) 3% (6) 1% (3) 

a We calculated p value significance testing using a chi-squared test for the difference between the 

control and treatment groups for each characteristic. Differences are statistically significant if the 

p value is ≤.05. 

b Other race includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander, and two or more races. 

c At-risk populations are people who are 60 years of age or older, children 5 years of age or younger, 

pregnant women, people diagnosed with diabetes or kidney disease, and people diagnosed with a 

condition that weakens the immune system. 

d Participant’s response was not captured clearly in the transcript. 

Sources: 2019 meal preparation experiment—data are from the screening questionnaire or postobservation interview. N = 403 participants coded for screening questionnaire and 401 interviews 

coded for post-observation interview. 

3-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Table 3-2. Comparison of the Study Sample with Recruiting Targets 

Study Sample Recruitment 

Characteristic (N = 403) Target (%) 

Race 

White 62% (250) 69% 

Non-Whitea 38% (153) 31% 

Ethnicity 

Not Hispanic or Latino 88% (354) 91% 

Hispanic or Latino 12% (49) 9% 

Age 

18–34 39% (159) 37% 

35–54 43% (173) 48% 

55+ 18% (71) 15% 

Education 

Less than high school, high 26% (104) 30% 

school diploma/GED, or technical 

or vocational school 

Some college 36% (146) 34% 

Bachelor’s degree 22% (88) 22% 

Graduate or professional degree 16% (65) 14% 

Household status 

Family household (children) 53% (212) 48% 

Nonfamily household (no 47% (191) 52% 

children) 

a Non-White includes Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, other races, or two or more races. 

Note: Responses may not sum to 100% because of rounding. 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—data are from the screening questionnaire. 

viruses being on or inside the food they cook, and 83% expressed confidence in the ability 

to safely prepare food when cooking at home. About 21% perceived that it is common for 

people to get foodborne illness because of the way food is prepared at home. Comparing 

these results with those f rom the 2016 Food Safety Survey, 45% of respondents to the 

national survey believed that it is “very” or “somewhat” common, and 53% believed it is 

“not very common” (Lando et al., 2016);5 thus, a smaller percentage of participants in the 

meal preparation experiment (21%) perceived food poisoning to be common. 

5 The 2016 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Safety Survey was a national telephone survey 

of 4,169 adults (18 years or older). 

3-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3 — Results 

As previously noted, the participant or their child (≤17 years) must have prepared either 

f rozen breaded chicken nuggets/tenders or f rozen stuffed chicken breasts in the past 6 

months to be eligible to participate in the study. Table 3-3 summarizes participants’ selfreported experience preparing these products, presented by whether the participant has 

children living in their household. We saw no significant dif ferences between responses for 

the control and treatment group participants. For participants with children living in the 

household, 97% of all participants had prepared nuggets/tenders in the past 6 months, and 

36% had children who had prepared nuggets/tenders in the past 6 months. About 43% of 

participants prepare nuggets/tenders once a week or more f requently, and 44% of 

participants’ children prepare nuggets/tenders once a week or more f requently. In contrast, 

for participants without children, 92% had prepared nuggets/tenders in the past 6 months, 

and 22% prepare nuggets/tenders once a week or more frequently. 

Table 3-3. Self-Reported Participant Experience with Frozen Breaded Chicken 

Products by Whether Children in Household 

Characteristic 

All 

Participants 

% (n) 

Control 

% (n) 

Treatment 

% (n) p valuea 

Participants with children (0– 

17) in the household 

(n = 212) 

Frozen breaded chicken 

nuggets or tenders 

Participant purchased in past 

6 months 

98% (207) 98% (96) 97% (111) .7775 

Participant prepared in past 6 

months 

97% (205) 97% (95) 97% (110) .8557 

If participant prepared 

(n = 205), frequency of 

preparing 

.1559 

Less than once a month 4% (8) 2% (2) 6% (6) 

About once a month 16% (33) 11% (10) 21% (23) 

Two or three times a 

month 

38% (77) 40% (38) 36% (39) 

About once a week 28% (57) 33% (31) 24% (26) 

More than once a week 15% (30) 15% (14) 15% (16) 

(continued) 

3-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Table 3-3. Self-Reported Participant Experience with Frozen Breaded Chicken 

Products by Whether Children in Household (continued) 

Characteristic 

All 

Participants 

% (n) 

Control 

% (n) 

Treatment 

% (n) p valuea 

Child prepared in past 6 

months 

36% (144) 33% (65) 38% (79) .2622 

If child prepared 

(n = 144), frequency of 

preparing 

.8786 

Less than once a month 10% (15) 9% (6) 11% (9) 

About once a month 12% (17) 9% (6) 14% (11) 

Two or three times a 

month 

33% (48) 34% (22) 33% (26) 

About once a week 25% (36) 28% (18) 23% (18) 

More than once a week 19% (28) 20% (13) 19% (15) 

Frozen stuffed chicken 

breasts 

Participant purchased in past 

6 months 

36% (76) 38% (37) 34% (39) .5916 

Participant prepared in past 6 

months 

34% (71) 35% (34) 33% (37) .7307 

If participant prepared 

(n = 71), frequency of 

preparing 

.8741 

Less than once a month 23% (16) 24% (8) 22% (8) 

About once a month 31% (22) 29% (10) 32% (12) 

Two or three times a 

month 

34% (24) 32% (11) 35% (13) 

About once a week 11% (8) 12% (4) 11% (4) 

More than once a week 1% (1) 3% (1) 0% (0) 

Child prepared in past 6 

months 

4% (15) 3% (6) 4% (9) .4830 

If child prepared (n = 15), 

frequency of preparing 

.1264 

Less than once a month 7% (1) 17% (1) 0% (0) 

About once a month 47% (7) 33% (2) 56% (5) 

Two or three times a 

month 

33% (5) 17% (1) 44% (4) 

About once a week 13% (2) 33% (2) 0% (0) 

More than once a week 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 

(continued) 

3-6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3 — Results 

Table 3-3. Self-Reported Participant Experience with Frozen Breaded Chicken 

Products by Whether Children in Household (continued) 

All 

Participants Control Treatment 

Characteristic % (n) % (n) % (n) p valuea 

Participants without children 

in the household (n = 191) 

Frozen breaded chicken 

nuggets or tenders 

Purchased in past 6 months 93% (178) 92% (91) 95% (87) .4681 

Prepared in past 6 months 92% (175) 91% (90) 92% (85) .7118 

If prepared (n = 175), .9728 

frequency of preparing 

Less than once a month 18% (31) 19% (17) 17% (14) 

About once a month 24% (42) 24% (22) 24% (20) 

Two or three times a 37% (65) 37% (33) 38% (32) 

month 

About once a week 13% (22) 11% (10) 14% (12) 

More than once a week 9% (15) 9% (8) 8% (7) 

Frozen stuffed chicken 

breasts 

Purchased in past 6 months 40% (76) 37% (37) 42% (39) .4790 

Prepared in past 6 months 37% (71) 34% (34) 40% (37) .4013 

If prepared (n = 71), .4684 

frequency of preparing 

Less than once a month 24% (17) 24% (8) 24% (9) 

About once a month 40% (28) 35% (12) 43% (16) 

Two or three times a month 27% (19) 27% (9) 27% (10) 

About once a week 6% (4) 6% (2) 5% (2) 

More than once a week 4% (3) 9% (3) 0% (0) 

a We calculated p value significance testing using a chi-squared test for the difference between the 

control and treatment groups for each characteristic. Differences are statistically significant if the 

p value is ≤.05. 

Note: Participants who did not purchase the product were excluded from the calculations for prepare 

product and frequency of preparing the product. 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—data are from the screening questionnaire. Number of 

participants with children (0–17) in household = 212 (98 control and 114 treatment); number of 

participants with no children (0–17) in household = 191 (99 control and 92 treatment). 

Participants had less experience with preparing stuffed chicken breasts. About 34% (with 

children) to 37% (without children) of all participants had prepared this product in the past 

6 months. Participants do not f requently prepare stuffed chicken breasts; 23% reported 

preparing the product less than once a month, and 31% prepare the product about once a 

3-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

month (for participants with children). Few participants reported that their children prepare 

this product for themselves (n = 15) (see Table 3-3). 

3.2 Preparation and Thermometer Use for NRTE Chicken Products 

Table 3-4 summarizes participants’ observed behaviors for preparing the NRTE chicken 

products, and Table 3-5 summarizes participants’ responses to the post-observation 

interviews regarding their experience in the test kitchen and their normal practices at home 

for preparing NRTE chicken products. 

Table 3-4. Observed Preparation of NRTE Chicken Product 

Behavior 

Control 

(n = 196) 

Treatment 

(n = 205) p valuea 

Participant used thermometer to check doneness 77% (150) 88% (180) .5538 

Among participants who used thermometer 

(n = 330), number of chicken breasts checked 

n = 150 n = 180 .5045 

One 15% (23) 13% (23) 

Two 85% (127) 87% (157) 

Method used to determine doneness .0213 

Only used thermometer 76% (148) 85% (174) 

Only used visual cue (i.e., cut open to look inside) 4% (7) <1% (1) 

Only used touch (e.g., firmness) 3% (6) <1% (1) 

Only used time 16% (31) 10% (21) 

Observed using more than one method, including 

thermometer 

1% (2) 3% (6) 

Observed using more than one method, not 

including thermometer 

1% (2) 1% (2) 

a We calculated p value significance testing using a chi-squared test for the difference between the 

control and treatment groups for each behavior. Differences are statistically significant if the p value 

is ≤.05. 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—coding of food preparation. N = 401 observations coded. 

Cooking Method. Participants received the following instructions for preparing the f rozen 

breaded stuffed chicken breast product (referred to as the NRTE chicken product): “The 

chicken entrée is in the f reezer. Please prepare it first, and as you would at home. For any 

instructions on how to prepare it, please see the package.” In the post-observation 

interviews, nearly all participants (99%) reported reading the instructions on the package 

for information on how to prepare the product, and 84% believed the product was raw or 

partially cooked (see Table 3-5). 

