Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Using cognitive task analysis for capturing expert instruction of food safety training for novice employees
(USC Thesis Other)
Using cognitive task analysis for capturing expert instruction of food safety training for novice employees
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 1
USING COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS FOR CAPTURING EXPERT
INSTRUCTION OF FOOD SAFETY TRAINING
FOR NOVICE EMPLOYEES
by
Megan McGuinness
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2015
Copyright 2015 Megan McGuinness
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 2
DEDICATION
For June
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the most humble, inspiring teacher, and mentor to us, Dr.
Kenneth A. Yates. His dedication to this field was the greatest motivation, but truly it was his
approach as our educational leader that ultimately transformed this journey into one that I will
never forget. This was a rigorous experience, and Dr. Yates really challenged me every single
step of the way. He did this in a way that inspired deeper thought and connection to our practice.
For that, I will forever be grateful.
To my Loti, Dr. Snehal Patel: I am thankful for his unconditional love, patience, and
encouragement. Loti and I met at the beginning of this adventure and he carried me the entire
journey, just as he did during our Grand Canyon trip from the rim to the river.
To my Dad, Brendan: His wisdom, advice, and constant support were a blessing. He has
always encouraged me “to do my best,” and that is what I have strived to do in life. My mom,
June, has been my role model and a dedicated educator for nearly 25 years; she has helped
children embrace the challenges in front of them by bringing joy to their lives. Thank you to my
family: Sean, Gavin, Liam, Indrajit, Kokila, Roshni, Ozzie, and Ajay.
To my best friends, Tracy, Leah, and Erica: Their acceptance, understanding, and
positivity are what—quite literally—helped me to survive these past years.
To my CTA thematic colleagues, Acquillahs Muteti Mutie, Christine Corpus, Kari Cole,
Judith Franco, Chad Hammitt, Charlotte Garcia, Deidre Larson, Nicolas Lim, Milo Jury, and
Douglas Weiland: Muteti has been a “bright spot” for me. Milo always provided me with a
shoulder to cry on. My friend and trusted partner, Nic Lim, from the time we met at the
acceptance dinner until today, he has always been there for me. I am so grateful to have gone
through this process with Nic.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 4
To the most hard-working people I know, the expert restaurant managers who
participated in this study: The time, dedication, and expertise the managers provided will make a
difference. The managers have inspired me, and I feel even more dedicated to continuing this
work.
To my amazing team, Amy, Andrew, Cassy, Celena, Denise, Ed, Jan, Jason, Jon, Joe,
Kim, Kirby, Laura, Moises, Nick, Sara, and Shelly: The positive support and understanding I felt
from my team throughout this were was a blessing. Mary Craig has been my rock.
To my mentor, leader, and committee member, Dr. Mark Blankenship: This was the most
challenging experience and his ongoing coaching, encouragement, and push along the way has
made a difference. I am extremely grateful to have been part of an organization with Mark as our
leader—someone who supports constant learning and growth.
To Dr. Courtney Malloy: She served on my committee and I am very fortunate for her
expertise. Dr. Malloy inspired my passion for qualitative research.
To my coach, Dr. Lisa Ethier: She guided me to change my life for the better, inspired a
new path or way of being, and helped me find a truly centered balance.
Last, as part of this recognition, I extend my dedication of this work to the person who
discovered the USC Rossier Ed.D. program for me. This friend held my hand throughout the
entire process, and his support has remained constant for many years. None of this would be
possible without Rudy Robles.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
List of Abbreviations 10
Abstract 11
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 12
Purpose of the Study 14
Methodology of the Study 14
Definition of Terms 15
Organization of the Dissertation 16
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 18
Food Service Industry 18
Food Safety Standards 18
HACCP 19
Accountability for Meeting Food Safety Standards 20
Overview of Food Safety Training in QSRs 20
Food Safety Instructional Strategies 21
Effectiveness of Food Safety Training 22
Summary 25
Using Subject Matter Experts to Train Non-Experts 26
Knowledge Types 27
Declarative Knowledge 27
Procedural and Conditional Knowledge 28
Automaticity 29
Expertise 31
Experts Defined 31
Experts Versus Novices 31
Building Expertise 32
Consequences of Expertise 33
Cognitive Task Analysis 34
Definition of CTA 34
A Brief History of CTA 35
Taxonomies of Knowledge Elicitation Techniques 36
CTA Methodology 37
Pairing Knowledge Elicitation With Knowledge Analysis 38
Effectiveness of CTA 38
Benefits of CTA for Instruction 40
Meta-Analyses of Studies 41
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 6
Chapter Summary 41
Chapter 3: Methods 43
Participants 43
Data Collection 44
Data Collection for Question 1 44
Phase 1: Collect preliminary knowledge 45
Phase 2: Identify knowledge types 45
Phase 3: Apply knowledge elicitation techniques 45
Phase 4: Data analysis 46
Phase 5: Formatting the results 47
Data Collection for Question 2 47
Chapter 4: Results 49
Research Question 1 49
Interrater Reliability 49
Flowchart Analysis 49
Gold Standard Protocol 50
Recalled Action and Decision Steps 51
Action and decision steps contributed by each SME 52
Additional action and decision steps captured in follow-up interviews 53
Research Question 2 54
Action and Decision Step Recall Analysis 54
Alignment of SMEs in Describing the Same Action and Decision Steps 55
Chapter 5: Discussion 58
Overview of the Study 58
Process of Conducting CTA 59
Selection of Experts 59
Collection of Data 61
Discussion of Findings 63
Research Question 1 62
Action steps versus decision steps 62
Action and decision steps captured during the review of the
initial individual protocols and preliminary GSP 65
Research Question 2 65
Limitations of the Study 67
Confirmation Bias 67
Internal Validity 68
External Validity 69
Implications of the Findings 69
Traditional Methods of Instruction Versus CTA-Informed Instruction 69
High Stakes and High Accountability 70
Future Research 72
Conclusion 74
References 75
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 7
Appendix A: Cognitive Task Analysis Interview Protocol 87
Appendix B: Interrater Reliability Coding Sheet 90
Appendix C: Job Aid for Developing a Gold Standard Protocol 91
Appendix D: Subject Matter Expert A: Initial Individual Protocol Flowchart 93
Appendix E: Gold Standard Protocol 115
Appendix F: Coding Spreadsheets 137
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Cumulative Action and Decision Steps Captured for Each Subject
Matter Expert 52
Table 2: Additional Expert Knowledge Captured During Follow-Up Interviews 54
Table 3: Numbers and Percentages of Action and Decision Steps, or Expert
Knowledge, Recalled by Subject Matter Experts When Compared to the
Gold Standard Protocol 55
Table 4: Numbers and Percentages of Action and Decision Steps That Were
Highly Aligned, Partially Aligned, Slightly Aligned, or Not Aligned 57
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Process of conducting cognitive task analysis interviews and
aggregating the gold standard protocol 48
Figure 2: Example of aggregating action and decision steps for the preliminary
gold standard protocol 51
Figure 3: Number of action and decision steps for each subject matter expert
captured through cognitive task analysis 53
Figure 4: Percentages of subject matter expert knowledge recalled,
compared to the gold standard protocol 56
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CBT Computer-based training
CPP Concepts, processes, and principles
CTA Cognitive task analysis
CTR Certified Training Restaurant
CRM Certified Restaurant Manager
EdNet National Food Safety Educator’s Network
FDA Food and Drug Administration
GSP Gold standard protocol
HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points
IRB Institutional Review Board
JQR JQ Restaurants Incorporated
NRA National Restaurant Association
PARI Precursors, Action, Result, and Interpretation
PGSP Preliminary Gold Standard Protocol
SME Subject matter expert
3i + 3r Three independent interviews + three reviews
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
QSR Quick-service restaurant
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 11
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to apply cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods to capture
expert instruction of food safety training for novice employees at the national restaurant
company, JQR Incorporated (JQR), a pseudonym. Restaurant managers at JQR are primarily
responsible for ensuring that all employees flawlessly and consistently execute specific food
safety standards of practice, involving complex tasks and procedures within the operations.
Employees are often trained by experts to perform these critical food safety tasks. Unfortunately,
research shows that experts, when teaching novices, may omit up to 70% of the critical
information that novices would need to replicate performance. Although experts can perform the
tasks unconsciously, the double-edged sword of automaticity makes it difficult for experts to
recall essential information that is necessary for instructional purposes. CTA semi-structured
interviews were conducted with three managers who were qualified as experts to elicit their
knowledge. Action and decision steps, as well as conditions, standards, and references from the
subject matter experts were captured and aggregated to form a gold standard protocol which was
then reviewed by a fourth expert. This study also sought out to identify the numbers and
percentages of expert knowledge and skills recalled and aligned among the experts in their
descriptions of how they train novice team leaders in food safety. Findings indicated that expert
managers recalled an average of 46.33% of the action and decision steps when compared to the
gold standard protocol. The experts were “highly aligned” on 10.38% of the total action and
decision steps captured. The expert knowledge captured by CTA methods may be used to train
future managers and team leaders on complex food safety tasks, which may improve learning
outcomes and performance.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 12
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Statement of the Problem
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), a single foodborne
illness outbreak can result in millions of dollars spent toward remediating the matter; moreover,
a severe occurrence may result in deaths. In its efforts to mitigate this outcome, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) has established regulations for quick-service restaurants
containing standards for handling food and safety procedures (FDA, 2013). These standards
place particular emphasis on the essential tasks associated with food safety, as well as managers’
responsibilities within that process. To align to the standards, restaurant managers must learn,
recall, and perform requisite food safety tasks and train employees or peer managers.
JQ Restaurants (JQR), a pseudonym, understands these risks within food safety practice
and consequently has devoted significant resources toward providing the highest-quality training
system in the industry. Similar to the apprenticeship model, team leaders at JQR are expected to
learn how to perform a food safety task that is referenced in the Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Points program (HACCP). Team leaders are responsible for leading other team members during
an operating shift that is 8 hours in duration. This program, designed for new team leaders to
obtain necessary knowledge and skills, is deployed under the guidance and instruction of
Certified Training Restaurant (CTR) managers. The organization’s investment in and support of
this program are substantial. In fact, JQR spends approximately $1,200 per employee to teach
foundational concepts of food safety and the essential task of verifying that food safety systems
are securely in place. JQR’s annual commitment to ensuring that food quality and safety
standards are met exceed $3.2 million in annual labor costs for training employees.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 13
The current JQR food safety task-training program is supported by on-the-job practice,
performance support tools, and formal learning, all of which is deployed through a computer-
based system. However, outcomes for new restaurant managers are primarily dependent on the
ability of the CTR experts to train the “what” and the “how” of the critical food safety task
accurately and effectively. As part of the CTR managers’ responsibilities, they impart their
expertise to novice team leaders to perform specific food safety procedures. However, studies
have shown that experts, when teaching novices, can omit up to 70% of information novices
needed to perform complex tasks and solve difficult problems, since their knowledge has become
unconscious and unavailable for recall (Clark, Feldon, van Merriënboer, Yates, & Early, 2008;
Sullivan, Yates, Baker, & Clark, 2010). This condition extends the amount of time necessary for
teaching a team leader, thus incurring additional labor costs to maintain high standards and
expectations of the organization. As a way to enhance JQR’s reputable and effective training
program on food safety, a more efficient methodology for capturing and transferring food safety
expertise could positively affect key performance indicators, such as decreased labor costs or
improved time-to-proficiency, by reversing potentially 70% of the gap within the instruction.
Cognitive task analysis (CTA) is a method of capturing expert knowledge that has been
used in a wide variety of domains to capture critical action and decision points of expert
performance (Yates & Feldon, 2011). Several studies have confirmed the 70% omission rate by
experts for high-risk and critical tasks, such as medical procedures or military operations,
utilizing the CTA methodology (Clark, 2014). Much of the literature emphasizes the impact of
CTA-based instruction on performance improvement and learner efficiencies (Clark et al., 2008).
The research most relevant to this problem of practice has focused on the learners’ time-to-
proficiency and reliance on expert instruction (Velmahos et al., 2004).
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 14
Purpose of the Study
In the current study CTA was utilized within the domain of the quick-service food
industry and specifically applied to the practice of food safety training. Expert restaurant
managers were the central focus of this research to identify cognitive components of food safety
instruction when it is implemented with novice team leaders. The field research resulted in a gold
standard protocol (GSP) representing the action and decision steps that expert managers recall
when they describe how they conduct food safety training to team leaders. This GSP was also
used to analyze the percentage of action and decision steps that expert managers recall and to
examine the degree of alignment among all experts. The GSP, limitations, and implications of
the research are discussed in terms of how the current food safety training and instructional
design can be enhanced. The study addressed two research questions:
1. What are the action and decision steps that expert restaurant managers recall when they
describe how they conduct food safety training for novice team leaders?
2. What percentage of action and/or decision steps, when compared to a gold standard, do
expert managers recall when they describe how they conduct food safety training for novice team
leaders?
Methodology of the Study
CTA was used in this study to determine the knowledge and skills of restaurant managers
who were identified as subject matter experts (SMEs) in conducting food safety training for team
leaders. Four SMEs were identified; three of them participated in interviews and the fourth
reviewed the GSP generated from the data captured from the other three SMEs. The CTA
followed a five-step process suggested by Clark et al. (2008): (a) a preliminary phase to build
general understanding of the task; (b) identification of declarative and procedural knowledge in
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 15
the application of these knowledge types; (c) knowledge elicitation through semi-structured
interviews; (d) data analysis involving coding, interrater reliability, and individual SME protocol
verification; and (e) development of a GSP for analysis and development of instructional
materials for teaching novice team leaders.
Definition of Terms
The following are definitions of terms related to CTA as suggested by Zepeda-McZeal
(2014).
Adaptive expertise: The ability of experts to rapidly retrieve and accurately apply
appropriate knowledge and skills to solve problems in their fields or areas of expertise; cognitive
flexibility in evaluating and solving problems (Gott, Hall, Pokorny, Dibble, & Glaser, 1993;
Hatano & Inagaki, 2000).
Automated knowledge: Knowledge about how to do something that operates outside
conscious awareness due to repetition of the task (Wheatley & Wegner, 2001).
Automaticity: An unconscious fluidity of task performance following sustained and
repeated execution, resulting in an automated mode of functioning (J. R. Anderson, 1996a;
Ericsson, 2004).
Cognitive load: Simultaneous demands placed on working memory during information
processing that can present challenges to learners (Sweller, 1988).
Cognitive task analysis: Knowledge elicitation techniques for extracting implicit and
explicit knowledge from multiple experts for use in instruction and instructional design (Clark et
al., 2008; Schraagen, Chipman, & Shalin, 2000).
Cognitive tasks: Tasks that require mental effort and engagement to perform (Clark &
Estes, 1996).
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 16
Conditional knowledge: Knowledge of why and when to do something; a type of
procedural knowledge to facilitate strategic application of declarative and procedural knowledge
to problem solving (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983).
Declarative knowledge: Knowledge of why or what something is; information that is
accessible in long-term memory and consciously observable in working memory (J. R.
Anderson, 1996a; Clark & Elen, 2006).
Expertise: The point at which an expert acquires knowledge and skills essential for
consistently superior performance and complex problem solving in a domain; typically develops
after a minimum of 10 years of deliberate practice or repeated engagement in domain-specific
tasks (Ericsson, 2004).
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points program (HACCP): “HACCP is an
internationally recognized food safety assurance system that concentrates prevention strategies
on known hazards” (Egan et al., 2007, p. 1181).
Procedural knowledge: Knowledge of how and when something occurs, acquired through
instruction or generated through repeated practice (J. R. Anderson, 1982; Clark & Estes, 1996).
Subject matter expert (SME): A person who has extensive experience in a domain and
can perform tasks rapidly and successfully, demonstrating consistent superior performance or
ability to solve complex problems (Clark et al., 2008).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 2 reviews the literature in two main sections: (a) literature related to food safety
training and (b) literature related to CTA. Chapter 3 describes the approach taken in this study.
Chapter 4 reports the results of the study and addresses the research questions. Chapter 5
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 17
provides a discussion of the findings, limitations, implications, and recommendations for future
research.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 18
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Food Service Industry
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) characterizes restaurants within the quick-
service industry as the “food away from home” (Food Safety Industry, 2014). In 2010, nearly
$600 billion in sales were generated by the food service industry; within this global marketplace,
the “fast food” or quick-service restaurant (QSR) segment generates approximately 77% of all
sales (USDA, 2014). Relative to any other type of restaurant in the industry, it appears that QSRs
have grown more rapidly in relationship to the full-service segment.
Each year, more than 100,000 Americans are treated or hospitalized as a result of
foodborne illness. Small- and large-scale outbreaks have contributed to more than 3,000 deaths
(FDA, 2013). This places increased pressure on QSR operators to meet the needs of consumers,
face the constant headwinds of increasing operating costs, and ensure the quality and safety of
the food being produced. Consequently, the strength of a restaurant’s ability to meet standards,
execute systems, eliminate food safety audit failures, and deliver an effective training practice
become relevant topics of discussion regarding the health or sustainability of any QSR. In
summary, the call to action for QSRs is to institute preventive measures and standards that must
be in place to mitigate negative outcomes related to foodborne illness.