3-8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3 — Results 

Table 3-5. Responses to Questions on Preparing NRTE Chicken Product Asked in 

the Post-observation Interviews 

Total Control Treatment 

Question % (n) % (n) % (n) 

Participant reported reading instructions on 

frozen chicken packaging during meal 

preparation study (n = 401) 

Yes 99% (398) 99% (195) 99% (203) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 1% (3) 1% (1) 1% (2) 

Do you think the chicken product you prepared 

today was raw or fully cooked? (n = 401) 

Raw 69% (278) 73% (144) 65% (134) 

Partially cooked 15% (61) 11% (22) 19% (39) 

Fully cooked 11% (43) 10% (20) 11% (23) 

Unsure 1% (4) 1% (2) 1% (2) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 4% (15) 4% (8) 3% (7) 

Does knowing if a frozen product is labeled as 

fully cooked or raw matter when making 

purchase decisions at grocery store? (n = 208) 

Yes 30% (62) 29% (30) 31% (32) 

No 51% (106) 48% (50) 54% (56) 

Depends on the food 16% (33) 18% (19) 13% (14) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 3% (7) 5% (5) 2% (2) 

If participant had children under 18, would you 

buy the frozen chicken product for them to 

prepare at home? (n = 401) 

Yes 72% (290) 76% (148) 69% (142) 

No 20% (82) 17% (34) 23% (48) 

Maybe 6% (23) 5% (10) 6% (13) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 1% (6) 2% (4) 1% (2) 

How do you know how to prepare frozen chicken 

products? (n = 208) 

Read label 88% (184) 85% (88) 92% (96) 

Prior experience 6% (12) 9% (9) 3% (3) 

Internet/cooking show 1% (3) 1% (1) 2% (2) 

Ask someone <1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (1) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 4% (8) 6% (6) 2% (2) 

(continued) 

3-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Table 3-5. Responses to Questions on Preparing NRTE Chicken Product Asked in 

the Post-observation Interviews (continued) 

Total Control Treatment 

Question % (n) % (n) % (n) 

Method normally used to prepare frozen chicken 

products at homea (n = 401) 

Oven 94% (376) 94% (185) 93% (191) 

Microwave 1% (5) 1% (2) 1% (3) 

Depends on food 2% (8) 2% (4) 2% (4) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 3% (12) 3% (5) 3% (7) 

Self-reported food thermometer ownership 72% (288) 76% (149) 68% (139) 

(n = 401) 

If own thermometer (n = 288), typically use it 

to check doneness of frozen chicken products 

Yes 38% (109) 37% (55) 39% (54) 

No 52% (149) 53% (79) 50% (70) 

Sometimes/depends 10% (30) 10% (15) 11% (15) 

How important do you think it is to use a 

thermometer when cooking frozen chicken 

products? (n = 401) 

Very important 55% (222) 54% (106) 57% (116) 

Somewhat important 32% (127) 30% (58) 34% (69) 

Not important at all 6% (25) 8% (16) 4% (9) 

Don’t know 4% (16) 4% (8) 4% (8) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 3% (11) 4% (8) 1% (3) 

Are you concerned about frozen chicken 

products cross-contaminating other food or 

surfaces in kitchen when cooking? (n = 401) 

Yes 20% (80) 21% (41) 19% (39) 

No 76% (306) 75% (147) 78% (159) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 4% (15) 4% (8) 3% (7) 

a More than one response may be selected, so total may sum to more than 100%. 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—post-observation interviews. N = 401 interviews coded 

for initial interview guide (196 control and 205 treatment) and 208 interviews coded for final 

interview guide (104 control and 104 treatment). 

3-10 
 

 

 

 

 

RAW- DO NOT M ICROWA\IE: to holp prnv1111lfoodbcmc ess caused bl' eating raw im11Y 

1CO-IVENJ l'.INAI. OVEN GOOK! G INSTR:l!JllTtoNS: 

Duell · - ina.o oxting :i,y, 

Q PREHEAT OVEN to 37S6F. 

D01NOJ 

MIClilOWAYE 

f) Rerool'e frc~en RAW ~M l[l)m pw~ll(e~. Pia.re ,each breasl AT 

l.fllST 2 lr«JHES AMITT oo a FLAT Ma.Al. WING S El. 

$ Baloo kl IPII.HEATIED OV9J ror: 

F,or Food S31'81¥, YI a 

of 166'f me.asi.ral t, .i lhemJ:imelw. 

smucn NS: t!Sil1 ~ !!$rnll!lll)l»f i _ rn-eaJ ~ ~ 

aad\ibn3sllffl8d~~I 

0 Almr bal(i)g, l.£T DOOL !or AT LEAST 3 MlNUTES oofore :!l!r!/flQ. 

CAUi' Ott. Filting l'lill be~! -an.I n'!il~ spla~r ii aa! ,1))(11~. 

l75 

fmn&ue 

Only 

~~11 ___, _ _ lfBr~aist 

Section 3 — Results 

The manufacturer’s cooking 

instructions (see sidebar) 

instructed consumers to 

cook the breasts in the 

oven and to use a food 

thermometer to check for 

doneness, including a 

graphic image showing a 

food thermometer (with a 

temperature of 165°F) 

being inserted into a 

chicken breast. These 

instructions are similar to 

those provided on the 

packaging of comparable 

Manufacturer’s Cooking Instructions for NRTE Chicken 

Product Prepared in the Experimental Study 

products available in the marketplace. All participants prepared the NRTE chicken product in 

the oven, as recommended by the manufacturer. In the post-observation interviews, 94% 

reported that they normally prepare similar products at home in the oven; thus, most 

participants followed their normal behavior in the test kitchen regarding preparation 

method. 

Thermometer Use. Control group participants used a food thermometer to check the 

doneness of the NRTE chicken product 77% of the time, and treatment group participants 

used a thermometer 88% of the time. Although the rate of thermometer use was higher 

among the treatment groupcompared with the control group, the dif ference was not 

significantly dif ferent (see Table 3-4). As previously noted, nearly all participants (99%) 

reported reading the instructions on the packaging that provided specific instructions on 

using a food thermometer, which may have encouraged thermometer use. 

Among participants who reported owning a food thermometer prior to the study (n = 288), 

38% reported that they typically use one to check doneness of f rozen chicken products 

when cooking at home, which is much lower than what was observed in the test kitchens, 

suggesting that some participants may not have exhibited their typical cooking practices in 

the test kitchen. The alteration of behavior by study participants because they are being 

observed is referred to as the Hawthorne effect (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1966). Despite 

their reported normal practices regarding thermometer use, 87% of participants reported in 

the post-observation interviews that it was very or somewhat important to use a food 

thermometer to check the doneness of f rozen chicken products (see Table 3-5). 

Number of Chicken Breasts Checked for Doneness. Among all participants who used a 

food thermometer, 14% checked one of the two breasts and 86% checked both breasts, 

3-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

which is the recommended practice. There were no significant dif ferences between the 

control and treatment groups (see Table 3-4). The manufacturer’s cooking instructions did 

not instruct consumers to check the temperature of each breast that was cooked. 

Thermometer Use Among the Treatment Group. Among the 205 treatment group 

participants, 166 participants reported watching the news loop, and among these 

participants, 81 participants recalled seeing the food safety news segment (7% unaided and 

42% aided recall). Among participants who recalled the food safety segment, 90% used a 

thermometer, and 76% checked both chicken breasts. Additional information on the 

treatment group’s response to the intervention is presented in Section 3.5. 

Endpoint Temperatures. When participants used a food thermometer to check doneness 

of the NRTE chicken product, observers obtained the final endpoint temperature when 

possible by viewing the thermometer reading on the video footage. Endpoint temperatures 

were available for 84 of the 330 participants who used a food thermometer to check the 

doneness of the first chicken breast and for 41 participants who used a food thermometer to 

check the doneness of the second chicken breast. In many cases, the temperature on the 

thermometer was not visible on the video footage, so we were unable to obtain temperature 

readings for most participants. Among all participants, 75% of the first chickenbreast’s 

temperature readings were 165°F or above (the recommended temperature), 8% read 

between 165°F and 160°F, and 17% read below 160°F. Eighty-five percent of the 

temperature readings of the second chicken breast read at 165°F or above, 8% read 

between 165°F and 160°F, and 7% read below 160°F. There was not a significant 

dif ference between the control and treatment groups for the temperatures recorded (see 

Table 3-6). The recorded temperatures were the final visible thermometer readings. In most 

cases, this was the final attempt, but in some instances, the participants used a food 

thermometer to check the temperature again, and the reading was not visible. Participants 

also could have continued cooking the product af ter this last recorded temperature reading, 

so we do not know if the chicken measuring below 160°F continued to cook. It is also 

important to note that some participants could have continued to cook the chicken and used 

a subjective measure (such as cutting the chicken breast open to check the color) to 

determine doneness. 

3-12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3 — Results 

Table 3-6. Visible Temperatures of Participants Who Used Thermometer to 

Check Doneness of NRTE Chicken Products 

Control Treatment 

% (n) % (n) p value 

First Chicken Breast .2230 

165°F or higher 75% (30) 75% (33) 

164°F 8% (3) 0% (0) 

163°F 0% (0) 7% (3) 

162°F 0% (0) 0% (0) 

161°F 0% (0) 2% (1) 

160°F 0% (0) 0% (0) 

Less than 160°F 18% (7) 16% (7) 

Total available readings 40 44 

Second Chicken Breast .5161 

165°F or more 80% (16) 90% (19) 

164°F 0% (0) 0% (0) 

163°F 0% (0) 5% (1) 

162°F 0% (0) 0% (0) 

161°F 5% (1) 5% (1) 

160°F 0% (0) 0% (0) 

Less than 160°F 15% (3) 0% (0) 

Total available readings 20 21 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—post-observation interviews. 

Other Methods Used to Determine Doneness. Among participants who did not use a 

food thermometer, the most common method to determine doneness was time, which was 

determined when the participant referred to the timer without any other method to check 

doneness (13% among all participants). Few participants relied on sensory indicators such 

as cutting the breast open to look at the inside or touching it (see Table 3-4). There was a 

statistically significant dif ference between the control and treatment groups for method used 

to determine doneness; more participants in the control group relied on methods other than 

using a thermometer to determine doneness. 