The following sections describe the standards for food safety, food safety programs, food
safety training, and a review of the relevant literature on the effectiveness of food safety training
in the industry.
Food Safety Standards
As part of the Food Safety Modernization Act, the FDA established strict rules for
serving food in the United States. The rules established by the FDA are based on science and
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 19
research (FDA, 2013). Each rule, or standard, is operationalized and assessed to ensure that food
is served safely and without risk to the health of consumers (FDA, 2013). As a way to regulate
the practice of food safety consistently, five principles have been established for the food service
industry. The principles are represented by the following actions: analyze hazards, verify critical
control points, establish standards for service, monitor, and take corrective action (QSR, 2005).
Although the FDA has severe requirements for food safety practice, implementing a program
that is guided by these five principles is the optimal method for mitigating risk (QSR, 2005).
HACCP
The HACCP is a not only a set of principles; it is also a system for restaurant managers to
identify potential risks within the operation and reduce or eliminate the possibility of foodborne
illness outbreak (Egan et al., 2007; QSR, 2005; Sanson, 1996). Developed in 1959 by Pillsbury
for the NASA program, HACCP is recognized as the most structured controller of food
contaminants that can be applied to the full life cycle of food handling in a restaurant (Lorenzini,
1995; Sanson, 1996). The tasks associated with HACCP include both documentation and
demonstration of standard operating procedures. The intent of the program is to protect
consumers and restaurant employees from the risk of foodborne illness or exposure to potential
hazards in restaurant operations. HACCP is operationalized through the use of a form that
defines specific standard operating procedures, temperature thresholds, and critical control points
that exist throughout the restaurant. Restaurant managers use this form as a way to facilitate,
validate, verify, and document the extent to which food safety standards are being met.
Furthermore, the HACCP form is the centralized place for capturing when and how corrective
actions have been taken in the restaurant. Corrective actions must occur when food safety
standards are not met.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 20
Accountability for Meeting Food Safety Standards
The responsibility of ensuring that food safety standards are met is in the hands of the
operating manager (FDA, 2006). Although federal regulations for food safety practice are set,
individual retail or consumer product providers are responsible for developing a food safety
management system, integrating the system into behavioral practice of the employees, and
inspecting the system to ensure that it remains in place at all times (FDA, 2006). Therefore, the
extent to which a restaurant organization fosters a culture that embraces safe food handling
practices ultimately determines the degree of success in adhering to federal regulations.
Restaurant managers must consistently create experiences for their employees that exemplify the
desired culture. Training can serve as an optimal platform for deploying those consistent
experiences for employees.
Overview of Food Safety Training in QSRs
Food safety training can serve several critical functions: to communicate food safety
standards, to integrate a food safety system, and to yield successful results in food safety
inspections. Organizations such as the National Restaurant Association (NRA) and the National
Food Safety Educator’s Network (EdNet) are dedicated to enabling those capabilities and
providing educational opportunities for food safety practitioners. Communities of practice have
been established to educate and update industry professionals on the latest standards and training
programs. Although HACCP programs are clearly defined, there is no universal or standardized
way to implement training across all QSRs. Consequently, there is a potential for significant
discrepancies in how HACCP is taught to restaurant employees.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 21
Food Safety Instructional Strategies
This section provides an overview of food safety training and explores the literature
regarding the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of food safety training and the implications for
food safety practice.
The literature and research on food safety practices has featured a variety of instructional
methods, or interventions, to include live, instructor-led workshops (McElroy & Cutter, 2004;
Rinke, Brown, & McKinley, 1975), food safety manuals (Sparkman, Briley, & Gillham, 1984),
computer-based learning (Costello, Gaddis, Tamplin, & Morris, 1997; Waddell & Rinke, 1985),
or a combination of strategies (Soneff, McGeachy, Davison, McCargar, & Therien, 1994;
Waddell & Rinke, 1985). Food safety training that takes place in QSRs generally contains
performance support tools such as job aids or operations manuals that are rich in text and
illustrations. Specifically, training for food safety has leveraged educational technology, such as
e-learning or self-paced modules, as well as traditional forms of instructional materials such as
checklists or participant guides (Worsfold & Griffith, 2003). Hands-on or on-the-job training can
also be found in the QSR system (Park, Kwak, & Chang, 2010). Most food safety training
contains a type of summative evaluation to measure the degree of knowledge or proficiency of
the learner, in the form of a written examination or pre/post questionnaire (Hart, Kendall, Smith
& Taylor, 1996; Medeiros et al., 1996; Tracey & Cardenas, 1996; Walker, Pritchard, & Forsythe,
2003).
Restaurant chains have also emphasized the importance of “food safety training
protocols” and other forms of instruction that have been found to be an effective strategy for
trainers to recall facts associated with food safety practice. As in the case of the restaurant
concept called Great Kitchens, these chains recognize that gluten-sensitive consumers with celiac
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 22
disease are at risk if exposed to unsafe food (QSR, 2013). As a way to mitigate unsafe outcomes
in food preparation and service, Great Kitchens modified their training program to emphasize
specific steps for handling food, avoiding cross-contamination, and food safety practices that
eliminate the risk of consumers receiving gluten-enriched foods (QSR, 2013). Employees were
trained through the managers’ use of instructional protocols that documented specific steps of the
food safety procedures (QSR, 2013). Although the Great Kitchen study primarily focused on the
effectiveness of instructional protocols, the broader literature within this domain evaluates a
wide-variety of instructional strategies used for training food safety.
Effectiveness of Food Safety Training
Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of food safety training systems within
the United States. For instance, Costello et al. (1997) explored the effectiveness of formal
methods of instruction, such as lectures, and computer-based training interventions for food
safety. The evaluations included a pretest/posttest to determine the degree of improvement
immediately following training; a knowledge assessment was also completed 1 week after the
intervention to determine the degree of learning retention. The results showed that the
interventions were statistically equal in terms of effectiveness, defined as the impact on retention
of knowledge. Alternatively, in a separate computer-based study, a pretest/posttest evaluation
was conducted using a 28-restaurant sample population to determine instructional value (Smith
& Shillam, 2000). This instructional approach focused upon the basics in food safety, including
the importance of washing hands and taking accurate temperatures. The results of the posttest
indicated that food safety inspection scores were significantly higher in the training group
compared to the control group who did not receive the intervention. After 1 year from the time
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 23
the instruction was implemented, results continued to indicate better performance by employees
who had experienced the computer-based instruction (Smith & Shillam, 2000).
Since much of the cited research took place in the late 1990s, it is important to
acknowledge the shift in educational technology over the past two decades, wherein computer-
based training has become a more widespread method. Therefore, if the study were to be
duplicated, it might yield different outcomes in response to the learners’ adoption of new
technologies. Additionally, Park et al. (2010) offer an alternative lens to what is most effective
for food safety training. The researchers found that hands-on training produced stronger
outcomes than any other instructional strategy. The researchers designed a pretest/posttest
evaluation for a 12-restaurant implementation to determine the effectiveness of hands-on training
on performance outcomes of the employees. The results indicated a 17% increase in knowledge
assessment results when the training interventions were applied to the test group; however,
performance and behavior of the employees did not show significant differences after the
training was conducted. Regardless, Park et al. (2010) concluded that job-specific and hands-on
training conducted by the manager should positively affect this outcome more significantly.
Therefore, the literature appears to show that effectiveness in food safety training can be
achieved by a variety of instructional strategies, to include computer-based or hands-on training.
Other studies reinforce the outcomes reported by Park et al. (2010) in terms of the impact
formal training, such as hands-on or lecture-based instruction, has on performance in food safety.
For instance, Lynch, Elledge, Griffith, and Boatright (2003) studied factors influencing
performance outcomes related to food safety using a 13-item instrument. The research yielded
231 completed questionnaires from restaurant managers. Results indicated a correlation between
the manager’s years of experience and the knowledge acquired; depending on the manager who
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 24
was responsible for the food safety training, there were significant differences in learning
outcomes. Most interesting, the amount of time dedicated to training did not make a difference.
For instance, there were no significant differences in outcomes between respondents who had
received 40 hours of training and those who had received only 10 hours. The research explains
that the prior knowledge of the training manager as well as the effectiveness of the managers’
implementation made a greater difference than did the amount of time (Worsfold &Griffith,
2003; Lynch et al., 2003). The limitation of the study was that the questionnaire may have been
too simple for the respondents and therefore did not target nuances within food safety knowledge
(Lynch et al., 2003).
Consistent with Smith and Shillam’s (2000) study, Roberts and colleagues (2008) did
examine the nuances within food safety by evaluating training relevant to specific tasks (e.g.,
hand washing). As part of a random selection of 31 restaurants, a pretest/posttest evaluation was
used to determine the employees’ knowledge and behavior related to the task performance. Three
aspects of food safety training were examined: cross-contamination, personal hygiene, and
time/temperature abuse. The aggregated data from all three tasks indicated improvements in both
behavior and knowledge after the employees had received training. However, data analysis of the
independent tasks indicated that hand washing was the only task to show significant
improvements in both behavior and knowledge. The authors noted that most pretest/posttest
measures assess knowledge acquisition but not necessarily actual behavioral changes (Roberts et
al., 2008).
Similar to the data collection process implemented by Lynch et al. (2003), Worsfold and
Griffith (2003) surveyed 66 restaurant managers on various aspects of food safety training in
their respective operations. Outcomes of the survey indicated multiple challenges in managers’
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 25
implementation of food safety training, such as inconsistent use of feedback/coaching to
employees, inadequate time allotted to perform food safety tasks, disproportionate number of
employees who were trained relative to the management, and lack of structure in the curriculum.
For example, respondents indicated that training support tools such as job aids or posters were
helpful for food safety training; however, there was little evidence that these tools actually
existed or were readily available in the restaurant and documentation, an essential task in the
HACCP program, was lacking (Worsfold & Griffith, 2003). In addition to exploring the various
instructional strategies, the literature further reinforces the dependency upon managers to train
food safety and the extent to which they are able to effectively implement the training (QSR,
2013; Park et al., 2010; Worsfold & Griffith, 2003; Lynch et al., 2003).
Summary
Food safety standards, as well as the training used to ensure that the standards are met,
are required for all restaurants by the FDA and local regulatory agencies. The instructional
strategy that is most relevant to the technically complex tasks in food safety is on-the-job, guided
instruction led by an expert restaurant manager (Lang, 2007). According to Lang, depending on
the resources available for training, there could be several challenges for using this format
effectively, such as time limitations and accuracy of records kept by managers. When food safety
training requires any degree of scalability beyond one unit of operation, variations begin to
occur, which compromises the overall consistency of execution (Lang, 2007).
As indicated within the literature, many factors influence the overall effectiveness of food
safety training: prior knowledge of the trainer, the instructional design or strategy for food safety
training, and implementation by the training manager (Lynch et al., 2003; Park et al., 2010;
Roberts et al., 2008; Worsfold & Griffith, 2003). Thus, it is important to determine how
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 26
managers, especially those who have been found to be the most effective, conduct food safety
training. This knowledge can be used to inform instructional content for other managers who are
responsible for training food safety. In order to train novices effectively, the curriculum should
be based on the actions and decision steps captured from effective managers.
Using Subject Matter Experts to Train Non-Experts
Although some effective instructional strategies for food safety training have been noted
in the literature, several gaps remain in this field in terms of consistent implementation of
standard food safety instruction across this domain (Park et al., 2010; Smith & Shillam, 2000;
Worsfold & Griffith, 2003). Restaurant operators own the responsibility for food safety training
implementation. Therefore, expert restaurant managers are frequently called on for their
knowledge and skills to teach and coach others to perform complex tasks, similar to the
apprenticeship traditions in education in which the learner imitates the teacher. This creates an
important dependency on the food safety trainer or manager, who is responsible for imparting
expertise and knowledge to novice learners or employees.
Current research indicates that experts may omit up to 70% of the critical information
that novices need to replicate expert performance. When novices receive incomplete information,
they are likely to fill the void with their own information, which can contain misconceptions
about effective performance strategies (Feldon & Clark, 2006). Fortunately, as will be shown in
the next sections, research has shown that CTA is an effective method for eliciting and capturing
the knowledge of experts that has become automated and unavailable for recall. This is the same
knowledge that experts use to solve challenging problems or to perform complex tasks, as in the
case of food safety training.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 27
Knowledge Types
Declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge are all required for completing
complex tasks and are acquired as one moves from novice to expert (L. W. Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001).
Declarative Knowledge
According to Corbett and Anderson (1995), declarative knowledge is factual, goal-
independent knowledge. This includes beliefs about tasks or personal abilities, which may
influence goal setting (Paris et al., 1983). Merrill (1994) suggested four types of declarative
knowledge: concepts, processes, principles, and procedures. Nearly all cognitively processed
knowledge enters in the declarative form and, when attended to, is encoded in long-term memory
(J. R. Anderson & Fincham, 1994; Clark et al., 2008). Declarative knowledge is retrievable
information that can articulate the answers to the “what and why” with regard to concepts and
facts (J. R. Anderson & Schunn, 2000; Clark & Estes, 1996). Moreover, declarative knowledge
supports the attainment of the “how and when” to do something, which is procedural knowledge
(Clark & Estes, 1996). Clark and Estes (1996) explained that declarative knowledge is intended
to help learners to handle novel tasks.
Initially, knowledge is learned in a conscious, declarative form and is then translated into
a largely automated and unconscious, procedural form (J. R. Anderson, 1982). In the declarative
stage, domain knowledge is directly exemplified as procedures for performing the skill (J. R.
Anderson, 1982). However, declarative and procedural knowledge are not the same; they enable
different types of performance (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010). For
instance, declarative knowledge is not sufficient for performance, whereas procedural knowledge
is required for skill performance (J. R. Anderson, 1982; Clark et al., 2008). Automaticity of
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 28
procedural knowledge develops as skills are practiced; consequently, the automated knowledge
is outside the consciousness of the expert (Clark et al., 2008). Conditional knowledge is
knowledge of when to use a given procedure; it is a type of procedural knowledge (Ambrose et
al., 2010; L. W. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). As mentioned, a person may have the required
declarative knowledge; however, they may not be able to perform a procedure (Ambrose et al.,
2010). Similarly, one may be able to perform a procedure but be unable to articulate the rationale
for behind executing the function (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Procedural and Conditional Knowledge
L. W. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) and Ambrose et al. (2010) defined procedural
knowledge as the how and when, including the sequence of steps to be followed in a particular
task. Calibrating a thermometer, for example, requires procedural knowledge, skills, and
technique to complete the complex tasks (L. W. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Conditional
knowledge, as a type of procedural knowledge, is described as knowing the when or why of
certain actions, to include value judgments (Paris et al., 1983). Knowing what time during a
restaurant operating shift that the thermometer needs to be calibrated and why that is important is
an example of conditional knowledge. Conditional knowledge controls the fact-to-action
processing, whereas procedural knowledge relies on facts generated from declarative knowledge,
conditional knowledge is converted to decision steps from procedural knowledge (J. R.
Anderson, 1982). Thus, conditional knowledge is knowledge of when to use or omit a given
procedure and is a type of procedural knowledge (Ambrose et al., 2010; L. W. Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001).
Cognitive skill acquisition is a function of translation or transition from the declarative
stage to the procedural stage (J. R. Anderson, 1982). Procedural knowledge is production
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 29
knowledge represented by condition-action (IF-THEN) or procedural rules. Procedural rules and
factual segments combine to form competence in a given domain. When the factual segments are
activated, they are influenced by the extent to which the segments have been learned (base-level
activation) and by the context (associative activation) in which they are retrieved (J. R. Anderson
& Schunn, 2000). With repetition and practice, both declarative and procedural knowledge
become stronger and performance becomes more rapid, consistent, and automated (J. R.
Anderson, 1993; J. R. Anderson & Schunn, 2000; Clark & Estes, 1996; Corbett & Anderson,
1995).
Automaticity
Through repeated performance and deliberate practice of a task, declarative and
procedural knowledge become automated and unconscious (Clark, 1999; Ericsson, Krampe, &
Tesch-Römer, 1993; Feldon, 2007). Feldon (2007) explained that, through automaticity, speed in
performing a task increases as the amount of active mental effort decreases. This automation
process is advantageous for expertise because it supports the capacity to respond to novel
problems with more speed and accuracy within an expert’s domain, relative to others or novices
(Clark & Elen, 2006).
J. R. Anderson (1996b) suggested three stages of automaticity: (a) the interpretive stage
or cognitive stage, in which a learner is able to complete a task with verbal instruction; (b) the
knowledge compilation or associative stage, in which the learner works through the procedure,
applies or learns the declarative knowledge, and makes corrections with less verbalizing; and (c)
the autonomous stage, or automaticity, in which the learner performs the procedure automatically
without verbal cue, which is what occurs during expert performance (J. R. Anderson, 1996b;
Ericsson et al., 1993). Automated processes often initiate without prompting and, once they
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 30
initiate, the processes run through to completion without being available for conscious
monitoring. For example, in the domain of teaching, even when teachers are made aware of
omissions in their automated teaching processes and are subsequently provided with goals that
are designed to modify these automated processes, the teachers struggle to change. This is due to
the working memory that is already occupied with the misconceptions. This results in the
inability to attend to and monitor automated processes for bringing about desired changes
(Feldon, 2007).