Concern for Cross-Contamination. We asked participants whether they were concerned 

about NRTE chicken products cross-contaminating other foods or surfaces in the kitchen 

during meal preparation. About 76% of participants were not concerned. As previously 

noted, there is no significant risk for cross-contamination posed by handling f rozen products 

themselves because these foods have no liquid matrix associated with them (Schaffner & 

Schaffner, 2007). 

3-13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cut 

corn tresh 11ozoo 

gradeA.tancy 

- ~· ---= 

"' 1&15 -. 

oo,,nd, 4 

dnM'a'..CSa-d~~ VJI'f,~otl:Un'esnl 

....... ==ri:.== 

----

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

3.3 Preparation of Corn and Black Bean Salad 

Participants prepared a side salad made with 

f rozen NRTE corn, fresh cucumber, and canned 

black beans. Participants received the following 

verbal instructions, “For the salad, the beans are 

here on the counter, the salsa and cucumber are 

in the ref rigerator, and the corn is in the f reezer. 

Here’s the recipe for the salad (provide laminated 

sheet with recipe).” (see sidebar for recipe). The 

manufacturer’s cooking directions on the corn 

included directions to prepare on the stovetop or 

the microwave and stated, “Not ready to eat. For 

food safety, cook to an internal temperature of 

Corn and Black Bean Salad 

Ingredients: 

▪ 1 can black beans 

▪ 1⁄2 cup salsa 

▪ 1 cucumber 

▪ 1 cup corn 

Directions: 

1. Drain and rinse the black beans. 

2. Chop cucumber into bite-sized pieces. 

3. Prepare 1 cup corn. 

4. Combine cucumber in bowl with black 

beans, corn, and salsa and mix. 

165°F.” The manufacturer’s cooking instructions did not indicate the need to use a food 

thermometer. Figure 3-1 shows a screenshot of the f ront and back panels of the corn 

package. 

Figure 3-1. Packaging for NRTE Frozen Corn Used in Meal Preparation Study 

Table 3-7 summarizes participants’ observed behaviors for preparing the corn and black 

bean salad, and Table 3-8 summarizes participants’ responses to the post-observation 

interviews regarding their experience in the test kitchen and their normal practices at home 

for preparing salads using f rozen vegetables as an ingredient. 

Cooking Method and Thermometer Use for Frozen NRTE Corn. Among all participants, 

the most common method to prepare the corn was boiling it in water on the stovetop 

(58%), followed by the microwave (38%). Three percent of participants did not cook the 

corn (i.e., took the f rozen corn directly out of the f reezer and mixed it into the salad), which 

is not recommended because the product is NRTE. Few participants (one in the control 

group and seven in the treatment group) used a thermometer to check the corn for 

3-14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3 — Results 

doneness as shown in the food safety news segment (this was demonstrated by inserting a 

thermometer into a bowl of cookedcorn) and as recommended by the manufacturer’s 

instruction to cook to an internal temperature of 165°F. Although the p value indicates 

statistical significance, caution should be exercised in drawing any conclusions because of 

the small number of participants using a thermometer. Among the seven participants in the 

treatment group using a thermometer, all reported awareness of the food safety news 

segment. 

Table 3-7. Observed Preparation of Corn and Black Bean Salad 

Control Treatment 

Behavior (n = 196) (n = 205) p valuea 

Method used to prepare frozen corn .5501 

Stovetop 55% (108) 61% (126) 

Microwave 41% (80) 36% (74) 

Did not cook 4% (8) 2% (5) 

Thermometer used to check doneness of corn 1% (1) 3% (7) .0090 

Method used to wash cucumber .9182 

Rinsed without rubbing or scrubbing 27% (52) 28% (58) 

Rinsed and rubbed surface using hands 48% (95) 47% (96) 

Scrubbed surface using vegetable brush 0% (0) 0% (0) 

Did not rinse or wash 25% (49) 25% (51) 

Cucumber peeling (n = 148) n = 84 n = 64 .4509 

Rinsed and peeled 45% (38) 53% (34) 

Scrubbed and peeled 31% (26) 22% (14) 

Did not wash but peeled 24% (20) 25% (16) 

a We calculated p value significance testing using a chi-squared test for the difference between the 

control and treatment groups for each behavior. Differences are statistically significant if the p value 

is ≤.05. 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—coding of food preparation. N = 401 observations coded. 

In the post-observation interviews, participants said they know how to prepare f rozen 

vegetables by reading the label (66%) and f rom their prior experience (26%). Most 

participants (88%) reported reading the instructions on the corn package during the meal 

preparation study. About 17% of participants (n = 35) reported that they normally use a 

dif ferent method to prepare f rozen corn at home than done during the meal preparation 

experiment. Among these participants, 43% reported that they normally would prepare 

f rozen corn in the microwave, and 17% said they would thaw the corn before putting it in a 

salad or put the corn in the salad without thawing, which are unsafe practices for an NRTE 

product (see Table 3-8). 

Participants said when preparing the corn in the test kitchen, they relied on time (37%) and 

visual indicators (e.g., steam) (31%) to know when the corn was done. As previously noted, 

3-15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

few participants used a food thermometer to check the doneness of the corn during the 

meal preparation study (1% control, 3% treatment). Among the participants using a food 

thermometer during the meal preparation study, only one person said this is something 

they usually do when cooking at home. 

Table 3-8. Self-Reported Practices for Preparing Corn and Black Bean Salad 

Total Control Treatment 

Question % (n) % (n) % (n) 

How do you know how to prepare frozen vegetables?a 

(n = 208) 

Read label 66% (138) 70% (73) 63% (65) 

Prior experience 26% (55) 24% (25) 29% (30) 

“Wing it” 2% (5) 2% (2) 3% (3) 

Depends on vegetable 3% (6) 2% (2) 4% (4) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 2% (4) 2% (2) 2% (2) 

Participant reported reading instructions on corn 

package during meal preparation study (n = 208) 

Yes 88% (182) 83% (86) 92% (96) 

No 10% (21) 13% (13) 8% (8) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 2% (5) 5% (5) 0% (0) 

Participant normally uses different method to prepare 17% (35) 16% (17) 17% (18) 

frozen corn than method used during meal preparation 

study (n = 208) 

If participant reported different method for preparing 

frozen corn at home, method normally used (n = 35) 

Prepare on stovetop 20% (7) 24% (4) 17% (3) 

Prepare in microwave 43% (15) 47% (8) 39% (7) 

Thaw corn before putting in salad 14% (5) 12% (2) 17% (3) 

Put corn into salad without thawing 3% (1) 6% (1) 0% (0) 

Other 20% (7) 12% (2) 28% (5) 

How did you know the corn prepared during the meal 

preparation experiment was done?a (n = 208) 

Time 37% (77) 40% (42) 34% (35) 

Used thermometer 2% (5) 0% (0) 5% (5) 

Visual indicators (e.g., steam) 31% (64) 33% (34) 29% (30) 

Feel (“texture”) 19% (40) 17% (18) 21% (22) 

“Popping” noise made when food is cooked in 3% (7) 4% (4) 3% (3) 

microwave 

(continued) 

3-16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3 — Results 

Table 3-8. Self-Reported Practices for Preparing Corn and Black Bean Salad 

(continued) 

Total Control Treatment 

Question % (n) % (n) % (n) 

Taste 4% (9) 6% (6) 3% (3) 

Smell 6% (12) 6% (6) 6% (6) 

Other response 2% (4) 3% (3) 1% (1) 

Answer unclear/unavailable 7% (15) 7% (7) 8% (8) 

Did not cook/no need to cook 3% (7) 4% (4) 3% (3) 

a More than one response may be selected, so total may sum to more than 100%. 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—post-observation interviews. N = 208 interviews coded 

for final interview guide (104 control and 104 treatment). 

Washing Method for Cucumber. The most common method used to wash the cucumber 

was to rinse and scrub the surface using hands (48% of participants), followed by rinsing 

without rubbing or scrubbing (27%). Twenty-five percent of participants did not rinse or 

wash the cucumber. FDA recommends scrubbing the surface of firm produce, such as 

melons and cucumbers, using a vegetable brush (FDA, 2018) (see Table 3-7). Among 

participants who peeled the cucumber (n = 148), 24% did not wash the cucumber before 

peeling it. 

3.4 Handwashing Compliance 

Inadequate handwashing has been identified as a contributing factor to foodborne illness, 

especially when preparing raw meat and poultry. Hands can become vectors that move 

pathogens around sites for foodborne pathogens found in raw meat and poultry and that 

contribute to home-acquired foodborne illnesses. Frequency and level of contamination of 

hands have not been well studied. The food safety news segment did not provide 

information on proper handwashing. 

The total handwashing events required per observation were determined during the coding 

for each observation. A handwashing event was required for each of the following instances: 

▪ before onset of food preparation 

▪ anytime between touching the packaging for the NRTE chicken product and then 

touching a dif ferent item 

▪ af ter touching another person or self 

▪ af ter touching cell phone 

▪ af ter multitasking (chores) 

▪ af ter touching contaminated (post-meal) trash or trash can 

3-17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

The total number of attempts per observation was the number of times a participant 

washed their hands. Each handwashing event was coded as successful or unsuccessful 

based on CDC’s criteria: wet hands with water; rub hands with soap for at least 20 seconds; 

rinse hands with water; and dry hands using a clean, one-use towel. For example, 

participant 001T was required to wash her hands nine times but attempted only two times. 

Of these two times, neither was coded as successful because she did not rub her hands with 

soap for a total of 20 seconds. Our analysis only considered compliance with CDC’s 

handwashing criteria; we did not consider risk reduction f rom participants following some 

but not all required steps of a successful handwashing event. 