The advantage of automated knowledge is that it helps to decrease cognitive overload
and/or processes that can delay the efficiency of working memory; that is, the length and amount
of information that can be retained and processed in working memory (Kirschner, Sweller, &
Clark, 2006). However, as described, a two-edged sword exists within automaticity. For instance,
when experts encounter new problems, they have the working capacity to see what is novel in
this new problem and thus, able to consciously figure out what to do. The other side of this
double-edged sword is that unlearning, once something is automated, it is difficult to unlearn,
since automaticity is highly resistant to change (Wheatley & Wegner, 2001). Furthermore,
automated processes take a substantial amount of sustained monitoring of mental processes in
order to become modified or eliminated and are often difficult to describe due to their
unconscious nature (Clark, 2008).
In sum, automaticity enables experts to perform tasks requiring declarative and
procedural knowledge, unconsciously freeing working memory to address novel tasks. However,
the unconscious nature of automaticity increases the resistance to change, making it difficult to
modify or express to others using concrete language and examples. Task performance, for
example, is improved when critical performance feedback is received (Ericsson et al., 1993).
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 31
However, research suggests that experts are unaware of the information that they use to complete
complex tasks as a consequence of automaticity (Clark & Elen, 2006). Information omitted by
experts may confuse effective knowledge sharing and ultimately hinder the full benefits of the
feedback process (Kirschner et al., 2006). Thus, methods such as CTA are critical to deconstruct
this knowledge into its original steps (Clark & Estes, 1996).
Expertise
Experts Defined
An expert is one who performs in a consistently superior manner in comparison to
nonexperts in a particular domain (Bedard & Chi, 1992; Feldon, 2007; Glaser & Chi, 1988;
Hoffman, Crandall, & Shadbolt, 1998). Bedard and Chi (1992) suggested that experts make
meaningful connections and obtain advanced performance within their domain. In addition to
faster and more accurate performance, experts have a greater degree of motivation (Ericsson &
Lehmann, 1996). According to Chi (2006), an expert excels in several ways: generation of
optimal solutions, accurate self-monitoring, effective decision-making, and efficient retrieval of
domain knowledge using minimal cognitive effort. The best qualifiers of an expert are track
records of strong performance, status in a professional community, or number of years working
in the domain of interest (Feldon, 2007).
Experts Versus Novices
Experts categorize, create schemas and solve problems compared to novices, who are
new to creating any form of knowledge (Bedard & Chi, 1992). An aspect that is core to
differentiating experts from novices is that the mental schemas of experts enable the efficient
organization of information so that it can be retrieved with minimal effort (Bedard & Chi, 1992;
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 32
Feldon, 2007). Furthermore, compared to novices, experts see beyond function and simple
schemas, such as in the creation of mental models (Bedard & Chi, 1992).
Experts rely on principles and concepts as well as making connections through
elaboration resulting in deeper learning; conversely, novices are more literal, predictable and
possess only superficial, or surface, information. Experts view problems differently than novices.
They must understand a situation well enough to consider the possibility that a problem exists
prior to activating solutions (Bedard & Chi, 1992).
Building Expertise
Alexander (2003) discussed development of expertise as taking the model of domain
journey, which includes three stages: (a) acclimation, the initial stage in domain expertise that
represents the demands placed on the learner as they acclimate to a new and unfamiliar domain;
(b) competence, the stage in which people demonstrate a level of competence in a particular
domain and possess knowledge that is structured by guiding principles; and (c) proficiency, the
stage in which experts obtain synergy of knowledge, become proficient, and contribute new
knowledge to the domain. Influenced by the actual knowledge acquired, strategic processing, and
interest, each of the stages leads to establishment of expertise (Alexander, 2003). Essentially,
expertise is acquired as a result of deliberate and continuous practice in solving problems within
a particular domain (Ericsson, 2004; Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Ericsson et al., 1993).
Expertise builds as knowledge is acquired in an orderly and deliberate manner (Ericsson,
2004). Ericsson et al. (1993) promoted a framework for acquisition of expert performance
through deliberate practice that emphasized the requirement of available resources (time and
energy), engagement, and rigor without exhaustion for the learner. Positive characteristics of
deliberate practice consider the learner’s motivation and prior knowledge in attending to the task.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 33
Ericsson et al. (1993) promotes the idea that learners should receive timely, corrective feedback,
as well as opportunities to practice the task as a way to build expertise.
Expert performance continues to improve as a function of more experience coupled with
deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2004). Expert performance reflects extended periods of intense
training and preparation; in most domains, at least 10 years is required to reach expert levels of
performance (Ericsson et al., 1993). Typical performers of recreational tasks, according to
Ericsson (2004), have nearly 50 hours of practice. By engaging in deliberate practice and
problem solving over time (usually 10 years), a novice learner develops efficient schema,
knowledge, skills, and decision steps (Ericsson, 2004; Ericsson et al., 1993).
Consequences of Expertise
As new knowledge becomes automated and unconscious, experts are often unable to
recall completely and accurately the knowledge and skills that encompass their expertise,
negatively affecting instructional efficacy and leading to subsequent difficulties for learners (Chi,
2006; Feldon, 2007). The shortcomings of expertise manifest in the form of overconfidence,
failure to recall superficial details, inflexibility in thinking, inaccuracies in judgment, and biases
(Chi, 2006). Individuals tend to attribute most, if not all, of their actions to intentional decision-
making processes, and the strength of this belief can lead them unintentionally to invent
consciously reasoned explanations for their automated behaviors (Feldon, 2007). According to
Feldon (2007), experts commonly fail to articulate relevant cues seen in problem states.
In sum, evidence suggests that habitual approaches to problems are goal activated and
significantly limit the solution search (Chi, 2006; Feldon, 2007). Extensive practice using
procedures to solve problems in a specific domain may lead experts to automate portions of their
skills. Consequently, the automaticity of experts impairs their ability to consciously identify
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 34
many of their decisions, thereby omitting key details and process information necessary for
providing instruction on optimal performance (Chi, 2006; Feldon, 2007).
These findings provide evidence to support the rationale for utilizing CTA as the
preferred method for eliciting expert knowledge that has been automated and has become
unconscious for the expert during instruction. The CTA methodology, requiring the capture and
aggregate of multiple experts’ input, can mitigate the risk of losing the knowledge that has
become the greatest utility in a domain of expertise, in this case the task of food safety training.
Cognitive Task Analysis
Definition of CTA
CTA refers to a variety of methods used to capture expert knowledge, including actions
and decisions, to perform complex tasks and solve difficult problems. This approach is an
extension of traditional task analysis and serves a function for identifying the unobservable
knowledge and goal structures that underlie the observable task performance (Clark et al., 2008).
The outcomes of CTA are used for individual training, performance consulting and development
of expert systems (Chipman, Schraagen, & Shalin, 2000). Clark et al. (2008) indicated that CTA
uses a variety of interview and observation strategies to capture a description of the explicit and
implicit knowledge that experts use to perform complex tasks.
CTA is a preferred approach for capturing expert knowledge because reliance on
automation to support human action or performance requires more attention on the cognitive
aspects that are not directly observable (Chipman et al., 2000; Clark et al., 2008). To the
detriment of novices, experts often omit critical knowledge and skills during self-report because
their knowledge and skill have become automated as a result of repeated practice; thus, making
the information unavailable for recall (Clark et al., 2008). Furthermore, errors and omissions are
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 35
introduced that can hinder novices’ subsequent performance. When novices receive incomplete
information, they begin to fill the void with more readily available information that may contain
strategies that are misperceived as effective (Feldon & Clark, 2006).
According to Clark et al. (2008), CTA has been shown to be an effective method for
capturing both the conscious and automated knowledge that experts use to perform complex
skills and solve difficult problems; therefore, this methodology was applied to the target
audience in this study. Extensive research applying the CTA effective methodology has added to
the field of educational psychology in the following forms: gap analysis in expert omission,
instructional design, program development, implementation, and feedback (Crandall, Klein, &
Hoffman, 2006). The following sections explore the history of CTA, taxonomies of knowledge
elicitation techniques, CTA methodology, and the effectiveness of CTA.
A Brief History of CTA
Rooted in Taylor’s time and motion studies and the work of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth,
cognitive elements of work were examined with the objective of improving human performance.
However, CTA-like methods can be traced back to the 1880s and found throughout the history of
applied psychology and industrial engineering. CTA methods more prominently emerged in the
1980s as a response to workplace demands and in light of advancements in modern technologies,
prompting the emergence of CTA (Militello & Hoffman, 2008).
As cognitive psychology became prominent, the artificial intelligence community
realized that computers could make use of stored knowledge. Interest in capturing human
expertise increased, and time and motion studies were limited in this capacity. Thus, it became
necessary to elicit knowledge of complex tasks and the explication of declarative and procedural
knowledge (Annett, 2000). The need for this change was driven by social, psychological, and
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 36
cognitive factors required to enhance or inform human performance in work settings and expert
systems (Annett, 2000; Hoffman & Woods, 2000; Militello & Hoffman, 2008).
CTA emerged fully with emphasis on decision-making tasks such as in air traffic control
or military command and control (Annett, 2000). Situated cognition, distributed cognition,
situated design (from sociological and ethnographic studies), cognitive systems engineering,
decision-making methods, and human-centered computing are all connected to CTA (Militello &
Hoffman, 2008). Consequently, the era of complex systems and increased technology ushered in
the need for a deeper understanding of human performance and an alternative solution for
capturing related expertise (Annett, 2000; Hoffman & Woods, 2000; Woods & Roth, 1988).
Today, CTA has evolved to become one of the most useful and successful methods for achieving
this objective.
Taxonomies of Knowledge Elicitation Techniques
Knowledge elicitation is the process of extracting knowledge specific to a particular
domain that underlies human performance (Cooke, 1994). According to Cooke (1994), there are
four categories of knowledge elicitation:
1. Observations: Knowledge elicitation begins with observing task performance in a
particular domain of interest and provides a general conceptualization of the domain, as well as
any constraints, issues, or environmental factors to be addressed in later phases.
2. Interviews: The most frequently used elicitation method is interviews, such as
unstructured, structured, semi-structured, conditional procedure, diagram focused, teach-back,
and PARI (precursors, actions, results, interpretations).
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 37
3. Process tracing: Process tracing involves collection of sequential behavioral events and
analysis of the resulting protocols so that inferences can be made about underlying cognitive
processes, such as action or decision steps.
4. Conceptual methods: Conceptual methods elicit and represent conceptual structure in
the form of domain-related concepts; they are used mainly to elicit knowledge to improve user
interface design, user experience design, guide the development of training programs, and
understand expert-novice differences.
Since it appears that these techniques have been based on processes, such as
taxonomies/typologies, it may be difficult for analysts to choose an appropriate CTA approach,
especially when the desired result is a particular type of knowledge (Cooke, 1994; Wei &
Salvendy, 2004). In general, a less-formal technique would require more introspection and
verbalization on the part of the expert; this places a greater burden of responsibility on the
researcher to ensure that the unconscious knowledge is being elicited during the CTA process
(Cooke, 1994). Cooke (1994) pointed out that formal methods require more time for preparing
elicitation materials. Formal methods are less flexible and require more training in the
methodological approach of the researcher. Conversely, informal methods are less direct and
perhaps less structured. The basic dichotomies between informal and formal techniques are
active versus passive, direct versus indirect, concurrent versus separate, and qualitative versus
quantitative (Cooke, 1994). This study focused on formal techniques and required time dedicated
to training, coaching, and mentorship throughout the duration of the research.
CTA Methodology
Chipman et al. (2000) suggested a process that included (a) a preliminary phase, (b)
identification of knowledge representations, (c) knowledge elicitation techniques, (d) review and
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 38
modification of the knowledge elicited to date by experts, and (e) use of the results of analysis as
the expert cognitive model. Similarly, Clark et al. (2008) stated that the phases are as follows: (a)
collect preliminary knowledge, (b) identify knowledge representations, (c) apply knowledge
elicitation methods, (d) verify/analyze data elicited, and (e) format results based on the desired
application. More than 100 types of CTA have been identified (Yates, 2007); however, the
majority of CTAs follow the described five-stage process.
Pairing Knowledge Elicitation With Knowledge Analysis
Although distinct, the techniques of data analysis and knowledge representation are often
linked elicitation methods (Yates, 2007; Yates & Feldon, 2011). According to Yates (2007),
since they share common characteristics, they are often combined into a single category in a
classification scheme. Therefore, as an alternative to tradition, Yates (2007) encouraged
practitioners to select the most optimal technique by identifying the desired outcome of the CTA
rather than the process of CTA. A specific application of this recommendation comes in the form
of a pairing of knowledge elicitations with an analysis/representation technique (Yates, 2007).
As a result, process tracing/protocol analysis, concept mapping, repertory grids, and card sorts
are relatively formalized in their methodology and integrated components of both knowledge
elicitation and analysis/representation that enable a researcher to make valuable meaning of the
results.
Effectiveness of CTA
CTA has been applied to many contexts, particularly for domains that emphasize building
technical-functional capabilities in fields such as engineering or the military. Crandall et al.
(2006) discussed the utility value of CTA for nurses or other medical practitioners. For instance,
the Clarian Project focused on patient safety and utilized the two phases of the CTA process:
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 39
analysis and design. Essentially, nurses were asked to “debrief” a particular task that dealt with
patient safety, such as citing a critical incident. At that point, the nurses were taught how to
conduct CTA. The learning objective was for the nurses to obtain “debrief capability” as part of
their feedback and reflection after each critical incident (Crandall et al., 2006). This application
of CTA to inform the curriculum within the nurses’ workshop appears to be a strategic solution
to an ongoing, day-to-day problem such as safety incidents in the medical field.
There is additional evidence pertaining to training for students in the health care field.
According to Clark (2014), CTA-informed instruction has been both positive and advantageous
for increasing learning outcomes and reducing the number of mistakes made by novices in this
domain. This may drive the point that CTA-informed learners, who are employees, may be
considered “better trained” and perhaps more appealing to employers throughout the medical
field (Clark, 2014). Findings from various studies are favorable in supporting CTA as an
effective method for training in nursing practice through delivering results, such as enhancing
communication, performance, and overcoming mistakes (Crandall & Getchell-Reiter, 1993;
Fackler et al., 2009).
CTA appears to be most useful for educators in the effort to capture subtleties and
perceptual differences that are often left out during instruction. This method is beneficial for
organizations that require information to be presented or communicated in a structured manner
(Crandall et al., 2006). Therefore, it seems that the outcomes of CTA are an essential asset for
adapting instructional content to complex situations. This is attributed to the degree to which
cognitive knowledge of experts, including concepts, principles, reasoning, and mental models, is
illuminated through the CTA process (Crandall et al., 2006; Hoffman & Militello, 2009; Means
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 40
& Gotts, 1988). The literature relevant to the benefit of CTA for instructional purposes is
presented in the next section.
Benefits of CTA for Instruction
Research on the applied practice of CTA has uncovered several benefits and useful
design strategies as compared to other forms of instruction. Crandall et al. (2006) outlined
various functions of CTA with regard to instruction, such as identifying requirements for
training, scenario building, case study development, and guided instruction, otherwise known as
“on-the-job training.” Therefore, the outcomes of CTA provide instructional strategies that can
address the following: problem solving, troubleshooting, and decision-making (Clark, Yates,
Early, & Moulton, 2010; Crandall et al., 2006; Means & Gott, 1988). For example, the National
Emergency Training Center trains firefighters to make critical life-saving decisions. CTA was
used to enhance instruction by addressing patterns, actions, decision considerations, and
judgments that are essential to the decision-making process of a firefighter. As part of the
scenario design, the outcomes of CTA essentially served as the content for the “how-to”
instruction on decision-making (Crandall et al., 2006). This is an example of how CTA bridges
the gap between content and context, which is an essential part of the learning process (Crandall
et al., 2006; Means & Gott, 1988).
According to Clark et al. (2008), CTA-informed instruction has been found to reduce the
amount of training time by nearly half, as compared to traditional instruction. There have been
comparative analyses investigating efficiencies between conventional forms of instruction and
the outcomes of CTA-informed instruction (Clark & Estes, 1996; Schaafstal, Schraagen, &
Marcel, 2000). The results indicate that, even in cases where additional time was added to the
training, improvements in time-to-proficiency were strong (Clark & Estes, 1996). In summary,
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 41
this cost-benefit analysis demonstrated that the overall time spent learning a task was less when
the curriculum was informed by CTA (Clark & Estes, 1996; Schaafstal et al., 2000).
Meta-Analyses of Studies
Tofel-Grehl and Feldon (2013) and Lee (2004) conducted meta-analyses regarding the
effectiveness of CTA-based instructional methods as compared to traditional, non-CTA-
informed instruction. Both studies confirmed learning gains ranging from 31% to 75% in post-
training learning. Tofel-Grehl and Feldon (2013) determined that CTA-informed instruction, as
compared to traditional methods using behavioral task analyses, yielded an effect size 3 times
greater. Lee (2004) found a mean impact of .91 to 1.45 after analyzing nearly 40 comparison
studies intended to measure the difference in performance outcomes between instructional
methods. Thus, CTA has been consistently shown to be a more effective instructional strategy
than non-CTA approaches.
Much of the literature emphasizes the impact of CTA-based instruction on performance
improvement, learner efficiencies, and skill development as compared to other instructional
content strategies (Clark et al., 2008; Velmahos et al., 2004). Ability to perform complex tasks,
for example, requires time to develop a cognitive architecture, which is difficult to establish
through traditional instructional strategies (Clark et al., 2010). CTA enables a more structured
protocol for the learner to obtain necessary knowledge and skills associated with a complex task
(Clark et al., 2008). Research indicates that instruction informed by CTA improves learning
performance by 35% when compared to traditional instruction (Clark, 2014).
Chapter Summary
Experts, when asked to recall how to perform complex procedures, unconsciously omit
up to 70% of the information that novices would need to perform the task being described. The
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 42
omitted information is critical for instructional purposes. At JQR, teaching food safety is a
complex task requiring expert knowledge and skills to meet federally regulated standards in the
food service industry. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to perform CTA to identify action
and decision steps of expert managers at JQR when they described how they teach food safety to
novice team leaders.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 43
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
The purpose of this study was to conduct CTA to capture the action and decision steps
recalled by expert managers when asked to describe how they conduct food safety training for
novice team leaders. The task examined was expert instruction of food safety training for team
leaders in the restaurant operations at JQR. The food safety training performed by the managers
includes instruction on HACCP, a specific hazard analysis process. Given the nature of expertise,
the managers were assumed to have highly automated and unconscious declarative and
procedural knowledge of this task, and as a consequence, it was difficult for them to recall or
provide accurate details associated with what, why, how, and why they train team leaders in food
safety.
Two research questions guided the study:
1. What are the action and decision steps that expert restaurant managers recall when they
describe how they conduct food safety training for novice team leaders?
2. What percentage of action and/or decisions steps, when compared to a gold standard,
do expert managers recall when they describe how they conduct food safety training for novice
team leaders?
Participants
According to Bedard and Chi (1992), “experts” can process decisions faster than novices
and are cognitively capable of drawing on strategies for solving problems. Experts are held in
high regard by their peers, find more success in achieving consistent performance, and are relied
on for their superiority in a particular domain (Chi, 2006; Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996; Feldon,
2007). The SMEs identified for this study were certified restaurant managers. For managers to
qualify as experts for the purposes of this study, they met the following criteria: (a) experience:
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 44
approximately 6 years experience as a certified manager; (b) performance: minimum 2 years of
consistent performance, validated by appraisals conducted by their supervisors; and (c)
demonstrated proficiency: recent (within 6 months) performance of the task evaluated as
“effective” in executing food safety systems, as evidenced by food safety audit reports (>95%
score). Once the expert managers were identified as meeting the criteria, a final consideration
was recommendation by a field training and development professional. The collected data were
triangulated with the experts’ supervisors for final approval.
Chao and Salvendy (1994) and Crispen (2010) suggested that there is a point of
diminished marginal utility when a researcher includes more than four experts for a CTA study.
Essentially, diminished marginal utility is reached when the return on invested time and
resources on part of the researcher yields less than 10% of additional captured action or decision
steps (Chao & Salvendy, 1994). Therefore, this study identified three experts to participate in the
CTA interviews, and a fourth expert who met the defined criteria was engaged to validate the
final protocol.
Data Collection
Data Collection for Question 1
Research question 1 asked, What are the action and decision steps that expert restaurant
managers recall when they describe how they conduct food safety training for novice team
leaders? This study was based on methods established by Clark et al. (2008) with the following
phases: (a) collecting preliminary domain-specific knowledge or documentation, (b) identifying
the types of knowledge required to perform the task, (c) conducting semi-structured interviews to
activate the knowledge elicitation technique, and (d) validating and analyzing the outcomes of
the interviews to create the GSP.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 45
Phase 1: Collect preliminary knowledge. The researcher is a training and development
leader in a foodservice organization and has experience in observing the performance of food
safety instruction and HACCP procedures. A thorough literature review was conducted to
understand the landscape of the food service industry, food safety training in the context of the
regulated food safety standards, applied instructional strategies, and previous research related to
the effectiveness of food safety training. Preliminary knowledge came in the form of reviewing
the HACCP documentation, which is central to the instruction or the task being examined.
Phase 2: Identify knowledge types. The review of literature revealed certain knowledge
types: declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. For example, the researcher identified
parts and terms of machinery that required definitions, processes of how machinery and
measuring instruments work, and instructions on how to reassemble machinery. Under the
guidance of a senior researcher and colleagues, the researcher engaged in educational exercises
(e.g., reviews of worked examples featuring various knowledge types) as a way to reinforce
understanding and ability to distinguish knowledge types.
Phase 3: Apply knowledge elicitation techniques. A semi-structured interview protocol
based on Clark (2007) was developed to elicit information from the three experts (Appendix A).
During the interview process, the experts were asked a series of questions focused on the action
steps, decision steps, specific tasks, and challenges associated with teaching food safety
principles to novice team leaders. The action and decision steps represent the information that
novices need to perform complex food safety procedures. Action steps are essentially statements
about what a person should do; they begin with a verb, such as “Obtain a copy of the HACCP
form.” Decision steps contain two or more alternatives and an action, such as “When obtaining a
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 46
copy of the HACCP form, IF it is the morning, THEN refer to the top-half of the HACCP form;
IF it is the evening, THEN refer to the bottom-half of the HACCP form.”
The interview began with the researcher clearly describing the CTA process to each
expert. Then the researcher asked the expert to describe the action and decision steps used to
teach food safety to team leaders. The expert was first asked to outline the main procedures used
during instruction. Once the outline of the performance sequence was captured and made
available for viewing by both the researcher and the expert, the expert was asked to describe the
specific subtasks associated with each main procedure. The researcher used the same instrument
for all three interviews. The first round of independent interviews took approximately 2 hours,
followed by a review with each expert that took approximately 1 hour, averaging a total of 3
hours dedicated by the researcher with each expert.
Phase 4: Data analysis. The information captured from the experts during the semi-
structured interviews was used to create a preliminary protocol for how to train a team leader in
food safety. In preparation for developing the protocol, the researcher formatted results so they
could be refined and verified by the experts as accurate and complete.
Coding. After the three interviews were transcribed, a CTA coding scheme was applied
that enabled the researcher to analyze the interview data. The codes categorized the following
data: objectives, conditions/cues, actions, decisions, standards, equipment, sensory information,
reasons, new processes, new concepts, and reference materials.
Interrater reliability. The researcher and a colleague who was trained to conduct the
coding coded one of the transcripts. Upon completing the coding independently, an interrater
reliability test was calculated to determine the percentage of alignment between the two coders.
According to Hoffman et al. (1998), obtaining 85% or higher agreement is an indication that the
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 47
coding process was consistent and reliable among the coders. The completed interrater reliability
tally sheet is included as Appendix B.
SME protocol and verification. The researcher, or knowledge analyst, reviewed the
transcripts from each of the SME interviews and used the data to develop individual protocols
for each SME. In preparation for the second follow-up reviews, the researcher identified specific
clarifying questions associated with outcomes of the first interviews. Consistent with the
approach used by Zepeda-McZeal (2014), the reviews took place in a formal setting and in
person with each SME, allowing for the expert and researcher to review each individual
protocol’s action and decision steps in a line-by-line manner.
Phase 5: Formatting the results. A preliminary gold standard protocol (PGSP) was
generated using the three SME reports. First, the researcher identified the individual SME report
that was most clear and complete in terms of action and decision steps. Then the remaining two
SME reports were compared to the SME report that the researcher had considered to be the most
complete. If action and decision steps had the same meaning, the researcher attributed the items
to all experts. If an action or decision step was more accurate from one of the other two SME
reports, then the action or decision step was modified and attributed to both experts. If the fourth
SME contributed an action or decision step that was not provided in one of the three SME
reports, then the researcher added the items to the protocol and attributed the item to the fourth
SME. Appendix C provides a complete description for developing a GSP. The five-phase
process described above is represented in Figure 1.
Data Collection for Question 2
Research question 2 asked, What percentage of action and/or decisions steps, when
compared to a gold standard, do expert managers recall when they describe how they conduct
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 48
Figure 1. Process of conducting cognitive task analysis interviews and aggregating the gold
standard protocol. SME = subject matter expert.
food safety training for novice team leaders? The GSP that was created from the expert
interviews was transferred to a computer spreadsheet. In this final stage, each individual SME
report was reviewed and compared to the GSP. If the individual report included an action or
decision step that was included in the GSP, then a “1” was placed in the column of that SME. If
the SME did not contribute the same item listed within the GSP, a “0” was entered into the
column. This analysis allowed the researcher to calculate the percentage of action and/or
decision steps, compared to the GSP, that expert managers recalled when they described how
they conducted food safety training for novice team leaders. The analysis also enabled the
researcher to determine the degree of alignment, or agreement, among the experts’ action and
decision steps.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 49
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Through the use of CTA methodology, the declarative and procedural knowledge,
articulated as action and decision steps by SMEs were elicited, documented, validated, and
aggregated to form a GSP, which was used for analysis and evaluation. The content generated by
the CTA focused on the critical task of an expert restaurant manager who is responsible for
teaching food safety procedures to novice team leaders.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What are the action and decision steps that expert restaurant
managers recall when they describe how they conduct food safety training for novice team
leaders?
Interrater Reliability
The researcher and a colleague implemented the process of interrater reliability to ensure
consistent and reliable coding and to mitigate the risk of bias. Independently, using the outcomes
from the first SME’s interview transcript, the researchers coded the content as a way to identify
actions, decisions, standards, conditions, sensory information, standards, and cues. Upon
completing the independent coding, the researchers discussed the data in an effort to reconcile
and determine the number of agreed codes. The number of codes in agreement divided by the
total number of coded items determined the final calculation of 95% interrater reliability. The
results of this process are shown in Appendix B.
Flowchart Analysis
As suggested by Yates and Feldon (2011), the researcher constructed a flowchart, or a
visual representation, of the action and decision steps captured during an interview with a SME,
using the CTA outcomes. For this study, SME A’s interview protocol was used in development
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 50
of the flowchart. The flowcharting process identified irregularities in the logical flow of action
and decision steps and revealed any “open-ended” decision steps in which the decision did not
result in an accompanying action. The flowchart for SME A is shown in Appendix D.
Gold Standard Protocol
Following completion of all three SME interviews and protocol verification by each
SME, the data for the independent reports were aggregated to form the PGSP. The PGSP
represented the collective action and decision steps, or declarative and procedural knowledge,
that an expert manager would need to teach food safety to a novice team leader. The PGSP,
along with correspondence explaining the objective, was sent to a fourth expert (designated SME
D) for final review and validation. SME D was invited to offer additional input on the PGSP,
which resulted in a few modifications that informed the completion of a GSP. Figure 2 shows the
progression of an action step as data described by each SME from their individual protocols are
aggregated to create an action step found in the GSP.
The response to Research Question 1 is the final GSP (Appendix E), which represents the
action and decision steps that expert managers used to train novice team leaders in critical food
safety procedures. Overall, the GSP revealed seven stages in the process for training novice team
leaders in food safety procedures.
1. Identify a candidate.
2. Prepare the restaurant for the Team Leader training on HACCP.
3. Explain the concept of food safety, the rationale or importance of food safety and
create awareness.
4. Explain and demonstrate the food safety procedures for the Team Leader to observe.
5. Instruct the Team Leader to practice with a peer or the assistant manager.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 51
Figure 2. Example of aggregating action and decision steps for the preliminary gold standard
protocol.
6. Observe the Team Leader performing the procedures.
7. Evaluate the Team Leader to determine whether he or she is prepared to do the task
independently.
The following sections describe the disaggregated results.
Recalled Action and Decision Steps
Action steps, or behaviors that are observable, that were recalled by the SMEs came in
the form of task performances and verbal expressions, such as explanations, instructions,
storytelling, and direction. Those steps that are not observable but represent a cue for the SME to
evaluate or analyze between multiple options are decisions, each of which represents the
information needed for a novice to replicate expert performance. The GSP contained 472 total
action and decision steps, comprised of 407 actions and 65 decisions.
As described in Chapter 3 and shown in Appendix F, a spreadsheet was created for
purposes of analysis. The first column in the spreadsheet was coded “A” for action steps or “D”
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 52
for decision steps; reasons were captured and coded as “R” but were not included in analysis of
recalled items. The second column represents the final GSP. The third through fifth columns
represent individual experts: SME A, SME B, and SME C. If the SME’s report included an
action or decision step in the GSP, a “1” was entered in the cell; if the SME’s report did not
include an action or decision step in the GSP, then a “0” was entered in the cell. The recalled
action and decision steps were totaled for each SME as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Cumulative Action and Decision Steps Captured for Each Subject Matter Expert
Subject matter expert Action steps Decision steps Total steps
A 190 31 221
B 177 16 193
C 210 32 242
The following subsections review the results of the recalled action and decision steps
contributed by the individual SMEs and captured during follow-up interviews.
Action and decision steps contributed by each SME. The individual SME protocols
generated by the CTA interview process resulted in construction of the final GSP. Collectively,
the SMEs contributed 472 steps, of which 407 were action steps and 65 were decision steps.
SME A’s protocol resulted in 190 actions and 31 decisions, for a total number of 221 steps. SME
B’s protocol resulted in 177 actions and 16 decisions, for a total number of 193 steps. SME C’s
protocol resulted in the most recalled items, with 210 actions and 32 decisions, for a total number
of 242 steps. Figure 3 represents the action and decision steps recalled by each SME.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 53
Figure 3. Number of action and decision steps for each subject matter expert captured through
cognitive task analysis. Nonrepeating action and decision steps resulting in the gold standard
protocol: 407 action steps and 65 decision steps = 472 total steps.
Additional action and decision steps captured in follow-up interviews. Following the
initial interview with each SME, the researcher engaged each SME in a follow-up interview in an
effort to validate the data and ensure that all information was captured completely and
accurately. Prior to conducting the follow-up, the researcher explained the intent behind the
interview with each SME as a way to reinforce the importance of capturing all possible action
and decision steps. All three SMEs provided additional action and decision steps during the in-
person follow-up interviews.
As an additional analysis, the researcher identified how many action and decision steps
were added as a result of the follow-up interviews. SME A added 16 actions and 2 decisions,
SME B added 28 actions and 3 decisions, and SME C added 9 actions and 3 decisions. Once the
follow-up interviews were completed, the data were aggregated, and the GSP was generated, the
follow-up interview was conducted with SME D, who added 4 action steps and 1 decision, as
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 54
well as a single modification to the GSP. Table 2 represents the additional expert knowledge
captured during this process.
Table 2
Additional Expert Knowledge Captured During Follow-Up Interviews
Subject matter expert Action steps Decision steps Follow-up interview
A 16 2 In person, no prior email
B 28 3 In person, no prior email
C 9 3 In person, no prior email
D 4 1 In person, emailed report
prior to follow-up
Note. SME D, the fourth expert, did not participate in a complete semi-structured cognitive task
analysis interview; however, the researcher asked SME D to review the gold standard protocol
and provide additional items or modifications prior to the three SME follow-up interviews.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, What percentage of action and/or decisions steps, when
compared to a gold standard, do expert managers recall when they describe how they conduct
food safety training for novice team leaders?
Action and Decision Step Recall Analysis
When expert managers described how they conduct food safety training for novice team
leaders, the percentage of action and decision steps recalled, when compared to the GSP, was on
average 46.33%. The action steps, on average, accounted for 47.26% and the decision steps,
accounted for 40.51%. The total number of steps represented in SME A’s protocol made up
46.82% of the total steps in the GSP, SME B’s protocol resulted in 40.89% of the total actions
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 55
and decisions steps captured, and SME C’s protocol resulted in 51.26% of the total action and
decision steps captured. SME D contributed 5 additional items, which included 4 action steps
and 1 decision step. Table 3 shows the results of this analysis.
Table 3
Numbers and Percentages of Action and Decision Steps, or Expert Knowledge, Recalled
by Subject Matter Experts When Compared to the Gold Standard Protocol
Action steps Decision steps Total steps recalled
Subject matter expert n % n % n %
A 190 46.68 31 47.69 221 46.82
B 177 43.49 16 24.62 193 40.89
C 210 51.60 32 49.23 242 51.26
Mean 47.26 40.51 46.33
Note. Nonrepeating steps from the cognitive task analysis process represented in the gold
standard protocol: 407 action steps + 65 decision steps = 472 steps.