It is estimated that proper handwashing results in approximately 1 log reduction (Montville, 

Chen, & Schaf fner, 2002). Among all participants, 72% attempted to wash hands before 

beginning meal preparation (see Table 3-9). Among handwashing attempts, 5% of attempts 

contained all steps of a correct handwashing event according to CDC’s criteria and were 

considered successful attempts. The most common reason for unsuccessful handwashing 

was not rubbing hands with soap for at least 20 seconds (93% in the control group and 

89% in the treatment group), followed by not wetting hands with water (69% in the control 

group and 62% in the treatment group). Eight percent of attempts did not include proper 

drying with a one-use towel. Both dish/hand towels and paper towels were provided. Drying 

hands using a clean, one-use towel is an important step in handwashing because it can 

physically remove microbes and contaminants f rom hands, resulting in up to 1 additional log 

reduction (Huang, Ma, & Stack, 2012). There were no statistically significant differences 

between the two groups. 

Table 3-9. Handwashing Compliance before Onset of Meal Preparation 

Control Treatment p 

(n = 196) (n = 205) valuea 

Did not attempt 29% (56) 27% (56) .7192 

Attemptsb 71% (140) 73% (149) 

Successful attemptsc 4% (6) 5% (8) .5700 

Unsuccessful attempts 96% (134) 95% (141) 

Reasons for unsuccessful attemptd 

Did not wet hands with water 69% (93) 62% (87) .8988 

Did not use soap 1% (2) 1% (1) .5918 

Did not rub hands with soap for at least 20 seconds 93% (125) 89% (125) .7059 

Did not rinse hands with water 3% (4) 1% (2) .4483 

Did not dry hands 4% (5) 1% (2) .2841 

(continued) 

3-18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3 — Results 

Table 3-9. Handwashing Compliance before Onset of Meal Preparation 

(continued) 

Control Treatment p 

(n = 196) (n = 205) valuea 

Dried hands with surface other than clean, one-use towel 5% (7) 6% (8) .7528 

(e.g., wiped hands on clothing or used previously used 

towel) 

a We calculated p value significance testing using a chi-squared test for the difference between the 

control and treatment groups for handwashing compliance. Differences are statistically significant if 

the p value is ≤.05. 

b “Attempt” was defined as any time that a participant appeared to wash their hands; the attempt 

could be successful or unsuccessful. 

c A successful attempt was defined as a participant meeting all of the CDC criteria for handwashing: 

wet hands with water; rub hands with soap for at least 20 seconds; rinse hands with water; and dry 

hands using a clean, one-use towel. 

d There may be multiple reasons for unsuccessful attempts, so the total may sum to more than 100%. 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—coding of food preparation. N = 401 observations coded. 

We observed 1,003 cases in which a handwashing event was required to prevent crosscontamination during meal preparation. Required handwashing events varied by person 

based on each participant’s handling behaviors; as a result, some participants had a greater 

number of required handwashing events than others (e.g., touched the packaging of the 

NRTE chicken product more of ten). Of these 1,003 cases, handwashing was not attempted 

most of the time (95%). Among the 47 handwashing events attempted, only one event 

resulted in correct handwashing according to CDC’s criteria (see Table 3-10). None of the 

unsuccessful attempts included rubbing hands with soap for at least 20 seconds. 

Table 3-10. Handwashing Compliance during Meal Preparation 

Control Treatment 

(n = 196) (n = 205) p valuea 

Handwashing event required (n = 1,003) 499 504 

Did not attempt 97% (482) 94% (474) .6797 

Attemptsb 3% (17) 6% (30) 

Successful attemptsc 0% (0) 3% (1) .4285 

Unsuccessful attempts 100% (17) 97% (29) 

Reasons for unsuccessful attemptd 

Did not wet hands with water 47% (8) 48% (14) .5672 

Did not use soap 6% (1) 7% (2) .5683 

Did not rub hands with soap for at least 20 100% (17) 100% (29) .4519 

seconds 

Did not rinse hands with water 35% (6) 7% (2) .0620 

(continued) 

3-19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Table 3-10. Handwashing Compliance during Meal Preparation (continued) 

Control Treatment 

(n = 196) (n = 205) p valuea 

Did not dry hands 12% (2) 3% (1) .3949 

Dried hands with surface other than clean, 18% (3) 17% (5) .7795 

one-use towel (e.g., wiped hands on clothing 

or used previously used towel) 

a We calculated p value significance testing using a chi-squared test for the difference between the 

control and treatment groups for handwashing compliance. Differences are statistically significant if 

the p value is ≤.05. 

b “Attempt” was defined as any time that a participant appeared to wash their hands; the attempt 

could be successful or unsuccessful. 

c A successful attempt was defined as a participant meeting all CDC criteria for handwashing: wet 

hands with water; rub hands with soap for at least 20 seconds; rinse hands with water; and dry 

hands using a clean, one-use towel. 

d There may be multiple reasons for unsuccessful attempts, so the total may sum to more than 100%. 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—coding of food preparation. N = 401 observations coded. 

Figure 3-2 shows the point at which participants fell out of compliance with the CDC 

definition of a successful handwashing attempt before the onset of meal preparation by 

giving counts associated with the last successful step of handwashing performed (the steps 

are mutually exclusive). Participants wet hands in 43 of the events for the control group and 

in 61 of the events for the treatment group, and they used soap in 43 of the events for the 

control group and 61 of the events for the treatment group. Most of the remaining events 

failed at the step of rubbing hands for 20 seconds (seven successful completions of that 

step in the control group and nine successful completions in the treatment group). Overall, 

there was a total of six successful attempts for the control group and eight successful 

attempts for the treatment group for completing all steps required for handwashing 

successfully before starting meal preparation. 

3-20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

■ □ 

Section 3 — Results 

Figure 3-2. Handwashing Compliance before Onset of Meal Preparation 

140 

43 43 

7 6 6 

149 

61 61 

9 8 8 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

Rinsed 

with water 

Dried with 

clean, oneuse towel 

Number of Handwashing Attempts 

Attempted Wet Added Rubbed for 

hands soap 20 seconds 

Last Successful Step 

Control Treatment 

Notes: Illustrates point at which participants fell out of compliance with the CDC definition of a 

successful handwash when washing their hands before meal preparation by giving counts associated 

with the last successful step of handwashing performed (the steps are mutually exclusive). 

Total control handwashing attempts = 140 

Total treatment handwashing attempts = 149 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—coding of food preparation. N = 401. 

Handwashing during meal preparation shows similar results (Figure 3-3). The largest 

deviation f rom compliance occurred for participants rubbing hands for 20 seconds (none 

f rom the control group and only one f rom the treatment group were successful). 

Figure 3-4 illustrates the number of handwashing attempts per participant observation, 

which includes both before and during meal preparation. The largest number of 

observations (289) involved participants who had one handwashing attempt (generally 

before the start of meal preparation), followed by 19 observations who had two attempts, 

and 17 observations who had three attempts. No observations had more than five 

handwashing attempts. The small number of handwashing attempts is likely attributable to 

participants preparing a raw f rozen breaded chicken product rather than f resh raw poultry. 

3-21 
 

 

 

 

300 Ill 

C: 

0 

.:: 250 

~ 

Si 200 .c 

0 

ti 150 ... 

<ll 

°E 100 ::I 

z 

50 

0 

289 

1 attempt 

■ □ 

2 attempts 3 attempts 

Number of Attempts 

2 

4 attempts 5 attempts 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Figure 3-3. Handwashing Compliance during Meal Preparation Number of Handwashing Attempts 35 30 

30 

25 

20 

7

17 16 14 15 

10 7 

5 1 1 1 0 0 0 

0 

Attempted Wet Added Rubbed for Rinsed Dried with 

hands soap 20 seconds with water clean, oneuse towel 

Last Successful Attempt 

Control Treatment 

Notes: Illustrates point at which participants fell out of compliance with the CDC definition of a 

successful handwash when washing their hands during meal preparation by giving counts associated 

with the last successful step of handwashing performed (the steps are mutually exclusive). 

Total control handwashing attempts = 17 

Total treatment handwashing attempts = 30 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—coding of food preparation. N = 401. 

Figure 3-4. Number of Handwashing Attempts per Participant Observation Before 

and During Meal Preparation (All Participants) 

Notes: Illustrates number of handwashing attempts per participant observation. 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—coding of food preparation. N = 401. 

3-22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3 — Results 

3.5 Participants’ Responses to Intervention (Treatment Group 

Only) 

During the post-observation interviews, we collected information about the treatment 

participants’ responses to the food safety segment shown as part of the news loop that was 

playing in the waiting room while waiting for the study to start (see Table 3-11). About 81% 

of participants in the treatment group reported watching any of the news stories. Among 

these participants, 7% reported seeing information on food safety when asked what they 

recalled watching (unaided recall). If food safety was not mentioned, then the participant 

was prompted (“Do you remember seeing the segmentabout food safety?”); 42% recalled 

the food safety segment (aided recall), thus increasing total aided recall to 49% (40% 

among all treatment group participants). 

Table 3-11. Treatment Participants’ Responses to Food Safety News Segment 

Intervention 

Response 

Question % (n) 

Watched any of news loop playing in the waiting room 81% (166) 

If watched any of news loop (n = 166), recalled segment on food safety 

Unaided recall 7% (12) 

Aided recall (with prompting) 42% (69) 

If recalled segment on food safety (n = 81), was previously aware that some 37% (30) 

frozen products are not fully cooked and thus need to use food thermometer 

to determine doneness 

If recalled food safety segment, did the information influence participants’ 

actions in the kitchen today? (n = 81) 

Yes, influenced actions 53% (43) 

Used thermometer on chicken 79% (34) 

Used thermometer on corn 2% (1) 

Reinforced normal practices 16% (7) 

Other reason: time, “awareness,” thermometer use 2% (1) 

No, did not influence actions 43% (35) 

Already use thermometer on chicken 11% (4) 

Followed directions on product packaging 14% (5) 

Reinforced normal practices 23% (8) 

Othera 20% (7) 

Reason not provided 31% (11) 

Not answered/answer not clear/answer not relevant 4% (3) 

(continued) 

3-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Table 3-11. Treatment Participants’ Responses to Food Safety News Segment 

Intervention (continued) 

Response 

Question % (n) 

If recalled food safety segment, will the information influence how participant 

cooks at home in the future? (n = 81) 

Yes, will influence 56% (45) 

New information about cooking practices 91% (41) 

Reinforced normal food preparation practices 9% (4) 

No, will not influence 33% (27) 

Reinforced normal food preparation practices 81% (22) 

Other 19% (5) 

Not answered/answer not clear/answer not relevant 11% (9) 

a ”Other” refers to other reasons that do not fit into one of the previous categories, such as 

“considering risk and possibility” or that they prepared the food as they would at home. 