The percentage of recalled action and decision steps in each individual SME protocol and
the mean, as compared to the GSP, are shown in Figure 4.
Alignment of SMEs in Describing the Same Action and Decision Steps
The spreadsheet analysis was used to determine the numbers and percentages of action
and decision steps described by each SME that were highly aligned, partially aligned, slightly
aligned, or not aligned steps from the other SMEs. For each action and decision step, if the step
was included by only one SME, it was identified as being “slightly aligned” and the number “1”
was added in a separate column. If an action or decision step was described by two of the three
SMEs, the number “2” was added in the column indicating that the step was “partially aligned.”
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 56
Figure 4. Percentages of subject matter expert knowledge recalled, compared to the gold
standard protocol. Total nonrepeating steps from the cognitive task analysis process relative to
the gold standard protocol: 407 action steps + 65 decision steps = 472 steps.
If an action or decision step was described by all three SMEs, the number “3” was added in the
column, indicating that the step was “highly aligned.” If SME 4 contributed to the GSP, then the
number “0” was added to the column, indicating that the action or decision step was not
contributed by the three original SMEs. Table 4 shows the results of this analysis. The
implications of these differences and comparisons to previous CTA-related research are
discussed in Chapter 5.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 57
Table 4
Numbers and Percentages of Action and Decision Steps That Were Highly Aligned,
Partially Aligned, Slightly Aligned, or Not Aligned
Degree of alignment n %
Highly aligned 49 10.38
Partially aligned 91 19.28
Slightly aligned 327 69.28
Not aligned 5 1.06
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 58
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Overview of the Study
The purpose of this study was to capture the expert instruction in food safety from
managers who are responsible for training team leaders at JQR. The study was also designed to
identify specific action and decision steps recalled by managers when they described how they
train team leaders and compare those reports to the GSP. Research indicates that, despite being
able to perform complex tasks automatically, experts, when teaching novices, may omit up to
70% of the critical information needed for novices to replicate performance (Clark et al., 2008).
This is due to the unconscious nature of automaticity, which is resistant to change and involves
difficulties in expressing to others using concrete language and examples (Clark, 2008; Feldon,
2007; Wheatley & Wegner, 2001).
Managers at JQR, who are considered expert performers of food safety procedures, are
responsible for training team leaders in the critical and complex tasks associated with food
safety, specifically HACCP. The managers’ expertise has developed over several years of
experience and practice; as a consequence, the expertise that they have developed may limit the
quality of their instruction of food safety. Fortunately, exemplary performance outcomes proving
JQR’s successful food safety record is an indication that the managers have found ways to
overcome this potential problem by implementing repeated coaching and corrective feedback
throughout training. Nevertheless, the criticality of food safety and the necessity to improve
instruction that supports food safety performance will continue to be an ongoing need. Thus,
adding to this field of literature, this study used CTA to elicit and capture expert managers’
knowledge and skills for training team leaders in food safety.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 59
The following discussion of the findings in Chapter 5 links to previous research that
highlights the positive outcomes of CTA-informed instruction as compared to more traditional
methods (Clark, 2014; Clark et al., 2008; Feldon, 2007; Tirapelle, 2010). The outcomes of this
study may prove valuable to inform instructional design of food safety training, provide a
performance support tool for managers who teach food safety, and enhance current instructional
content in food safety.
Process of Conducting CTA
Selection of Experts
The CTA literature recommends selecting three to four experts from whom to capture
knowledge and skills. Selecting more than four experts for a study would reach a point of
diminished marginal utility as the amount of time and resources required for additional
interviews would result in less than 10% additional steps (Bartholio, 2010; Chao & Salvendy,
1994). Crispen’s (2010) research supports this recommendation that four experts generate a
sufficient amount of expert knowledge to formulate a GSP. In addition to the number of experts
required to conduct the CTA, the identification of the experts was a key component of this
study’s methodology.
Given the record of JQR’s reputable and consistent performance in food safety, the
selection of experts for this study proved to be relatively uncomplicated. Many, if not most, of
the restaurant managers met the minimum food safety audit performance criteria at a rate of
greater than 95%. That said, the challenge to identify experts was finding candidates who most
closely resembled what the literature describes as “superior” performers (Bedard & Chi, 1992;
Feldon, 2007; Glaser & Chi, 1988; Hoffman et al., 1998). Therefore, the researcher looked for
high-performing managers in food safety. Other considerations included identifying experts who
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 60
had obtained what Alexander (2003) described in his model as a consistent level of proficiency
and contributor to the domain of expertise (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). Within the context of
JQR, this is a person whom district managers and vice presidents of operations consider to be an
“above-average” or “distinguished” performer as a Certified Restaurant Manager (CRM), in
addition to exemplary performance records in food safety.
Clark et al. (2008) and Clark (2014) established key criteria for selecting experts: (a) 3 to
5 years of consistent performance of the task being analyzed, (b) recent performance of the task
according to colleagues in the domain being studied, and (c) a history of performance of the task
across different contexts. Consistent with the described CTA literature, this study met the
recommended selection criteria for experts. Each of the participating SMEs had more than 8
years of experience and CRM status and was currently responsible for leading others regarding
various objectives in restaurant operations. Although this was not relevant to the selection
criteria of experts, it is important to note that two of three selected SMEs spoke English as a
Second Language to their native language of Spanish. This is discussed below.
The researcher triangulated the data associated with each candidate in an effort to verify
the performance indicators of the potential SMEs. The identification process of experts
continued beyond simply accessing metrics of 95% or better. The researcher proceeded with a
list of 11 expert candidates, verified their employment, contacted the candidates’ supervisors,
and cross-referenced their performance against the recommendations of supervisors. The list was
narrowed to five candidates, at which point the researcher conducted a preliminary interview
with the candidates to determine the extent to which their qualifications aligned with the criteria
as an expert described above. The result was the four experts who served as SMEs throughout
the study.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 61
Collection of Data
As described in Chapter 3 and consistent with research by Flynn (2012), Tolano-Leveque
(2010), and Zepeda-McZeal (2014), five phases were conducted as part of this study: (a)
collection of preliminary knowledge, (b) identification of knowledge representations, (c)
application of knowledge elicitation methods, (d) analysis and verification of data collected, and
(e) formatting of results for the intended application (Clark et al., 2008). During the application
of the CTA, the data were collected via semi-structured interviews with each of the identified
experts.
Upon receiving agreement from each expert to participate, the researcher scheduled time
to meet with each person at a location that was most convenient for him or her. Prior to the
interviews, two of the three experts asked if they should come prepared for the meeting with any
materials or pre-work. The researcher answered the inquiries by simply stating they should bring
their “expertise” to the meeting. Each interview took approximately 2 hours to complete. The
follow-up reviews with each expert took an additional hour to complete, resulting in a total of 3
hours of invested time on the part of the experts and researcher. Throughout the semi-structured
interviews, the experts were asked to identify the main steps or procedures of teaching a team
leader regarding food safety. Once the main procedures were identified, captured, and displayed
for the researcher, the interview process continued, allowing the expert to recall individual action
and decision steps within each main procedure.
As part of the semi-structured interview, the researcher used structured probing to elicit
detail from the participants. Although the researcher emphasized the need to be “as specific as
possible” throughout the interview, probing was necessary to uncover relevant and detailed
information. Similar to the techniques utilized by Crandall and Getchell-Reiter (1993), in which
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 62
the researchers captured expert action and decision steps within the context of a neonatal
intensive care unit, probing questions and an “in-the-moment” orientation were used to identify
the knowledge of the experts. The probing technique solicited deeper understanding of
procedural knowledge, particularly for instances when the expert clarified a procedural task
using declarative knowledge. This could have been achieved only through adding structured
probing to a semi-structured interview format, which helped the experts to recall actions as if
they were in the moment of the task. As it applies to all SMEs, the structured probing questions
within the follow-up reviews assisted with elicitation and classification of a decision over an
action.
Moreover, some of the SMEs, even with probing questions, had difficulty in describing
action or decision steps in sufficient detail so that novices could be fully informed. Some SMEs
tended to “jump ahead” without realizing that they were leaving the novice behind. These
phenomena may be explained by Hinds’s (1999) research that experts’ predictions for novice
performance times are inaccurate and biased by the extent of experience. Experts tend to
overestimate the abilities of novices and underestimate the difficultly in learning or the amount
of time required for a novice to perform a task (Hinds, 1999). Therefore, consistent with the
Think Aloud method described by Ericsson and Simon (1984) for knowledge elicitation, the
researcher changed methods by asking the experts to verbalize the task performance while
visualizing the task performance. McIlroy, Stanton, and Remington (2012) applied Ericsson and
Simon’s (1984) method as part of a test focused on building expertise in military communication
planning wherein the participants were asked to think aloud. The results of the study add to
understanding of function of cognitive processing during verbalizing, the effects on skill
acquisition, and the confirmed differences in novices and experts (McIlroy et al., 2010). Per
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 63
recommendations by Hoffman (Hoffman et al., 1998), having the expert be trained to think aloud
might have elicited even greater detail during the interview. Regardless, utilizing more than one
CTA method, or a toolbox of methods, was found to be useful in this study.
Discussion of Findings
No formal hypotheses were developed for this study; however, the research was guided
by two questions. The findings are discussed according to each of the two research questions.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What are the action and decision steps that expert restaurant
managers recall when they describe how they conduct food safety training for novice team
leaders?
Action steps versus decision steps. All of the experts in the study recalled a greater
number of actions steps than decision steps. This outcome is consistent with the findings of
several other CTA studies (Crispen, 2010; Tolano-Leveque, 2010; Zepeda-McZeal, 2014). This
might be explained by Feldon (2007), who described the nature of experts’ schemas as highly
adaptive for problem solving; however, this also leads to inaccuracies or failure to recall specific
cues within a particular problem. The deliberate practice of experts has caused them to automate
their skills, particularly applied to procedures that are used to resolve problems (Feldon, 2007).
As evident in the number of action steps versus decision steps captured via the CTA, decisions
were apparently more difficult to articulate (Clark, 2014).
Other factors may help to explain the greater number of action steps recalled versus
decision steps. For example, both SME B and SME C described how they use various forms of
formative evaluation throughout their instruction on food safety with team leaders. In these
instances, when the SMEs were evaluating the knowledge of the team leaders during training,
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 64
they implied and explicitly stated that “regardless of the [team leaders’] response,” they directed
them to the reference material that contained the answer to the evaluation or question. As such,
formative evaluation, as described by the experts, was not entirely “evaluative” but represented
more of an opportunity to re-teach and re-emphasize the correct answer, regardless of the team
leader’s response.
J. R. Anderson (1996b) discussed the associative stage in which actions are connected to
responses when building automaticity. The re-teaching of declarative knowledge as it is being
associated with the procedural knowledge—eliminating the productions that do not work and
keeping the productions that work—increases automaticity and reduces demand on working
memory. As a result, the level of automaticity in performing the task accurately may be
increased when the team leader receives immediate feedback in combination with the correct
answer during this associative stage (J. R. Anderson, 1996b).
Another factor influencing differences in recalled action steps versus decision steps could
pertain to language differences. As an example, the decision steps elicited from SME A and
SME C nearly doubled the number of decision steps captured from SME B. This result could be
explained by a remark made by SME B to the researcher immediately following the first
interview: “I wonder if you had done [conducted] this interview in Spanish, maybe I could have
given you more information.” Surprisingly, SME B mentioned this at the end of the interview,
perhaps revealing SME B’s higher affective filter relative to the other SMEs’ level of comfort
with the qualitative interview process. This phenomenon could be explained by Kluger and
DeNisi (1998) in their discussion of the theoretical constructs of locus of attention and feedback
interventions. They hypothesized that affective reactions can potentially redirect attention away
from the task onto one’s self, “debilitate” performance, and dilute available cognitive resources
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 65
(Kluger & DeNisi, 1998). Although this was not confirmed in the current study, this offers a
potential theoretical understanding as to why SME B contributed fewer action and decision steps
than the other SMEs.
Action and decision steps captured during the review of the initial individual
protocols and preliminary GSP. As described in Chapter 4, each SME contributed additional
action and decision steps when asked to review the protocol generated from the initial interview.
As a result, the approach yielded 9 to 28 additional action steps and 2 to 3 additional decision
steps. The aggregated PGSP was reviewed by the fourth SME for verification to create the final
GSP and resulted in an additional 5 steps, including 4 action steps and 1 decision step. Unlike
SME A, SME B, or SME C, SME D was able to benefit from receiving the complete PGSP prior
to reviewing it with the researcher, creating a potential priming effect for the expert wherein the
cognitive operations were enhanced (Tulving & Schacter, 1990). Upon reviewing each of the
main procedures, SME D immediately pointed to the exact page and specific step where the
PGSP needed correction, indicating a thorough familiarity with the protocol. Thus, the researcher
was confident that SME D had contributed the required effort to review the PGSP carefully and
completely.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, What percentage of action and/or decisions steps, when
compared to a gold standard, do expert managers recall when they describe how they conduct
food safety training for novice team leaders?
The final GSP was compared to each of the individual SME protocols to determine the
expert knowledge and skills recalled by experts who were asked to describe how they teach food
safety to team leaders. On average, the SMEs recalled 46.33% of action and decision steps, as
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 66
compared to the GSP. Ranging from 43.49% to 51.60% of action steps recalled, with an average
of 47.26%, and ranging from 24.62% to 49.23% of decision steps recalled, with an average of
40.51%, this study supports previous research indicating that experts can often recall only about
30% of critical information when asked to describe complex tasks (Clark, 2014).
As reported in Chapter 4, the action and decision steps that were “highly aligned”
(agreement among all SMEs) represented only 10.38% of the total action and decision steps
recalled as compared to the GSP and may provide insight in terms of JQR’s areas of focus as an
organization. As an example, one of the SMEs (SME B) indicated that a recent food safety
failure resulted in termination of employment of a manager who was not able to demonstrate a
critical procedure in HACCP. All three SMEs reached total alignment in the aspect relevant to
the incident described. Not only is this a testament to JQR’s culture of accountability for food
safety but also to the nature of automaticity and expertise (J. R. Anderson, 1996b). The CTA
process itself may have moved the expert from the stage of automaticity into the associative
stage by triggering the more conscious, declarative knowledge of the task. This finding is similar
to that reported by Canillas (2010) regarding the influence of prior knowledge in CTA research
focused on the central venous catheter placement surgical procedure. The “highly aligned” steps
between SMEs could be explained by prior knowledge or heightened attention placed on the
critical procedure, wherein the experts are cognitively attended to or associating the declarative
knowledge more consciously.
The analysis of the findings also sheds light and practical emphasis on the recurring
subtasks within the larger task. For example, when a main step (e.g., check the nozzles of the
soda machine) was recalled by the experts and reached a high degree of alignment, the
subsequent and more specific steps (e.g., show a picture of a dirty nozzle) that followed became
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 67
less aligned among the experts. In other words, the SMEs appeared to have reached a higher
degree of alignment for some general steps than for more concrete steps. This could be explained
by what Hinds (1999) described as the nature of automaticity in experts, which moves
knowledge from being concrete to abstract. This is also explained by Chi (2006), indicating that
experts tend to exclude a level of detail. The advanced knowledge of experts is not expressed
through the quantity of knowledge but through abstraction (Hinds et al., 2001). Ultimately,
teaching others through the use of abstractions may make it difficult for novices to grasp the
conceptual understanding required to replicate expert performance.
Limitations of the Study
Although this study added to the body of CTA literature and produced results consistent
with previous research related to capturing expert knowledge, there are limitations to the study
inherent in the methods.
Confirmation Bias
The researcher has nearly 8 years of experience as a training practitioner within the food
service industry domain. This placed a substantial burden on the researcher to ensure that the
data retrieved and analyzed was not compromised by researcher bias. Clark (2014) described this
as the tendency of the researcher to create alignment between what is captured from the SME
and the researcher’s experiences, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the CTA outcomes.
Therefore, the researcher attempted to block preexisting experiences involving the task being
examined during the CTA interviews by being deliberate and mindful, using “think aloud”
techniques during the CTA interviews, and consistently cross-referencing with interview
transcripts when generating the protocols to minimize preexisting notions.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 68
For example, in a few instances throughout each interview, the researcher paused the
interaction to clarify that the proceeding line of inquiry did not represent any preexisting
knowledge or expectations on the part of the researcher and was intended to retrieve information
required for a novice. In other words, the questions throughout the interview were prefaced by,
“I’m going to ask this next question as if I am a novice and have no experience with what you
are describing.” This strategy promoted greater access to the conceptual, declarative, and
procedural knowledge required for one to repeat the task.
Internal Validity
The optimal way to ensure internal validity for this study would be for the researcher to
make direct observation of the SME performing the task as it is defined within the GSP.
Therefore, this is the second limitation of the current study in that the data collection primarily
utilized what Clark et al. (2008) modeled as the qualitative methodology of interviews and
follow-ups, through which knowledge was elicited from experts. Pairing observations with
interviews would have resulted in validation between perspectives of interviewees and actual
behavior (Maxwell, 2013). However, Yates (2007) suggested that the researcher select the
knowledge elicitation technique that best suits the desired outcomes, as opposed to the process.
Yates and Feldon (2011) emphasized the pairing technique, using both interviews as the
knowledge elicitation method and flowcharts, as an example, for a conceptual model used for
analysis. Therefore, considering the nature of the second research question, the researcher
intends to use the outcomes of the interviews, as well as the flowchart, to build future instruction
for food safety training. Although internal validity is not influenced by the terminal objectives of
the study but by how the research was executed, the point made by Yates (2007) is relevant and
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 69
simplifies the analysis to establish future utility. The idea to create instructional content using the
GSP is discussed in the Implications section of this chapter.
External Validity
In the current study there was strong alignment with what the literature states regarding
how to select or identify an expert; however, for this study to have external validity, the
likelihood of the results would have to be generalizable and transferrable to other settings
containing similar domain characteristics. In order for this to be achieved, the researcher would
have needed a larger sample and extend the study beyond the four SMEs who participated.
Although the researcher determined that the SMEs represented the broader restaurant manager
population, actual generalizability would need to involve a larger number of participants.
Implications of the Findings
The current research in cognitive science converging with workplace performance has
revealed that relying on experts and multiple experts goes a long way to improving performance
(Annett, 2000; Hoffman & Woods, 2000; Militello & Hoffman, 2008). JQR has an outstanding
history but there is always room for improvement, particularly when there is an evolving
workforce, innovative practices, diverse populations, turnover, and a growing consumer
population.
Traditional Methods of Instruction Versus CTA-Informed Instruction
In a research study conducted by Tirapelle (2010), using a posttest measurement to
compare traditional methods of instruction and CTA-informed instruction, the results indicated
that the experimental group outperformed the control group on decisions that they would apply
while performing an open cricothyrotomy. Clark (2014) supports these results by indicating that
CTA methodologies used to inform instructional curriculum yielded 35% greater returns in
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 70
learning performance relative compared to instruction based on traditional methods such as
observation or task analyses.
Similarly, Feldon (2007) compared instructional strategies of discovery-based learning
and guided instruction and concluded that, in both instances, errors in omissions during
instruction created a detrimental effect on learning outcomes. As indicated within the domain-
relevant Great Kitchens study (QSR, 2013), instructional protocols were found to be an effective
strategy for high-leverage tasks, such as the one emphasized in this study. Therefore, the findings
suggest that current instruction could be strengthened if it were informed by the outcomes of the
CTA. This provides a useful recommendation for strengthening the current deployment or
implementation of HACCP training.
The GSP generated in this study may inform instructional designers in determining what
knowledge types, learning objectives or outcomes, and instructional strategies are required for
training in food safety. Essentially, assuming that the GSP were used to inform instructional
curriculum, the two target audiences who would benefit the most from the outcomes represented
in this study are future restaurant managers, who are responsible for teaching novice team
leaders, and team leaders, who are responsible for performing the complex food safety
procedures. Continued analysis of the GSP will provide several advantages to the instructional
design process and content evaluation of the existing program. The implications will advance
discussion of how the outcomes of this study can serve a purpose in the instructional design
process and future food safety training at JQR.
High Stakes and High Accountability
Driven by the high degree of accountability for food safety, the researcher determined a
common trend among the SMEs: a “lock-in mechanism” for the terminal objective of the task
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 71
under study. Consistently, all SMEs indicated that, prior to a team leader being “certified” to
perform the critical food safety task independently, the team leader must continually practice the
task and receive corrective feedback. The literature confirms that corrective feedback and
deliberate practice are essential to attain task performance (Ericsson et al., 1993). However, the
repeated cycle of practice and corrective feedback is intended to make up for the omitted action
and decision steps in order to reverse the 70% rule defined within the literature. This can be time
intensive and cost disadvantageous on the part of the training manager, the learner (or team
leader), and ultimately, the organization.
The CTA conducted in this study indicated that perhaps the accountability falls within the
task and manifests itself in the form of evaluation. The results indicated multiple instances of
formative evaluation within the critical task of food safety instruction. The results of the GSP
suggest that, when complexity or risk in the task increases, the managers recalled evaluating the
team leaders’ knowledge to determine the degree to which they understood the correct answer to
the question, how to find the correct answer, and how to provide coaching or support to team
members with information relevant to the answer. This is consistent with the higher-order
cognitive processing skills and knowledge defined by L. W. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), in
which the expert needs critical thinking and evaluative skills, as well as declarative and
procedural knowledge. However, when the risks associated with the task appeared to be lower,
the experts indicated a less cognitively demanding formative evaluation, such as simply
accessing reference material containing the correct answer, referred to as the “open-book test” by
SME C. Consequently, it appears that the variation discovered in the study may reduce the
fidelity of formative evaluations and warrant consideration for increased structure in how
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 72
performance evaluations are conducted. JQR may want to consider leveraging third-party
assessments to mitigate the risk of this occurring in the future.
Relevant to other high-stake tasks, such as those performed in the military, the aspect of
troubleshooting becomes a relevant discussion point. Schaafstal et al. (2000) contributed that
structured protocols yielded greater results in terms of critical thinking and systematic cognitive
processing, which are essential in any troubleshooting steps. By definition, “corrective actions”
are a form of troubleshooting in the context of the food safety tasks analyzed in this study. In
several instances of the CTA, the SMEs pointed out when and whether a corrective action must
be taken. Therefore, it seems that a CTA study at JQR could replicate previous studies focused
on troubleshooting (Crandall et al., 2006; Schaafstal et al., 2000) to determine the specific action
and decision steps within executing a corrective action.
Future Research
Future research may include using the GSP developed in the current study to implement a
randomized experimental design study with managers who are teaching food safety to team
leaders. The randomized experimental study would analyze learning outcomes from
implementing a CTA-informed instruction as compared to a traditional instructional method.
Longitudinal research could provide useful data regarding the long-term impact on learning
outcomes resulting from expert instruction on food safety. The potential insight that could be
gained from looking at learning and performance outcomes over time would be beneficial to
development of instructional content for other high-leverage tasks at JQR. The research question,
“How does the CTA-informed instruction further enhance current instruction?” would be a
useful challenge for JQR. The future study could replicate works by Tirapelle (2010) and Embry
(2012), both of which discovered positive effects of CTA-based instruction.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 73
The aspect of the emotional state of the expert during the CTA interview and the
potential influence of affective filters may be a consideration for future study. As an alternative
to the approach taken in the current research, a comparative study could explore the outcomes of
a CTA interview conducted in the native language of the expert relative to the interview being
conducted in English. This test could compare the number of action and decision steps
articulated by the experts to determine the impact of the interview approach. The outcomes of
this research could assist in understanding equity and access. The findings could help to
determine the degree to which conducting a CTA interview in the expert’s native language
would lead the expert to recall knowledge that was more or less accessible. The results could be
a significant contribution to the CTA body of literature.
The analysis of the GSP revealed additional research questions that deserve future study.
For instance, what percentage of action and decision steps do expert restaurant managers recall
when they describe teaching food safety to team leaders, using the 3i+3r independent and 1i+3r
incremental methods, as compared to the GSP? A study could replicate the 3i+3r interview
method (used in the current study), including three independent (3i) interviews and three reviews
(3r), compared to the outcomes generated from the 1i+3r interview method, using one
independent (1i) interview with three incremental (3r) reviews. In a study conducted by Flynn
(2012), the 1i+3r interview method proved to be more effective and efficient, resulting in an
greater number of steps recalled, as well as savings in time and resources. Considering the
significant investment of time and resource that JQR has already dedicated to food safety
training, perhaps the 1i+3r approach might uncover a more efficient or effective alternative to the
approach used in this study. The future study should consider the outcomes of the CTA as
equally, if not of more, value to the time and motion spent in conducting the CTA. The delicate
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 74
balance between weighing the effort versus the return is a common challenge among learning
practitioners.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the body of CTA research to uncover the
knowledge and skills of experts. The results of this study, and many others, identified specific
expert knowledge required for novices to replicate performance. The GSP, featuring the action
and decision steps recalled by expert managers, can serve an important function for JQR’s
training system. The outcomes of the CTA will ultimately enhance existing instructional content
that is used to teach team leaders the critical procedures in food safety practice. Yates and Feldon
(2011) promoted the “active ingredients” of CTA as beneficial to creating cost efficiencies in
training. The intended application of the results of this study may ultimately reduce
misconceptions surrounding this task, strengthen the level of confidence in the curriculum, and
produce stronger results in the long-term performance of food safety practice.
JQR food safety training has achieved outstanding records of performance in food safety
execution and training. Furthermore, apart from identifying cognitive processes, declarative,
procedural, and conditional knowledge of the SMEs, the CTA interviews clearly tapped into the
experts’ strong motivation, passion, and deliberate intent to protect employees and consumers
from risk of foodborne illness caused by potential gaps in food safety practices. The interviews
validated constant and consistent dedication of the SMEs to “do the right thing” for consumers
and for the protection of the overall business.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 75
REFERENCES
Alexander, P.A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to
proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10-14.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35-44.
Anderson, J. R. (1996a). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist,
51, 355-365.
Anderson, J. R. (1996b). The architecture of cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1322-1340.
Anderson, J. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2000). Implications of the ACT-R learning theory: No magic
bullets. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY:
Longman.
Annett, J. (2000). Theoretical and pragmatic influences on task analysis methods. In J. M.
Schraagen, S. F. Chipman & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Cognitive task analysis (pp. 24-36).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 76
Bartholio, C. W. (2010). The use of cognitive task analysis to investigate how many experts must
be interviewed to acquire the critical information needed to perform a central venous
catheter placement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/
cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll127/id/385767
Bedard, J., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Expertise. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(4),
135-139.
Canillas, E. N. (2010). The use of cognitive task analysis for identifying the critical information
omitted when experts describe surgical procedures (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). CDC and food safety. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/cdc-and-food-safety.html
Chao, C-J., & Salvendy, G. (1994). Percentage of procedural knowledge acquired as a function
of the number of experts from whom knowledge is acquired for diagnosis, debugging,
and interpretation of tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 6,
221-233.
Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In K. A. Ericsson,
N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
expertise and expert performance (pp. 21-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Chipman, S. F., Schraagen, J. M., & Shalin, V. L. (2000). Introduction to cognitive task analysis.
In J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Cognitive task analysis (pp. 3-
23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 77
Clark, R. E. (1999). Yin and yang cognitive motivational processes in multimedia learning
environments. In J. van Merriënboer (Ed.), Cognition and multimedia design (pp. 73-
107). Herleen, Netherlands: Open University Press.
Clark, R. E. (2008). Resistance to change: Unconscious knowledge and the challenge of
unlearning. In D.C. Berliner & H. Kupermintz (Eds.), Changing institutions,
environments, and people (pp. 75-94). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clark, R. E. (2014). Cognitive task analysis for expert-based instruction in healthcare. In J. M.
Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 541-551). New York, NY:
Springer.
Clark, R. E., & Elen, J. (2006). When less is more: Research and theory insights about
instruction for complex learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in
learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 283-295). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1996). Cognitive task analysis. International Journal of Educational
Research, 25, 403-417.
Clark, R. E., Feldon, D. F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Yates, K. A., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive
task analysis. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll
(Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.,
pp. 577-593). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 78
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2010). An analysis of the failure of electronic
media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of guided
training methods. In K. H. Silber & R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of training and
mproving workplace performance: Volume 1, Instructional design and training delivery
(pp. 263-297). New York, NY: Wiley.
Cooke, N. J. (1994). Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 41, 801-849.
Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1995). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of
procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4, 253-278.
Costello, C., Gaddis, T., Tamplin, M., & Morris, W. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of two
instructional techniques for teaching food safety principles to quick service employees.
Journal of Food Service Systems, 10(1), 41-50.
Crandall, B., & Getchell-Reiter, K. (1993). Critical decision method: A technique for eliciting
concrete assessment indicators from the intuition of NICU nurses. Advances in Nursing
Science, 16(1), 47-51.
Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to
cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crispen, P. D. (2010). Identifying the point of diminishing marginal utility for cognitive task
analysis surgical subject matter expert interviews (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3403725).
Egan, M. B., Raats, M. M., Grubb, S. M., Eves, A., Lumbers, M. L., Dean, M. S., & Adams, M.
R. (2007). A review of food safety and food hygiene training studies in the commercial
sector. Food Control, 18, 1180-1190.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 79
Embry, K. K. (2012). The use of cognitive task analysis to capture expertise for tracheal
extubation training in anesthesiology (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll127/id/678652
Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert
performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 79(10), 70-81.
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition.
American Psychologist, 49, 725-747.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of
maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273-305.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Erikson, E. H., Erikson, J. H., & Kivnick, H. Q. (1986). Vital involvement in old age. New York,
NY: Norton.
Fackler, J. C., Watts, C., Grome, A., Miller, T., Crandall, B., & Pronovost, P. (2009). Critical
care physician cognitive task analysis: An exploratory study. Critical Care, 13(2), R33.
doi:10.1186/cc7740
Feldon, D. F. (2007). Implications of research on expertise for curriculum and pedagogy.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 91-110.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 80
Feldon, D. F., & Clark, R, E. (2006). Instructional implications of cognitive task analysis as a
method for improving the accuracy of experts’ self-report. In G. Clareabout & J. Elen
(Eds.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: Advances in studying and designing
(computer-based) powerful learning environments (pp. 109-116). Rotterdam,
Netherlands: Sense.
Flynn, C. L. (2012). The relative efficiency of two strategies for conducting cognitive task
analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/35/61/
3561771.html
Food Safety Industry. (2014). Market segments. Retrieved April 2, 2014, from http://www
.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-markets-prices/food-service-industry/market-segments
Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The
nature of expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gott, S. P., Hall, E. P., Pokorny, R. A., Dibble, E, & Glaser, R. (1993). A naturalistic study of
transfer: Adaptive expertise in technical domains. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 255-288).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hart, H., Kendall, P., Smith, K., & Taylor, L. (1996). Evaluation of a pilot food safety training
program for beef demonstrators. Journal of Food Service Systems, 9, 129-141.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki (2000, April). Practice makes a difference: Design principles for adaptive
expertise. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research
Association. New Orleans, LA.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 81
Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on
predictions of novice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 205-
221. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.5.2.205
Hoffman, R. R., Crandall, B. W., & Shadbolt, N. R. (1998). Use of the critical decision method
to elicit expert knowledge: A case study in cognitive task analysis methodology. Human
Factors, 40, 254-276.
Hoffman, R. R., & Militello, L. (2009). Perspectives on cognitive task analysis: Historical
origins and modern communities of practice. New York: Psychology Press.
Hoffman, R. R., & Woods D. D. (2000). Studying cognitive systems in context: Preface to the
special section. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors Ergonomics Society,
42(1), 1-7.
Kirschner, P. A, Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimally guided instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem based, experiential,
and inquiry based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. doi:10.1207/
s15326985ep4102_1
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a
double-edged sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 67-72.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772989
Lang, J. (2007). Food safety training. Foodservice Director, 20(2), 52.
Lee, R. L. (2004). The impact of cognitive task analysis on performance: A meta-analysis of
comparative studies (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 82
Lorenzini, B. (1995). Identifying food safety hazards with HACCP. Restaurant and Institutions,
105, 158-160.
Lynch, R. A., Elledge, B. L., Griffith, C. C., & Boatright, D. T. (2003). A comparison of food
safety knowledge among restaurant managers, by source of training and experience in
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Journal of Environmental Health, 66(2), 9-14.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
McElroy, D. M., & Cutter, C. N. (2004). Self-reported changes in food safety practices as a
result of participation on a statewide food safety programme. Food Protection Trends,
24, 150-161.
McIlroy, R. C., Stanton, N. A., & Remington, B. (2012). Developing expertise in military
communications planning: Do verbal reports change with experience? Behaviour &
Information Technology, 31, 617-629.
Means, B., & Gott, S. (1988). Cognitive task analysis as a basis for tutor development:
Articulating abstract knowledge representations. In J. Psotka, L. D. Massey, & S. A.
Mutter (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: Lessons learned (pp. 35-58). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Medeiros, L. C., George, R. T., Bruns, K., Chandler, C., Crusey, S., Fittro, J., . . . Evans, D.
(1996). The Safe Food Handling for Occasional Quantity Cooks Curriculum. Journal of
Nutrition Education, 28(1), 39-43.
Merrill, M. D. (1994). Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 83
Militello, L. G., & Hoffman, R. R. (2008). The forgotten history of cognitive task analysis.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 52, 383-
387.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, W. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Park, S., Kwak, T, & Chang, H. (2010). Evaluation of the food safety training for food handlers
in restaurant operations. Nutrition Research and Practice, 4(1), 58-68.