Source: 2019 meal preparation experiment—post-observation interviews. N = 205 observations 

coded. 

Among participants who recalled the food safety segment (aided or unaided recall), 37% 

were previously aware of the recommendation to use a food thermometer to determine 

doneness of f rozen foods that are not fully cooked. 

Approximately 56% of participants who recalled the food safety segment reported that the 

information contained in the food safety segment will likely influence future cooking 

behaviors, and 91% of these participants mentioned learning new informationabout 

preparing f rozen foods as the primary reason for behavior change. 

“I will start cooking my frozen vegetables if I can figure out what temperature they’re 

supposed to be at. I’ll have to do a little research.” 

“I definitely think I want to get a food thermometer just to make sure you’re not just 

guessing if it’s done.” 

“Like I said, I’ll take more precautions to check the temperature of things that I wouldn’t 

necessarily think need to be checked.” 

3.6 Comparison by Study Year for Control Group Participants 

Table 3-12 compares the results for Years 1, 2, and 3 for handwashing and thermometer 

use. In Year 1, participants prepared turkey burgers with a garnish and a chef salad. The 

primary focus was to examine thermometer use when cooking turkey patties, but data were 

also collected on handwashing behaviors and potential cross-contamination of kitchen 

surfaces and the lettuce (Cates et al., 2018). In Year 2, participants that self-identified as 

poultry washers prepared chicken thighs and a mixed green salad. The primary focus was to 

3-24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3 — Results 

determine whether participants washed poultry, as well as their handwashing behaviors and 

potential cross-contamination of kitchen surfaces and the salad lettuce (Cates et al., 2019). 

Table 3-12. Comparison of Handwashing Compliance and Thermometer Use for 

Annual Meal Preparation Experiments (Control Group Participants) 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 

(n = 185) (n = 154) (n = 196) 

Handwashing 

Handwashing event required before the start of 1,195 — — 

or during meal preparation a 

% did not attempt 69% — — 

% attempt 31% — — 

% successful attempt (out of all attempts) 3% — — 

Handwashing event required before the start of — 154 196 

meal preparation 

% did not attempt — 26% 29% 

% attempt — 74% 71% 

% successful attempt (out of all attempts) — 1% 4% 

Handwashing event required during meal — 1,145 499 

preparation 

% did not attempt — 74% 97% 

% attempt — 26% 3% 

% successful attempt (out of all attempts)a — 1% 0% 

Thermometer Use 

% used thermometer on at least one item 34% 44% 77% 

% checked temperature of multiple items 79% 76% 85% 

(among thermometer users) 

a For year 1, data are not available by when handwashing took place (i.e., before the start of or during 

meal preparation), so the combined data are presented. 

b Successful attempt represents successful handwashing attempts out of all attempts. 

Sources: 2017, 2018, and 2019 meal preparation experiment—coding of food preparations. 

The number of handwashing events required was much lower in Year 3 relative to Years 1 

and 2 likely because this year’s study involved preparing a raw f rozen breaded chicken 

product rather than f resh raw poultry. Consistent with the results for Years 1 and 2, the 

most common reason for unsuccessful handwashing attempts was not rubbing hands with 

soap for 20 seconds. 

Regarding thermometer use, in Year 1, 34% of participants in the control group used a 

thermometer on at least one turkey patty, and in Year 2, 44% of the control group used a 

thermometer on at least one chicken thigh. In Year 3, the rate of thermometer use was 

much higher at 77%. The higher rate of thermometer use may be attributed to the large 

percentage of participants who reported reading the manufacturer’s cooking instructions 

when preparing the stuffed chicken breasts, with many of these participants not having 

3-25 
 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

prior experience preparing the product. Additionally, for some participants, their selfreported practices for preparing similar products at home dif fered f rom their observed 

practices in the test kitchen, suggesting the test kitchen environment may have altered 

their behavior. For all 3 years, among thermometer users, most participants checked the 

temperature of both items, which is the recommended practice. 

3-26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Conclusion 

This section concludes the report by summarizing the key findings f rom the meal 

preparation experiment and discussing implications for message development that FSIS 

OPACE may want to consider. 

4.1 Thermometer Use for NRTE Chicken 

The rate of thermometer use to check the doneness of NRTE chicken products was high 

among both the control (77%) and treatment (88%) groups. Among participants using a 

thermometer, most checked the temperature of both chicken breasts. Three factors may 

have contributed to the high rate of thermometer use. First, nearly all participants reported 

reading instructions on the package before preparing the product. The package used in the 

experiment displayed validatedmanufacturer cooking instructions from a commercially 

available product that instructed consumers to use a thermometer to check for doneness. 

Second, participants’ limited experience with this type of product—34% reported prior 

experience preparing stuffed chicken breasts from f rozen—may have led many participants 

to read and follow the manufacturer’s cooking instructions. Third, the test kitchen 

environment may have led some participants to use a thermometer even though this is not 

their normal practice when cooking at home. Among participants who reported owning a 

food thermometer before participating in the study, only 38% said that they typically use 

one to check doneness of NRTE chicken products when cooking at home. 

Limited research has been conducted on preparing NRTE chicken products. An observational 

study with 21 adult meal preparers found that 19% used a food thermometer to check the 

doneness of NRTE f rozen chicken products (chicken strips and chicken Kiev) (DeDonder et 

al., 2009); thus, thermometer use was much higher for the current study compared with 

this study. The DeDonder et al. study was conducted in 2007, only 1 year af ter validated 

cooking instructions were required in 2006.6 The higher rate of thermometer use observed 

in the current study may be attributed to the detailed cooking instructions provided by the 

manufacturer, including a visual of a thermometer being inserted into a chicken breast. It is 

possible that the manufacturer’s instructions provided in the current study were clearer and 

easier for participants to understand that thermometer use is recommended compared with 

the instructions provided on the packaging for the product used in the DeDonder et al. 

study.7 

6 https://www.aamp.com/news/documents/Notice75-06.pdf 

7 Instructions on breaded chicken product used in the DeDonder et al. study: “Cooking instructions 

(This raw product must be thoroughly cooked). “This is a raw product that must be fully cooked.” “We 

recommend: Always cook to at least 165F. Always use a food thermometer, checking all final portion’s 

temperatures in several places.” 

4-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

4.2 Thermometer Use for Frozen NRTE Corn 

The majority of participants cooked the f rozen corn either on the stovetop or in the 

microwave (only three individuals did not cook it); however,few participants used a 

thermometer to check for doneness. Of the treatment group participants who used a 

thermometer, all stated that they had seen the food safety news segment (the segment 

included instructions on using a food thermometer and included a visual of thermometer use 

for f rozen corn). Most participants reported reading the instructions on the corn packaging. 

The package displayed the following statement, “Not ready to eat. For food safety, cook to 

an internal temperature of 165 ̊F.” The statement was located at the bottom of the package 

and not located as a part of the cooking instructions as it was for the NRTE chicken product. 

The corn packaging did not include instructions on using a thermometer. The lower rate of 

thermometer use may be because consumers are more familiar with f rozen corn than with 

the f rozen chicken product, and participants were not aware of the recommendation to use 

a thermometer to check for doneness of NRTE f rozen corn. 

4.3 Impact of the Food Safety News Segment on Participants’ 

Behavior 

The results of this study suggest that the food safety segment on safe cooking of frozen 

products played as part of a news segment shown in the waiting room did not af fect 

thermometer use. Forty percent of the treatment group participants recalled the food safety 

news segment; thus, not all participants received exposure, which is not surprising given 

the more passive nature of the intervention. For example, participants were frequently 

observed using their phones while waiting for the study to start instead of watching the 

news loop. Among those who recalled the food safety segment, about half said it influenced 

their actions in the kitchen in that they used a thermometer to check the doneness of the 

NRTE chicken product, which may have served to reinforce what they read on the product 

packaging which included instructions for thermometer use. Thus, exposure to the food 

safety segment may have led to the slightly higher rate of thermometer use among the 

treatment group compared with the control group, although the dif ference between the two 

groups was not statistically significant. 

Other studies with similar passive interventions (news or video segments in a waiting room) 

related to a health behavior have reported similar findings and suggest evidence that these 

messages may increase knowledge and intention to change behaviors, but more research is 

needed (Chan et al., 2008; Jawad et al., 2017; Matthews et al., 1999; Wheeler et al., 

2001). 

OPACE faces many challenges when developing food safety communications given the need 

to compete with mobile devices and other media sources for consumers’ attention. The 

results f rom this study highlight that fact, given that many participants exposed to the food 

safety news segment intervention did not recall it. There are also limitations in how much 

4-2 
 

 

 

 

 

Section 4 — Conclusion 

control OPACE has over the news segment when working with journalists; news segments 

must be short and concise. The use of an informational news segment as an intervention in 

these types of food preparation settings warrants further study. 

We suggest that OPACE consider the development of a style guide for journalists to use in 

their communication with the public about food safety. This style guide could be used as a 

reference point for media organizations when developing news segments discussing food 

safety risk factors and include examples on how to handle food safely. 

4.4 Handwashing 

Similar to what was observed in Years 1 and 2, handwashing compliance is low, with most 

participants failing to properly wash their hands according to CDC’s guidelines. Consistent 

with the results for Years 1 and 2, the most common reason for unsuccessful handwashing 

attempts was not rubbing hands with soap for 20 seconds. Consumers continue to need 

guidance on when and how to properly wash their hands. 

4-3 

 

 

References 

Anderson, J. B., Shuster, T. A., Hansen, K. E., Levy, A. S., & Volk, A. (2004). A camera’s 

view of consumer food-handling behaviors. Journal of the American Dietetic 

Association, 104(2), 186–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2003.11.010 

Cates, S. C., Thomas, E., Kosa, K., Chapman, B., Shelley, L., Goulter, R., ... Jaykus L. 2018. 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: Meal preparation experiment related to 

thermometer use. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. 