QSR. (2005). Making sense of HACCP. Retrieved from http://www.qsrmagazine.com/
news/making-sense-haccp
QSR. (2013). Great Kitchens educates chefs on gluten training protocols. Retrieved from
http://www.qsrmagazine.com/news/great-kitchens-educates-chefs-gluten-training-
protocols
Rinke, W. J., Brown, N. E., & McKinley, M. M. (1975). Two methods for instructing personnel
about food service sanitation. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 67, 364-367.
Roberts, K. R., Barrett, B. B., Howells, A. D., Shanklin, C. W., Pilling, V. K., & Brannon, L. A.
(2008). Food safety training and foodservice employees' knowledge and behavior. Food
Protection Trends, 28, 252-260.
Sanson, M. (1996). How do you spell food safety? HACCP. Food Management, 31(3), 89-92.
Schaafstal, A., Schraagen, J. M., & Marcel, V. B. (2000). Cognitive task analysis and innovation
of training: The case of structured troubleshooting. Human Factors, 42(1), 75.
Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., & Shalin, V. L. (2000). Cognitive task analysis. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 84
Smith, K., & Shillam, P. (2000). An evaluation of food training using videotaped instruction.
Foodservice Research International, 12, 41-50.
Soneff, R., McGeachy, F., Davison, K., McCargar, L., & Therien, G. (1994). Effectiveness of
two training methods to improve the quality of food service in small facilities for adult
care. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 94, 869–873.
Sparkman, A. F., Briley, M. E., & Gillham, M. B. (1984). Validated food service training manual
for supervisors with limited experience. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 84,
1475-1478.
Sullivan, M. E., Yates, K. A., Baker, C. J., & Clark, R. E. (2010). Cognitive task analysis and its
role in teaching technical skills. In S. Tsueda, D. Scott, & D. Jones (Eds.), Textbook of
simulation, skills, and team training (pp. 85-94). Woodbury, CT: Cine-Med.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12, 257-285.
Tirapelle, L. A. (2010). The effect of cognitive task analysis based instruction on surgical skills
expertise and performance (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3403766)
Tofel-Grehl, C., & Feldon, D. F. (2013). Cognitive task analysis-based training: A meta-analysis
of studies. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 7, 293-304.
Tolano-Leveque, M. (2010). Using cognitive task analysis to determine the percentage of critical
information that experts omit when describing a surgical procedure (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No.
3418184)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 85
Tracey, J. B., & Cardenas, C. G. (1996). Training effectiveness: An empirical examination of
factors outside the training context. Hospitality Research Journal, 20(2), 113-123. doi:
10.1177/109634809602000208
Tulving, E., & Schacter, D. L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247, 301-
306.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2014). Market segments.
Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-markets-prices/food-service-
industry/market-segments
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2006). Managing food safety: A regulator’s manual for
applying HACCP principles to risk-based retail and food service inspections and
evaluating voluntary food safety management systems. Retrieved from http://www
.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/HACCP/ucm2006812.html
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2013). FDA proposes new food safety standards for
foodborne illness prevention and produce safety. Retrieved from http://www.fda
.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm334156.html
Velmahos, G. C., Toutouzas, K. G., Sillin, L. F., Chan, L., Clark, R. E., Theodorou, D., &
Maupin, F. (2004). Cognitive task analysis for teaching technical skills in an inanimate
surgical skills laboratory. American Journal of Surgery, 187(1), 114-119. doi:10.1016/
j.amjsurg.2002.12.005
Waddell, K. P., & Rinke, W. J. (1985). Effectiveness of a computer-assisted instruction program
for teaching sanitation. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 85(1), 62-67.
Walker, E., Pritchard, C., & Forsythe, S. (2003). Food handler’s hygiene knowledge in small
food businesses. Food Control, 14, 339-343.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 86
Wei, J., & Salvendy, G. (2004). The cognitive task analysis methods for job and task design:
review and reappraisal. Behavior & Information Technology, 23, 273-299.
Wheatley, T., & Wegner, D. M. (2001). Automaticity of action, psychology of. In N. J. Smelser
& P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences
(pp. 991-993). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Woods, D. D., & Roth, E. M. (1988). Cognitive engineering: Human problem solving with tools.
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 30, 415-
430.
Worsfold, D., & Griffith, C. (2003). A survey of food hygiene and safety training in the retail
and catering industry. Nutrition and Food Science, 33(2), 68-79.
Yates, K. A. (2007). Towards a taxonomy of cognitive task analysis methods: A search for
cognition and task analysis interactions (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA.
Yates, K. A., & Feldon, D. F. (2011). Advancing the practice of cognitive task analysis: A call
for taxonomic research. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 12, 472-495.
Zepeda-McZeal, D. (2014). Using cognitive task analysis to capture expert reading instruction
in informational text for students with mild to moderate learning disabilities (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 87
APPENDIX A
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Begin the Interview: Meet the Subject Matter Expert (SME) and explain the purpose of the
interview. Ask the SME for permission to record the interview. Explain to the SME the
recording will be only used to ensure that you do not miss any of the information the SME
provides. Ask the SME to provide background about him/herself (as a way to validate their
expertise).
Name of task(s):
Performance Objective:
Ask: “How would the action term be stated? What action verb should be used?”
Step 1:
Objective: Capture a complete list of student learning outcomes for teaching expository literacy
instruction.
A. Ask the Subject Matter Expert (SME) to list student outcomes when these tasks are
complete. Ask them to make the list as complete as possible
B. How are the student assessed on these outcomes?
Step 2:
Objective: Provide practice exercises that are authentic to the job environment in which the
tasks are performed
A. Ask the SME to list all the contexts in which these tasks are performed (small office;
large office; private company; government office, etc.)
B. Ask the SME how the tasks would change for each job setting
Step 3:
Objective: Identify main steps or stages to accomplish the task
C. Ask SME/employee the key steps or stages required to accomplish the task.
D. Ask SME to arrange the list of main steps in the order they are performed, or if there is
no order, from easiest to difficult.
Step 4:
Objective: Capture a list of “step by step” actions and decisions for each task
A. Ask the SME to list the sequence of actions and decisions necessary to complete the task
and/or solve the problem
Ask: “Please describe how you accomplish this task step-by-step, so a novice trainee
could perform it.”
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 88
For each step the SME gives you, ask yourself, “Is there a decision being made by the
SME here?” If there is a possible decision, ask the SME.
If SME indicates that a decision must be made…
Ask: “Please describe the most common alternatives (up to a maximum of three) that
must be considered to make the decision and the criteria trainees should use to decide
between the alternatives”.
Step 5:
Objective: Identify prior knowledge and information required to perform the task.
A. Ask SME about the prerequisite knowledge and other information required to perform the
task.
1. Ask the SME about Cues and Conditions
Ask: “For this task, what must happen before someone starts the task? What prior task,
permission, order, or other initiating event must happen? Who decides?”
2. Ask the SME about New Concepts and Processes
Ask: “Are there any concepts or terms required of this task that may be new to the trainee?”
Concepts – terms mentioned by the SME that may be new to the trainee
Ask for a definition and at least one example
Processes - how something works
If the trainee is operating equipment, or working on a team that may or may not
be using equipment, ask the SME to “Please describe how the team and/or the
equipment work - in words that trainees will understand. Processes usually consist
of different phases and within each phase, there are different activities – think of
it as a flow chart”
Ask: “Must trainees know this process to do the task?” “Will they have to use it
to change the task in unexpected ways?”
IF the answer is NO, do NOT collect information about the process.
3. Ask the SME about Equipment and Materials
Ask: “What equipment and materials are required to succeed at this task in routine
situations? Where are they located? How are they accessed?
4. Performance Standard
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 89
Ask: “How do we know the objective has been met? What are the criteria, such as time,
efficiency, quality indicators (if any)?”
5. Sensory experiences required for task
Ask: “Must trainees see, hear, smell, feel, or taste something in order to learn any part of
the task? For example, are there any parts of this task they could not perform
unless they could smell something (such as burning insulation)?”
Step 6:
Objective: Identify problems that can be solved by using the procedure.
A. Ask the SME to describe at least one routine problem that the trainee should be able to
solve if they can perform each of the tasks on the list you just made.
Ask: “Of the task we just discussed, describe at least one routine problem that the trainee should
be able to solve IF they learn to perform the task”.
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 90
APPENDIX B
INTERRATER RELIABILITY CODE SHEET
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 91
APPENDIX C
JOB AID FOR DEVELOPING A GOLD STANDARD PROTOCOL
(Richard Clark and Kenneth Yates, 2010, Proprietary)
The goals of this task are to 1) aggregate CTA protocols from multiple experts to create a “gold
standard protocol” and 2) create a “best sequence” for each of the tasks and steps you have
collected and the best description of each step for the design of training.
Trigger: After having completed interviews with all experts and capturing all goals, settings,
triggers, and all action and decision steps from each expert – and after all experts have edited
their own protocol.
Create a gold standard protocol
STEPS Actions and Decisions
1. For each CTA protocol you are aggregating, ensure that the transcript line number is
present for each action and decision step.
a. If the number is not present, add it before going to Step 2.
2. Compare all the SME’s corrected CTA protocols side-by-side and select one protocol
(marked as P1) that meets all the following criteria:
a. The protocol represents the most complete list of action and decision steps.
b. The action and decision steps are written clearly and succinctly.
c. The action and decision steps are the most accurate language and terminology.
3. Rank and mark the remaining CTA protocols as P2, P3, and so forth, according to the
same criteria.
4. Starting with the first step, compare the action and decision steps of P2 with P1 and
revise P1 as follows:
a. IF the step in P2 has the same meaning as the step in P1, THEN add “(P2)” at the
end of the step.
b. IF the step in P2 is a more accurate or complete statement of the step in P1,
THEN revise the step in P1 and add “(P1, P2)” at the end of the step.
c. IF the step in P2 is missing from P1, THEN review the list of steps by adding the
step to P1 and add “(P2N)”* at the end of the step.
5. Repeat Step 4 by comparing P3 with P1, and so forth for each protocol.
6. Repeat Steps 4 and 5 for the remaining components of the CTA report such as triggers,
main procedures, equipment, standards, and concepts to create a “preliminary gold
standard protocol” (PGSP).
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 92
7. Verify the PGSP by either:
a. Asking a senior SME, who has not been interviewed for a CTA, to review the
PGSP and note any additions, deletions, revisions, and comments.
b. Asking each participating SME to review the PGSP, and either by hand or using
MS Word Track Changes, note any additions, deletions, revisions, or comments.
i. IF there is disagreement among the SMEs, THEN either
1. Attempt to resolve the differences by communicating with the
SMEs, OR
2. Ask a senior SME, who has not been interviewed for a CTA, to
review and resolve the differences.
8. Incorporate the final revisions in the previous Step to create the “gold standard protocol”
(GSP).
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 93
APPENDIX D
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT A: INITIAL INDIVIDUAL
PROTOCOL FLOWCHART
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 94
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 95
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 96
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 97
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 98
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 99
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 100
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 101
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 102
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 103
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 104
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 105
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 106
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 107
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 108
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 109
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 110
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 111
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 112
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 113
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 114
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 115
APPENDIX E
GOLD STANDARD PROTOCOL
Cognitive Task Analysis: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)
Task Analysts: Kenneth Yates, Ed.D. and Megan McGuinness
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Preliminary Gold Standard Protocol (GSP)
Task: Teach a Team Leader how to conduct the HACCP procedures.
Main Procedures:
1. Identify a candidate (A)
2. Prepare the restaurant for the Team Leader training on HACCP (C).
3. Explain the concept of food safety, the rationale or importance of food safety and
create awareness. (A/B/C).
4. Explain and demonstrate the food safety procedures for the Team Leader to
observe (A/B/C).
5. Instruct the Team Leader to practice with a peer or the assistant manager (B/C).
6. Observe the Team Leader performing the procedures (A/B/C).
7. Evaluate the Team Leader to determine if they are prepared to do the task
independently (A/B/C)
Procedure 1: Identify a candidate
Goal: Determine the potential of a candidate to become a Team Leader.
1. Determine the potential of a candidate to become a Team Leader, by looking for the
following behavior and/or characteristics (A):
1.1.1. Candidate starts to ask for more hours
1.1.2. Candidate demonstrates a desire and willingness to learn more
workstations
1.2. IF the candidate has a potential Team Leader and demonstrates leadership as
follows, THEN proceed to the next step: (A) (C)
1.2.1. Friendly with guests (360)
1.2.2. Friendly with other staff members (360)
1.2.3. Outstanding personality and comfortable talking to guests
1.2.4. Proactively initiates performing all the duties (361)
1.2.5. Proactively asks questions about “why” things are done (361)
1.2.6. Demonstrate coaching to others (417/457/446)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 116
1.3. IF the candidate has the pre-requisite knowledge to perform ALL procedures of
every workstations (392), THEN inform the candidate that they are ready to enter
training to become a Team Leader, which includes learning how to conduct HACCP
procedures (A).
1.3.1. Fryer
1.3.2. Cashier
1.3.3. Kitchen
1.3.4. Grill
1.3.5. Assembly
1.3.6. Administration work, such as printing reports from the computer e.g. from
the quality department or need to check emails)
1.3.7. Prep
1.4. IF you ask the candidate if they are willing to become a Team Leader and they
respond with the affirmative (“Yes”), THEN go to procedure 2 (A).
Procedure 2: Prepare the restaurant for the Team Leader training on HACCP
Goal: To prepare for the training of the Team Leader on HACCP.
2. Schedule the training at a time when you know (C)
2.1.1. the restaurant will not be busy
2.1.2. the restaurant will be fully staffed with all stations covered
2.1.3. an additional management person can be available to work the shift
2.1.3.1. REASON: so the Trainer and Team Leader will be able to focus on
being trained without any interruptions (233).
2.2. Walk around the restaurant and make direct observations of the relevant tools
required for the training in order to validate that they are readily available, such as:
(C).
2.2.1. Sanitizer solution
2.2.2. Sanitizer Strips (293)
2.2.3. POU thermometers are in place
2.2.4. Thermometers
2.2.5. Alcohol wipes
2.2.6. Shake mix is in the machine
2.2.7. Smoothie mix is in the machine
2.2.7.1. REASON: Because it takes a full hour for the machines to have
mix and for the temperature to be accurately taken.
2.2.8. Pen and paper
2.3. Review the training plan and HACCP book
2.3.1. REASON: This will refresh you as the trainer.
2.4. Obtain a blank HACCP form by accessing it from the Portal and printing it out
from the back office PC (376) and move to procedure 3 (C).
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 117
Procedure 3: Explain the concept of food safety, the rationale or importance of food safety
and create awareness.
Goal: To train the Team Leader on the importance of food safety.
3. Provide an overview of what you will be explaining: the concepts of food safety, the
importance of HACCP, and provide the reason “why” behind this food safety procedure
(A) (B)
3.1. Tell the Team Leader that “throughout the training, we are going to talk about the
concept of food safety and where this applies in the restaurant.” (B) (C)
3.2. Tell the Team Leader the importance of this topic by providing an example of the
risks associated to the food safety practice. (B)
3.3. Share about the example of what happened in 1992 with the E. Coli breakout
(184). (B)
3.3.1. Explain to the Team Leader that this was a major crisis that almost put
many out of businesses (190). (B)
3.3.2. Explain that four children died from the E. Coli (193). (B)
3.4. Reinforce the objective of the training by explaining to the Team Leader that
when they learn how to do HACCP, they will become an official person-in-charge
(POC), which means they will need to be able to observe and evaluate if the food
safety standards are being met (321) (C).