Cates, S. C., Shumaker, E., Chapman, B., Shelley, L., Goulter, R., Kirchner, M., ... Jaykus L. 

2019. Food Safety Consumer Research Project: Meal preparation experiment related 

to poultry washing. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015, May 14). Foodborne Diseases Active 

Surveillance Network (FoodNet). Retrieved f rom 

https://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/surveys/population.html 

Chan, Y-F., Lavery, R., Fox, N., Kwon, R., Zinzuwadia, S., Massone, R., & Livingston, D. 

(2008). Ef fect of an educational video on emergency department patient stroke 

knowledge. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 34(2), 215–220. 

Chapman, B., Eversley, T., Fillion, K., Maclaurin, T., & Powell, D. (2010). Assessment of 

food safety practices of food service food handlers (risk assessment data): Testing a 

communication intervention (evaluation of tools). Journal of Food Protection, 73(6), 

1101–1107. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-73.6.1101 

Clayton, D. A., & Grif fith, C. J. (2004). Observation of food safety practices in catering using 

notational analysis. British Food Journal, 106(3), 211–227. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700410528790 

DeDonder, S., Jacob, C. J., Surgeoner, B. V., Chapman, B., Phebus, R., & Powell, D. A. 

(2009). Self-reported and observed behavior of primary meal preparers and 

adolescents during preparation of f rozen, uncooked, breaded chicken products. 

British Food Journal, 111(9), 915–929. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910992844 

Green, L. R., Selman, C. A., Radke, V., Ripley, D., Mack, J. C., Reimann, D. W., ... Bushnell, 

L. (2006). Food worker hand washing practices: An observation study. Journal of 

Food Protection, 69(10), 2417–2423. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X69.10.2417 

Huang, C., Ma, W., & Stack, S. (2012). The hygienic ef ficacy of different hand-drying 

methods: A review of the evidence. Mayo Clinical Proceedings, 87(8), 791–798. 

Retrieved f rom http://europeantissue.com/wp-content/uploads/Mayo-Clinic-TheHygienic-Ef ficacy-of-Different-Hand-Drying-Methods.pdf 

Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (1997). Notational analysis of sport. London: E. & F. N. Spon. 

R-1 
 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Jawad, M., Ingram, S., Choudhury, I., Airebamen, A., Christodoulou, K., & Wilson Sharma, 

A. (2017). Television-based health promotion in general practice waiting rooms in 

London: a cross-sectional study evaluating patients’ knowledge and intentions to 

access dental services. BMC Oral Health, 17, 24. doi 10.1186/s12903-016-0252-6 

Jay, L. S., Comar, D., & Govenlock, L. D. (1999). A national Australian food safety 

telephone survey. Journal of Food Protection, 62(8), 921–928. 

https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-62.8.921 

Kendall, P. A., Elsbernd, A., Sinclair, K., Schroeder, M., Chen, G., Bergmann, V., ... 

Medeiros, L. C. (2004). Observation versus self-report: Validation of a consumer 

food behavior questionnaire. Journal of Food Protection, 67(11), 2578–2586. 

https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-67.11.2578 

Lando, A., Verrill, L., Liu, S., & Smith, E. (2016). 2016 FDA Food Safety Survey. Retrieved 

f rom 

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodScienceResearch/ConsumerBehaviorRese 

arch/UCM529453.pdf 

Mathews, C., Ellison, G., Guttmacher, S., Reisch, N., & Goldstein, S.(1999). Can audiovisual 

presentations be used to provide health education at primary health care facilities in 

South Af rica? Health Education Journal, 58,146–156. 

Montville, R., Chen, Y., & Schaffner, D. W. (2002). Risk assessment of hand washing 

ef ficacy using literature and experimental data. International Journal of Food 

Microbiology, 73(2-3), 305–13. 

Redmond, E. C., & Grif fith, C. J. (2003). Consumer food handling in the home: A review of 

food safety studies. Journal of Food Protection, 66(1), 130–161. 

https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-66.1.130 

Redmond, E. C., Grif fith, C. J., Slader, J., & Humphrey, T. J. (2004). Microbiological and 

observational analysis of cross contamination risks during domestic food preparation. 

British Food Journal, 106(8), 581–597. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700410553585 

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1966). Counseling in an organization: A sequel to 

the Hawthorne Researches. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Schaffner, D. W., & Schaffner, K. M. (2007). Management of risk of microbial crosscontamination f rom uncooked frozen hamburgers by alcohol-based hand sanitizer. 

Journal of Food Protection, 70(1), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X70.1.109 

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). 2012–2016 American Community Survey 5-year data profiles. 

Retrieved f rom https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/dataprofiles/2016/ 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2018). 7 tips for cleaning f ruits, vegetables. Retrieved 

f rom https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/7-tips-cleaning-fruitsvegetables 

R-2 
 

References 

Wheeler, J. G., Fair, M., Simpson, P. M., Rowlands, L. A., Aitken, M. E., & Jacobs, R. F. 

(2001). Impact of a waiting room videotape message on parent attitudes toward 

pediatric antibiotic use. Pediatrics, 108(3), 591–596. 

R-3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A: 

Transcript of Food Safety News Segment Intervention 

VIDEO AUDIO 

B-roll: Footage of freezer showing Foodborne illness—what most of us know as “food 

different frozen products like pizza, poisoning”—kills 3-thousand people every year. But it is 

chicken nuggets, and frozen preventable with just a few easy tips. 

veggies. First, whether your food is fresh or frozen, use a food 

Someone putting frozen stuffed thermometer to make sure your food is cooked to the proper 

chicken breasts on a pan ready to internal temperature. And sometimes, food that looks or 

be put into the oven and frozen seems like it’s cooked is actually still raw and needs to be 

corn being cooked in the cooked further for safety. 

microwave. 

Tanya Brown (FSIS) It’s extremely important that every kitchen have a food 

thermometer because it’s the only way to determine if food is 

cooked to the correct internal temperature and is safe to eat. 

You can’t look at your vegetables, your frozen vegetables, or 

your meat and determine by color if it’s safe to eat. You must 

use the food thermometer. So for poultry, as well as your 

frozen vegetables, you want to cook it to 165 degrees 

Fahrenheit. For whole cuts of meat like pork or roast, you 

want to cook it to 145 degrees Fahrenheit. And also for your 

ground meat, any type of ground meat, you want to cook it 

to 160 degrees Fahrenheit. 

B-roll: Video of someone looking at 

cooking instructions on the back of 

a package 

If you’re not quite sure how to deal with the cooking, read 

the instructions on the back of the package. 

Tanya Brown (FSIS) Once you understand what temperature your meat and your 

frozen vegetables should be cooked to, you want to also 

know the proper way to use the food thermometer to get the 

correct reading. So for whole pieces of meat such as a roast 

or pork, you want to stick the probe into the thickest part of 

the meat. For thinner pieces of meat, such as a hamburger or 

fish, you want to stick it on the side and as far into the center 

as you possibly can. And for ground meats and frozen 

vegetables, you want to stick it into the center of each 

serving. 

B-roll: Shots from past b-roll to And no matter what you’re doing in the kitchen, keep these 

cover the 4 steps: clean, separate, four tips in mind: clean, separate, cook, and chill. You can 

cook, and chill, plus final plate. find more food safety tips at foodsafety.gov. Or, if you’d like 

to talk to somebody—give the USDA a ring. Their number: 

1-888-m-p-hot-line. 

A-1 

Appendix B: 

List of Equipment Provided in Each Test Kitchen 

The picture below shows one of the test kitchens used for the meal preparation experiment. 

The equipment provided in each test kitchen is listed below. 

Kitchenware 

Skillet 

▪ Medium-sized skillet (9–12 inch) 

Frying pans (store f rying pans in the cabinets) 

▪ Small (8 inch) nonstick 

▪ Medium or large (10–12 inch) 

Saucepans 

▪ Small (2–3 quarts) 

▪ Medium or large (4–5 quarts) 

Knives 

▪ Chef’s knife 

▪ Paring knife/fruit knife 

B-1 
 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Baking dishes 

▪ 9 x 13 baking dish (rectangular) 

▪ Smaller square, rectangular, or oval baking dish 

Utensils 

▪ Wooden or plastic stirring spoons (1–2) 

▪ Heat-resistant plastic or silicone spatula 

▪ Slotted spoon 

▪ Ladle 

▪ Flat spatula 

▪ Cooking tongs 

▪ Digital tip-sensitive instant read thermometer 

▪ Dry measuring cups 

▪ Liquid measuring cup (1 cup) 

▪ Measuring spoons 

▪ Can opener 

▪ Liquid measuring cup (2 cup) 

▪ Whisk 

▪ Rolling pin 

▪ Peeler 

▪ Zester/grater 

▪ Large cutting boards 

▪ Splatter guard 

▪ Serving bowl 

▪ Serving utensils (serving fork, spoon, and tongs) 

▪ Salt and pepper shaker (must be glass) 

▪ Garlic and onion powder 

▪ Utensil holder 

Other essential tools 

▪ Small, medium, and large mixing bowls 

▪ Colander 

▪ Salad spinner 

B-2 
 

 

Appendix B — List of Equipment Provided in Each Test Kitchen 

Silverware/dinnerware 

▪ Set of spoons, knives, and forks 

▪ Dinner plates 

▪ Salad plates 

▪ Bowls 

Cleaning/dishwashing supplies 

▪ Kitchen towels 

▪ Dish cloths 

▪ Hand soap 

▪ Dish drain board/dish rack 

▪ Paper towels 

▪ Sponge 

▪ Sponge caddy 

▪ Paper towel holder 

▪ Apron 

▪ Oven mitts 

▪ Pot holders 

▪ Dishwashing detergent 

Cleaning items for under sink 

▪ Windex 

▪ Clorox bleach 

▪ 409 cleaner 

▪ Lysol spray 

Lef tover kit supplies 

▪ Ziploc bags (gallon and quart sizes) 

▪ Plastic wrap 

▪ Plastic containers with lids 

Note: Containers must be sanitized between observation events. Ziploc bags and plastic 

wrap must be taken out of retail packaging and placed in kitchen drawers. 

B-3 
Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Housekeeping items 

▪ First-aid kit 

▪ Toolbox 

Food 

Recipe card 

▪ Single-sided, laminated card 

Ingredients 

▪ Frozen chicken entrée 

▪ Black beans 

▪ Frozen corn 

▪ Salsa 

▪ Cucumber 

B-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: 

Observation Script and Recipe 

Check-in Script 

Welcome! My name is _____________ and I’ll be walking you through what you’ll be doing 

as part of our study today. 

Today you will be preparing a chicken entrée f rom f rozen and a black bean salad and we will 

interview you af ter you finish cooking. The cooking and interview will last no longer than an 

hour and a half . 

Have a seat in the waiting room. We are a little behind schedule, someone will be with you 

in about 10 minutes. 

Pre-cooking Script 

Before we start, I need you to read and sign the consent form. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. You will receive a copy of the 

form to take home. 

After Consent Form Is Signed 

Today you will be preparing a chicken entrée f rom f rozen, helping us test a new product 

formulation, and a black bean salad. 

Please do not eat the chicken or salad or take any of the food home with you. We will 

interview you af ter you are finished cooking. The cooking and interview will last no longer 

than an hour and a half . 

This is the area where you will be cooking. All the available utensils and dishes are in these 

drawers/cabinets. [Note: open a few cabinet and drawers and be sure to open the drawer 

with the thermometer]. 

The chicken entrée is in the f reezer. Please prepare it first, and as you would at home. For 

any instructions on how to prepare it, please see the package. For the salad, the beans are 

here on the counter, the salsa and cucumber are in the ref rigerator, and the corn is in the 

f reezer. Here’s the recipe for the salad (provide laminated sheet with recipe). Please plate 

the food once you have finished cooking. Af ter you are done, please clean up as you would 

at home. You can load the dishwasher, but please do not turn it on. 

Feel f ree to use whatever you need. Please make yourself at home, you are welcome to use 

your phone to listen to music, or whatever you usually do when cooking at home. If the 

temperature of the kitchen is not okay, let me know and I can adjust it. 

C-1 
 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Restrooms are located _______, and in case of an emergency, the exits are _____. The fire 

extinguisher is located ________ and the first aid kit is located _____. 

Before you begin, do you have any questions? 

If you have any questions or concerns while you’re cooking, I will be in the ___________ 

room. 

[After food preparation] 

Now that you have finished the cooking portion of the study, we are ready to begin the 

interview. It should take about 15 minutes to complete. Do you need a break before we 

begin that portion? 

Chicken Entree 

We did not provide a recipe for the chicken entrée; participants are told to prepare the 

chicken as they would at home, and for further instructions to consult the package. 

Black Bean Salad 

[Note: The recipe was printed on a laminated card.] 

Ingredients: 

▪ 1 can black beans 

▪ 1⁄2 cup salsa 

▪ 1 cucumber 

▪ 1 cup corn 

Directions: 

1. Drain and rinse the black beans. 

2. Chop cucumber into bite-sized pieces. 

3. Prepare 1 cup corn. 

4. Combine cucumber in bowl with black beans, corn, and salsa and mix. 

C-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D: 

Post-observation Interview Guide 

OMB Control Number: 0583-0169 

Expiration date: 6/30/2020 

Introduction Script 

Thank you so much for your time today and allowing us to record your actions while you 

prepared a meal just like you would in your home. If it is okay with you, I’m going to ask 

you a few follow-up questions that will focus on some of the activities you participated in 

while in the model kitchen. 

Is it okay with you if I record your answers? The recording is confidential and will only be 

used to accurately capture our conversation (allowed recording y/n). 

If it is okay with you, I’d like to begin this interview, which will take about 15 minutes. If 

no: Terminate interview. 

If yes: Proceed. 

1.1 Experience with Frozen Products 

What types of f rozen products do you prepare at home? Can you provide a few examples? 

Probe if necessary: meat, poultry, vegetables. 

Some f rozen products are labeled as fully cooked and some are labeled as uncooked or raw. 

For the f rozen products that you prepare at home, what type were they? 

How do you know that? 

Does knowing if a f rozen product is labeled as fully cooked or raw matter to you when you 

are deciding what to buy when you’re shopping in the grocery store? 

How do you figure out how to prepare these f rozen products? 

Is this the same or dif ferent for f rozen chicken products? 

How do you figure out how to prepare f rozen vegetables? 

1.2 Washing Hands after Handling Frozen Chicken Product 

Did you wash your hands after handling the frozen chicken product? 

Can you tell me why you did that? 

Is that something you typically do when cooking at home? Why? 

D-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

When handling this type of product, do you handle it the same way you handle raw chicken? 

Why or why not? 

1.3 Cooking Process for Chicken/Food Thermometer 

Did you read the instructions on the f rozen chicken packaging? 

If yes: What did it say? 

Do you think the chicken product you cooked today was raw or fully cooked? Why do you 

say that? 

I saw that you prepared the chicken product in the (INSERT: microwave, oven, stovetop, 

etc.)? Why did you choose to prepare it this way? 

How would you normally prepare it at home? Why? 

If you had children younger than 18, would you buy the chicken product you cooked today 

for them to prepare at home or not? 

If yes: What cooking tips would you share? 

If no: Why not? 

Do you have a food thermometer at home? 

If yes: do you typically use a food thermometer when cooking f rozen chicken 

products like the one you prepared today? Why or why not? 

If yes: With what type of products do you normally use a food thermometer? Why? 

If yes: With what type of products do you not use a food thermometer? Why? 

Did you use a food thermometer to check the doneness of the chicken product? 

If yes: What information were you looking for? 

If no: Why not? 

How important do you think it is to use a food thermometer when cooking frozen chicken 

products like the one you prepared today? Would you say ... 

▪ Very important 

▪ Somewhat important 

▪ Not important at all 

[Don’t know] 

D-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D — Post-observation Interview Guide 

1.4 Preparing Corn and Black Bean Salad 

How did you prepare the corn? 

Is this how you would normally do it at home? 

Did you read the preparation instructions on the f rozen corn? 

If yes: What specific information were you looking for? 

How did you know the corn was done? 

Is this the same or dif ferent for other f rozen vegetables? 

If said used food thermometer to determine doneness: Why did you do this? 

Is this something you would normally do at home? 

How did you wash the cucumber? 

Is this how you would normally do it at home? 

Do you wash dif ferent kinds of produce differently at home? Please give some examples. 

1.5 Cleaning Kitchen Items 

Are you concerned about this type of f rozen chicken product cross-contaminating other 

food or surfaces in your kitchen? Why or why not? 

If necessary: By cross-contamination I mean spreading germs f rom the breaded chicken to 

another surface. 

1.6 Thawing 

Imagine you have raw chicken in the f reezer, and you plan to cook it for dinner later in the 

week. How would you thaw it? 

Probe: Do you thaw it the day you’re cooking it or a couple days before? 

Probe: What method of thawing do you use: in the microwave, in the ref rigerator, in 

water in the sink, or on the countertop? 

If in microwave: do you cook it immediately or wait awhile before cooking it? How 

long do you wait? 

If in ref rigerator: where do you place the f rozen chicken? On the top, bottom, or 

middle shelf ? 

What, if anything, do you place it on? When do you cook it? 

If water in sink: Do you use hot or cold water? Running or standing water? 

D-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Do you change the water at some point? 

If on counter or another surface in kitchen: About how long do you typically leave it 

out? 

Let’s say you thawed the chicken for dinner tonight, but something came up and you were 

not able to cook it. How many days would you leave it in the ref rigerator before cooking it 

or throwing it away? 

1.7 Antecedent Questions 

1. How concerned are you about bacteria or viruses being on or inside the food you 

cook? On a scale of 1-7, with 1 being not at all concerned, 4 being neutral, and 7 

being very concerned, how concerned are you? 

Why do you say that? 

2. How common do you think it is for people in the United States to get food poisoning 

because of the way they prepare food in their home? On a scale of 1-7, with 1 being 

not at all common, 4 being neutral, and 7 being very common, how common do you 

think it is? 

Why do you say that? 

3. How confident are you in your ability to safely prepare food when cooking at home? 

On a scale of 1-7, with 1 being not at all confident, 4 being neutral, and 7 being very 

confident. how confident are you? 

Why do you say that? 

When thinking about the food you prepare and cook at home, what steps do you 

take to make sure the food you cook is safe? 

4. Have you ever had food poisoning? Y/N 

If yes: Can you tell me about your experience? What were the symptoms? 

What food do you think made you sick? 

Do you think you got sick f rom food cooked at home, or food prepared away f rom 

home? 

5. Has a family member ever had food poisoning? Y/N 

D-4 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D — Post-observation Interview Guide 

1.8 Question about Video 

1. Af ter you arrived for the study and were waiting in the waiting room, a news 

program was playing. Did you watch any of the news program? Y/N 

a. If yes: 

● What was your impression of the news program? 

● What do you recall watching? 

● What information was new to you? 

● If did not mention food safety story: Do you remember seeing the 

story about food safety? If yes, tell me what you remember about it. 

● If mentioned food safety story: before today, had you heard that 

these types of f rozen products may not be fully cooked so that 

doneness needs to be checked with a thermometer to ensure it is 

cooked to a safe internal temperature? 

o If had heard before: Where did you hear this information? 

o If had heard before: Do you have children that prepare these 

products at home? If yes, do you plan to share this information 

with your children or not? 

● Tell me what else you remember about the news story. 

b. If no: 

● Why didn’t you watch the news story? [Go to Conclusion] 

[If respondent does not remember seeing any of the news story, Go to 

Conclusion.] 

2. Did the information in the news story influence your actions in the kitchen today or 

not? 

a. If yes: In what way? 

3. Do you think the information in the news story will influence how you cook at home 

in the future or not? Why? 

4. If mentioned food safety story: Do you have any questions about the news story on 

food safety? 

5. Is there additional information that you would like to see in the food safety story to 

help you safely prepare such products for your family? 

D-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

1.9 Conclusion 

We mentioned in our recruiting materials that we were interested in testing a new breaded 

chicken product prepared f rom f rozen. However, the specific focus of our study is on food 

safety and how to prevent food poisoning. While you were in the waiting room, you watched 

a produced news video that discussed a wide variety of topics and may have included a 

segment on safely preparing f rozen foods. This video was part of the study. We purposely 

did not tell you exactly what our specific research objectives were in advance in order to 

capture your behaviors in a natural way. You can request to be removed f rom the study at 

any time, and if you decide to exit the study at this point, we will destroy the recordings of 

your actions, and you will not be included in the data set. 

We want to confirm with you now that you understand the focus of our study and that you 

wish to remain as a participant. 

If no: Thank you so much for your time we will remove your data f rom our dataset and 

destroy any records. 

If yes: Thank you for your consent. 

Thank you again for your time and for your participation in our study today. Are there any 

questions that you have for me? 

Please see the greeter on your way out to receive the $75 gif t card and gif t. 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 

control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0583-0169 and the 

expiration date is 6/30/2020. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated 

to average 20 minute per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 

data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 

collection of information. 

D-6 
Appendix E: 

Screening Questionnaire 

E-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Screen 11 

Thank you for your interest in our research study, which is funded by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture and conducted by researchers from North Carolina State University and RTI 

International. 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 

valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 

0583-0169 and the expiration date is 6/20/2020. The time required to complete this 

information collection is estimated to average 8 minutes per response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 

Screen 2 

If you are eligible for the study, you will be asked to prepare a meal using pre-packaged 

f rozen foods while being videotaped and participate in an interview. The study will last up to 

90 minutes, and you will receive a $75 gif t card and a small gif t for taking part in the study. 

To determine whether you are eligible, you will need to answer a few questions. These 

questions will take less than 10 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is 

completely voluntary. All of your answers and your contact information will be kept private. 

Please click the “>>” arrows below if you would like to continue. 

Question Screens 

1. Have you received any type of food safety training, such as ServSafe, in the past 5 

years? 

Yes Ineligible. Terminate. 

No 

2. Have you cooked or worked professionally in a food preparation setting in the past 5 

years? 

Yes Ineligible. Terminate. 

No 

3. Have you participated in any research studies about cooking in the past 2 years? 

Yes Ineligible. Terminate. 

No 

4. Do you have any children living in your household who are less than 18 years of age? 

Yes 

No 

5. Which of the following have you purchased in the past 6 months for your family to eat 

at home? (Select all that apply.) 

Frozen pizza 

1 A telephone version of the screening questionnaire was available for people who contacted NCSU by 

phone to participate in the study. 

E-2 
 

 

 

 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

Appendix E — Screening Questionnaire 

Frozen waffles 

Frozen breaded chicken nuggets or tenders 

Frozen stuffed chicken, such as chicken Cordon bleu or chicken Kiev 

Frozen pre-formed hamburger patties 

Frozen vegetables 

Frozen f ruit 

6. Which of the following have you prepared at home in the past 6 months? (Select all 

that apply.) 

Frozen pizza 

Frozen waffles 

Frozen breaded chicken nuggets or tenders 

Frozen stuffed chicken breasts, such as chicken Cordon bleu or chicken Kiev 

Frozen pre-formed hamburger patties 

Frozen vegetables 

Frozen f ruit 

7. [IF Q4 = YES] Which of the following have your children, 18 years or younger, prepared 

at home in the past 6 months? (Select all that apply.) 

Frozen pizza 

Frozen waffles 

Frozen breaded chicken nuggets or tenders 

Frozen stuffed chicken breasts, such as chicken Cordon bleu or chicken Kiev 

Frozen pre-formed hamburger patties 

Frozen vegetables 

Frozen f ruit 

NOTE: Continue if Q6 = f rozen breaded chicken nuggets/tenders or f rozen stuffed 

chicken breasts OR Q7 = f rozen breaded chicken nuggets/tenders or f rozen stuffed 

chicken breasts (i.e., respondent or their child prepares these products). 

8. How of ten do you prepare f rozen breaded chicken nuggets or tenders for your family to 

eat at home? 

Less than once a month 

About once a month 

Two or three times a month 

About once a week 

More than once a week 

9. How of ten do you prepare f rozen stuffed chicken breasts for your family to eat at 

home? 

Less than once a month 

About once a month 

Two or three times a month 

About once a week 

More than once a week 

E-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

10. [IF Q4 = Yes] How of ten do your children, 18 years or younger, prepare f rozen 

breaded chicken nuggets or tenders to eat at home? 

Less than once a month 

About once a month 

Two or three times a month 

About once a week 

More than once a week 

11.[IF Q4 = Yes] How of ten do your children, 18 years or younger, prepare frozen stuffed 

chicken breasts to eat at home? 

Less than once a month 

About once a month 

Two or three times a month 

About once a week 

More than once a week 

12.When cooking a food product at home for the first time, how often do you read the 

cooking instructions on the package before you start cooking? 

Always 

Most of the time 

Sometimes 

Hardly ever 

Never 

13.Which of the following items do you have in your kitchen? (Select all that apply.) 

Chef’s knife 

Garlic press 

Citrus zester 

Food thermometer 

Manual can opener 

Vegetable peeler 

Cheese grater 

Wine opener 

None of the above 

14.Do you identify as ...? 

Female 

Male 

Other 

Prefer not to answer 

15.Are you...? 

Hispanic or Latino 

Not Hispanic or Latino 

16.What is your race? Please select one or more. 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

Asian 

Black or Af rican American 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

White 

E-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

Appendix E — Screening Questionnaire 

17.What is the highest level of education that you have completed? 

Less than high school 

High school graduate or GED 

Technical or vocational school 

Some college, but did not get a degree 

2-year associates degree 

4-year college degree 

Post-graduate degree 

18.Are you or any members of your household ...? (Select all that apply.) 

60 years of age or older 

5 years of age or younger 

Pregnant 

Breastfeeding 

Diagnosed with an allergy to any food or food ingredient 

Diagnosed with diabetes or kidney disease 

Diagnosed with a condition that weakens the immune system, such as cancer, HIV, 

or AIDS; a recipient of a transplant; or receiving treatments, such as 

chemotherapy, radiation, or special drugs or medications to treat these conditions 

None of the above 

19.Where did you hear about this study? 

Facebook 

Twitter 

Craigslist 

Email f rom a North Carolina extension program 

Sign 

Specify location: __________________________ 

Other 

Specify location: __________________________ 

Don’t know 

20.Great! You qualify for the study. Would you like to participate in the Convenience Food 

Study? 

Yes 

No  Terminate. 

Contact Screen 1 

Great! Please enter your name and telephone number so that a study team member can call 

you and schedule an appointment for the Convenience Food Study at a day and time that 

works best for you. The study will last up to 90 minutes, and you will receive a $75 gif t card 

and a small gif t for taking part in the study. 

[ENTER NAME] 

[ENTER TELEPHONE NUMBER] 

E-5 
 

 

 

□ 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Contact Screen 2 

Please enter your email address so we can send you a confirmation email with directions. 

[ENTER EMAIL ADDRESS; REQUIRE DOUBLE ENTRY FOR VERIFICATION]. 

No Email 

[If no email] Please enter your mailing address. [STREET ADDRESS, CITY, NC, ZIP] 

Thank you for your time. A study team member will call you in 1 or 2 days to schedule an 

appointment with you. 

If you have any questions about the study or scheduling, you may contact Lisa Shelley at 

919-659-8254. If you have concerns about your rights as a research participant, contact 

North Carolina State University’s Office of Research Protection at 919-515-8754 or via email 

at irb-director@ncsu.edu. 

Ineligible/Terminate Screen 

Thank you for your time. Unfortunately, you are not eligible to take part in our study. Have 

a great day. 

E-6 
 

 

 

hands? 

Yes 

[~_Not_ cod_ ed_~)[~_Handw_ a_shing- an-empt?_,_ ~ 

How were hands washedr? 

Touched equipment or RTE food? 

Some elemerits? 

Equipment 

Not coded What was touched? J 

~------+ RTE foods 

Appendix F: 

Observation Rubric for Coding Participant Actions in the 

Kitchen 

Handwashing Rubric 

Notes and Definitions: Contaminated hands: Hands that have come into contact with 

potentially contaminated material (raw food, contaminated equipment, touching of face or 

other parts of body or clothing) and that have not been washed according to CDC’s 

recommended guidelines for proper handwashing. 

Elements of handwashing: 

 Wet your hands with clean, running water (warm or cold), turn off the tap, and apply 

soap. 

 Lather your hands by rubbing them together with the soap. Be sure to lather the 

backs of your hands, between your fingers, and under your nails. 

 Scrub your hands for at least 20 seconds. 

 Rinse your hands well under clean, running water. 

 Dry your hands using a clean (one use/paper) towel or air dry them. 

https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/when-how-handwashing.html 

For a successful handwashing attempt, all elements should occur in the sequence listed 

above. 

F-1 
1requires teJ111peratme 

verification fOf safety 

IN'o Yies 

[ ______ INl'ot _· cod_ ed __ ] [ - •-~• _, 

INl'o 

Subjective doneness indicator 

obviously used 

J 

Yies 

Food Safety Consumer Research Project: 

Meal Preparation Experiment on Raw Stuffed Chicken Breasts 

Thermometer Rubric 

F-2 
 

 

 

Appendix G: 

Pilot Exploration of Air Pockets 

The air pocket temperature within the stuf fed chicken breasts was determined for a subset 

of 50 observations. Immediately following the completion of the participant interview (10 to 

12 minutes in length), the observer took four temperature readings: two with the 

thermometer probe inserted into the meat portion of the stuffed chicken breast and two 

with the thermometer probe inserted into the center of the breast. The two thermometers 

at each probe location were averaged. Placement of the thermometer probe in the air 

pocket was not visually confirmed; however, the correct placement of the probe in the air 

pocket was determined by the f ree movement of the probe in comparison with the 

placement of the probe in the meat. 

Temperature of Air Pockets for NRTE Chicken Product 

Minimum Maximum Mean 

N Temperature Temperature Temperature 

50 100°F 167°F 125.7°F 

G-1