3.5. Ask the Team Leader if they have any questions regarding food safety, (A)
3.6. Tell the candidate watch the computer-based videos (CBT), located in
“Management Training” category (493), (A)
3.6.1. Instruct the candidate to watch sections of the videos over the course of
four days, 2-hours each day, (A)
3.6.2. Tell the candidate to take time away from working at the workstations to
watch the videos. (A)
3.6.3. IF the Team Leader indicates they have completed the videos, THEN they
are ready to move to the next step. (A)
3.7. Obtain the Team Leader workbook and begin reviewing it together (470), (A)
3.7.1. Identify how the contents of the workbook are applicable to this restaurant
(573); (A)
3.7.2. Instruct the candidate to fill in the workbook and address the following
questions (573-580) (A)
3.7.2.1. What happens if we have a guest problem? (A)
3.7.2.2. Who to call when we have a problem (including phone numbers)?
(A)
3.7.2.3. Where is the main water line? (A)
3.7.2.4. What happens when something is broken or there is an emergency?
(A)
3.7.2.5. What kind of probe do we use? (A)
3.7.2.6. What happens if there is no water in the restaurant? (A)
3.7.2.7. How and where do you go to shut off the gas? (A)
3.7.3. IF the candidate doesn’t know the answers for the workbook, THEN
physically show the candidate where to find the answers in the workbook
(A)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 118
3.7.4. When asking the Team Leader questions, if they do not have the answers
and it is NOT included in the workbook, then print the relevant
information from the back office PC or show them where to find the
information in the HACCP information (the first pages). (A)
3.7.5. Show the candidate the equipment related to HACCP (590-595) (A)
3.7.5.1. Thermometers
3.7.5.2. Main gas line
3.7.5.3. Water line
3.7.5.4. Drinks workstation and water line
3.7.5.4.1. REASON: If it’s broken, you would need to close the restaurant)
3.8. Obtain the official HACCP book for the candidate (474), (A) (B)
3.8.1. Explain “this is the paperwork that needs to be completed daily” (A) (B)
3.9. Turn to the opening page and refer to the proceeding 14 pages of the official
HACCP book (289). (A) (B)
3.9.1. Explain to the Team Leader that there are ever any questions about
HACCP, then you can always reference the first 14 pages as reference in
the book (292-293). (B)
3.9.2. Provide example questions to the candidate (i.e. hand-washing). (B)
3.9.2.1. “How do you wash your hands?” (B)
3.9.2.2. “How long do you wash your hands?” (B)
3.9.2.3. “Do you use hot or cold water while washing your hands?” (B)
3.9.2.3.1. Explain the correct answers and reinforce for the Team Leaders.
(B)
3.10. Review all of the first 14 pages of the HACCP book. (B)
3.10.1. Ask the team leader to read each one aloud (304). (B)
3.10.2. Ask the team leader questions to verify that they know where to find the
information in the 14 pages (323-326). (B)
3.11. Explain that if there are new HACCP procedures, then take corrective action in
accordance with the new procedures and proceed to the next step. (A)
3.12. Introduce the concept of corrective actions as actions that are taken when a
standards is broken. (B)
3.12.1. Explain in detail that the purpose is to document and corrective the action.
(B)
3.12.2. Talk about the fact there will be mistakes and that you will need to take a
corrective action. (B)
3.12.2.1. Explain to the Team Leader that it’s okay to make mistakes.
Corrective actions are okay. (B)
3.12.2.2. Explain that it’s a red flag if there are no corrective actions. (B)
3.12.3. Provide an example, such as, the Team Leader’s role and responsibility is
to ensure proper hand washing is taking place throughout their shift. (C)
3.12.4. Evaluate the Team Leader’s current understanding and prior knowledge of
food safety by making a mistake, for example,
ask an employee to see if they wash their hands as a way to evaluate if the
Team Leader does anything about it. (C)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 119
IF you directly observe the TL coaching the employee or providing
reinforcement for proper hand washing, THEN reinforce and
recognize that they are meeting the expectation. (C)
IF you don’t directly observe the TL coaching the employee, THEN role
model for them the expected behavior. (C)
3.12.4.1. Explain to the Team Leader that this HACCP training is important
to reduce the likelihood of “cutting corners” (234). (B) (C)
3.13. Explain and define - in detail - “cutting corners” or “short-cuts”: (B) (C)
3.13.1. Define what a short-cut is. (B) (C)
3.13.1.1. When defining a “short-cut”, use the following example for when a
person doesn’t do the HACCP activity, but they write the number
down (260)
3.13.1.2. Explain that this is also referred to as “pencil-whipping.” (B) (C)
3.13.2. Talk about the consequences of taking a short-cut. (B) (C)
3.13.2.1. Explain to the Team Leader that when an employee is taking a
short-cut, then there will be a individual, verbal, clear conversation
with the employee to discuss it (267). (B) (C)
3.13.2.2. Explain to the Team Leader that when employee take a short-cut,
then their employment will be terminated (268). (B) (C)
3.13.2.3. Explain to the Team Leader that if an employee were to take a
short-cut, like not checking the refrigerator today, then it could lead
to a bad outcome, such as a customer eating the food, getting sick,
or the employee getting sick. (B) (C)
3.14. Preview for the team leader that they will be checking the HACCP log for the past
two days to specifically look for any corrective action documentation. (A) (B) (C)
3.15. IF you feel the employee understands the concept of food safety, THEN you can
move to the next main procedure (C)
Procedure 4: Explain and demonstrate the WHEN and the HOW of food safety
procedures.
Goal: Explain and demonstrate the food safety procedures for the Team Leader to observe.
4. Explain to the Team Leader that you will be completing the HACCP together (A)
4.1. Obtain and refer to location on the blank HACCP form where the Team Leader
will need to record the restaurant number and date (A) (C)
4.2. Show the Team Leader where and how to check the previous day’s HACCP
record (437) (A) (C)
4.2.1. Make sure that the restaurant number and date is correct (441). (C)
4.2.2. Validate that everything on the previous day’s HACCP record is initialed
and checked-off (A) (C)
4.2.2.1. Explain to the Team Leader that if something is not checked off,
then a correction action must be taken (A) (C)
4.2.2.2. Provide an example to the Team Leader, such as “if the
shake/smoothie machine wasn’t recorded, then you would circle and
record under ‘corrective actions’ that the shake/smoothie was not filled
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 120
in, indicate the correction, and provide the current temperature.” (A)
(C)
4.2.2.3. Explain that follow-up (phone call or in-person discussion) would
need to occur with the person who was in charge of that shift (454).
(A) (C)
4.2.3. Finish explaining these steps by stating that if there is nothing missing or
incorrect on the previous day’s HACCP, then you would check the box
and initial the form (446). (C)
4.3. Demonstrate for the Team Leader how to calibrate the thermometer probes (473-
477). (A)(C)
4.3.1. Begin by demonstrating the proper hand-washing procedures, such as
(A)(B)(C)
4.3.1.1. Use soap and lather hands (A)(B)(C)
4.3.1.2. Wash for 20-seconds (counting aloud) (A)(B)(C)
4.3.1.3. Sanitize hands with gel (A)(B)(C)
4.3.2. Obtain a cup, 24 ounce, fill up with ice and water (A)(C)
4.3.3. Let it sit for five minutes (A)(C)
4.3.4. Stir the water (A)
4.3.5. Insert immersion probe meat and read the temperature (check within
specs) (A)(C)
4.3.6. Check to see if the thermometer is reading at +/- 32 degree or 30-34
degrees F (480). (A)(C)
4.3.6.1. Explain that if the correct temperature is provided, then record it
on the HACCP form. (A)(C)
4.3.6.2. Explain that if you don’t have a thermometer that would be used
for the restaurant, then cross it out or record “N/A” on the form (486).
(A)(C)
4.3.7. Complete these steps by explaining that there should be an extra
thermometer in the restaurant just in case. (A)
4.4. Reference the form and explain the CCP #1 & 2 – Proper hand washing and
hourly hand washing (A)(B)(C)
4.4.1. TELL the candidate to read #1 (proper hand-washing procedures) (A)(B)
4.4.2. Discuss the expectations associated to proper hand washing by stating that
(B)(C)
4.4.2.1. employees must wash their hands for 20 seconds and use sanitizer
(543).
4.4.2.2. when the hourly hand washing timer goes off, the person in charge
is expected to wash their hands first (545).
4.4.2.3. hand washing timer must be turned off before all employee
complete the hand washing procedures
4.4.3. REASON: The Team Leader must wash their hands first to determine the
degree of the water to ensure it meets the minimum standard – it must be
more than 100 degrees F (564). (A)(B)(C)
4.4.3.1. Explain that the role of the person in charge is to send people to
wash their hands by the numbered workstation (i.e. “workstation #1,
#2, etc.”) (635-636). (C)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 121
the Team Leader leaves the water running until the last person has washed
their hands (629). (C)
all employees in the restaurant must know that the water stays running
until the last person washes his or her hands (629). (C)
End this by turning off the faucet(C)
4.4.4. Explain that this hand-washing task for the whole crew cannot exceed 15
minutes. (C)
4.4.5. Explain to the Team Leader that the following standards must be met: C)
4.4.5.1. Looks fors: are the employees shaking their hands and using the
paper towels (C)
4.4.5.2. Reinforce the expectation for Team Leader that they must directly
observe the employee washing their hands back inside. (C)
4.4.6. TELL the candidate that you need to send employees every hour to ensure
they are washing their hands in accordance with the proper procedures
(A)(C)
4.4.7. OBSERVE one rotation of hand-washing station number cycle for proper
hand-washing (A)
4.4.7.1. Explain that employees are released from each workstation, in
order, to wash their hands (“workstation 1, workstation 2, etc.”)
and expected to count aloud the number workstation. (A)(C)
4.4.7.1.1. If any employee does not wash his/her hands correctly
(following the correct procedure), then tell the TL to repeat
the hand-washing procedures (1263). (A)(C)
4.4.8. Explain that if there are no observations of improper use of the hand
washing their hands, the Team Leader should recognize all employees as
doing a good job. (A)
4.4.8.1. IF the Team Leader still does not understand, THEN they can use
the CBT information and watch the “Team Member Food Safety”
section. (A)
4.4.8.2. Or, IF the employee (being observed by the Team Leader) still
does not understand, THEN have the Team Leader show them how
to properly wash their hands. (A)
4.4.9. Make a mistake on purpose to evaluate if the Team Leader recognizes that
a standard for hand washing was missed (530). (C)
4.4.10. Demonstrate more examples of when you need to wash your hands (534-
535) (C)
4.4.10.1. Changing trash cans
4.4.10.2. Sneezing
4.4.10.3. Touching hair
4.4.10.4. Going out to the dining room
4.4.11. ASK the Team Leader “why is hand washing important?” (1251) –refer to
main procedure 3 (3.12.2) for possible answers. (A)
4.4.11.1. IF the candidate provides the correct answer, in accordance with
the hand-washing procedures and procedure 3 (3.12.2), THEN
initial that item in the HACCP and move to the next action. (A)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 122
4.4.11.2. If the candidate doesn’t answer the question, THEN provide more
examples from step 4.4.9. (A)
4.4.12. Check off the box on the form to indicate that you’ve covered this area of
HACCP with the Team Leader. (C)
4.5. Reference the form and discuss CCP #3 – employee health and hygiene (638) (C)
4.5.1. Read the expectation from the form to the TEAM LEADER. (C)
4.5.2. Demonstrate the expectation for the Team Leader by verifying that the
employees aren’t sick. (C)
4.5.3. Identify if there are any wounds visible on any of the employees. (B)(C)
4.5.4. Validate that any employees wearing blue band-aids are covered by a
glove (C)
4.5.5. Check off the box on the form to indicate that you’ve covered this area
with the Team Leader. (C)
4.6. Reference the form and discuss CCP #4 – Tools and tongs (tools, tons, neat, egg,
spatula, ladles and pans and liquid, equal cover, presses). (C)
4.6.1. Explain that Team Leader must ensure that all tools must be rotated every
four hours (660). (C)
4.6.2. Show the Team Leader where all of the tools are located in the restaurant
as well as the extra sets of tools (662). (C)
4.6.3. Explain that if there is only one cook working on the workstation, then a
Team Leader will need to “sub-in” for the cook so the cook can change
out all of the utensils (673). (C)
4.6.3.1. REASON: The advantage to have a second cook available, so they
can grab the new utensils (695); (C)
4.6.3.2. REASON: You cannot have the same cook taking old tools and
replacing the new ones because that is cross-contamination. (C)
4.6.4. Demonstrate this tool rotation with the trainee by the following actions:
(C)
4.6.4.1. grab the mental pans, seers, cool cover, the knife, cutting board,
protein holders,
4.6.4.2. bring them to the back to the three-compartment sink
4.6.4.3. wash and sanitize them so they can left for air drying, if time
permits
4.6.4.4. explain that there are a couple of hours to clean, sanitize, and air
dry (693) the tools.
4.6.4.5. explain that the tool rotation task could take up to 15 minutes.
4.6.5. Check off the box on the form to indicate that you’ve covered this area
with the Team Leader.
4.7. Reference the form and explain CCP #5 - Final flip and check (715-726). (C)
4.7.1. Reinforce the importance of food safety awareness. (C)
4.7.2. Demonstrate for the team leader what the final flip and check means. (C)
4.7.2.1. As the employee is demonstrating the final flip and check, ask the
TL “how can you tell if the meat is still pink?” (C)
4.7.2.2. Explain that you must use the spatula and twist to determine if the
products (eggs and beef patties) are fully cooked. (C)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 123
4.7.2.3. Check off the box on the form to indicate that you’ve covered this
area with the Team Leader. (C)
4.8. Reference the form and explain CCP #6 – recording the temperatures (747-752)
(C)
4.8.1. (Explain) Explain to the TEAM LEADER all of the products that need to
have the temperature taken, to include the cheeses, shake/smoothie mix,
and fish fillet. (C)
4.8.2. (Standard) If any of the temperatures do not meet the standards, then
show the TL the 14 pages within HACCP to determine what the corrective
action would be. Explain that this is like having an “open-book test”.
(B)(C)
4.8.3. (Shake/Smoothie) Demonstrate how to take the temperature of the Shake
and smoothie mix. (B)(C)
4.8.3.1. Have the team leader read CCP #6 aloud (smoothie/shake
machine)-(364). (B)
4.8.3.2. Demonstrate the proper procedure for the TL by first bringing the
ladder/step stool over the shake/smoothie machine, then proceed to
wash hands. (B)
REASON: when you touch the stool prior to using the thermometer this could
lead to cross contamination. Wash and sanitize hands (370). (B)
4.8.3.3. Make sure the product is at least half way filled in the machine (C)
REASON: Explain that if the product is less than half it will not take the
correct temperature (750) (C)
Explain that if you just placed the mix into the machine, then you must wait
an hour. This is why during the “preparation” procedures, the
shake/smoothie mix must be in place. (C)
4.8.3.4. Take the probe and clean it with the alcohol pads to clean the
thermometer for each time that it will be used (1328). (A)(B)(C)
4.8.3.5. Clarify that the use of the immersion probe is for the meat and for
the shake/smoothie machine. (A)
4.8.3.6. Explain the standard that the probe must be cleaned in between
taking the temperatures for the shake and the smoothie machines to
avoid cross-contamination. (A)(B)
4.8.3.7. Take the temp of the front, middle, back of the mix. (A)(B)(C)
4.8.3.8. Explain that if you take the temperature in one spot, then you may
not reach the correct temperature (402-405). (B)
4.8.3.9. Instruct the candidate to read the temperature aloud and have them
identify the highest temperature. (A)
4.8.3.10. Record the highest temperature of the three. (A)(B)(C)
4.8.3.11. Ask the team leader to look at the temperature and determine the
highest temperature. (B)
4.8.3.12. Quiz the team leader by asking (424): (B)
4.8.3.12.1. “What was the temperature you were reading?” (B)
4.8.3.12.2. “What would you do if you have a temperature of 41 degrees?”(B)
4.8.3.12.3. IF they don’t know the answer, THEN refer them back to the 14
pages of references in the HACCP book. (B)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 124
4.8.3.13. Demonstrate for the TL how to trouble shoot the machine if the
temperature is not met by showing them that on the side of the shake
machine, there is a rep button to reset the machine. (C)
4.8.4. (Transition) Sanitize the probe in between the tasks to prevent cross
contamination. (A)(B)(C)
4.8.5. (Smoothie) Repeat the same procedures for the smoothie mix. (A)(B)(C)
4.8.5.1. Explain that the spindle provides more consistent measurement of
the temperature. (C)
4.8.6. (Cheese) Explain that restaurants typically keep 8 slices of cheese in the
serving rail and the rest are kept in the POU. Explain to the Team Leader
that if you keep the cheese in the serving rail then it won’t meet the
temperature standard. (C)
4.8.7. (Fish) Demonstrate how to take the temperature of the Fish fillet by doing
the following: (A)(B)(C)
4.8.7.1. Obtain one fish and place it in the fryer using one basket (with no
other products in the basket). (C)
4.8.7.2. Insert the meat probe into the fish and validate it meets the 155
degree F temperature. (B)(C)
4.8.7.3. Explain that when you cook the fish product in the fryer, you must
record the lowest temperature from the fryers. (A)
4.8.8. (Rice) Demonstrate how to take the temperature of the rice. (A)(C)
4.8.8.1. Make sure there is rice available (see Preparation procedures). (C)
4.8.8.2. HAVE the candidate read the required temperature aloud from the
HACCP form. (A)
4.8.8.3. Use the immersion probe to take temperature and validate it
exceeds the 135 degrees F. (A)(C)
4.8.8.4. ASK the candidate, “What happens if you don’t have 135
[degrees] for the rice? (1401)”(A)
IF the candidate provides the correct answer, THEN move to the next task.
(A)
If the rice doesn’t reach the minimum temperature of 135 degrees, then
explain to the candidate that you would need to discard the rice
(1405), determine if the rice cooker is broken or not, and cook
fresh rice that meets the minimum temperature (1407). (A)
Explain that if the rice cooker doesn’t work, then call the Restaurant
Manager, and throw away the rice cooker as it can be discarded.
There is always an extra rice cooker on hand (1426). (A)
4.8.9. (Ask) Ask the Team Leader to identify what temperature you are looking
for with each product (B)
4.8.10. (Check) Check off the box on the form to indicate that you’ve covered
this area with the Team Leader. (C)
4.9. Reference the form and explain CCP #7 – Temperature tacking for equipment
(A)(B)(C)
4.9.1. Refer to how the HACCP document is logically organized with no
jumping around the form. (B)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 125
4.9.1.1. Point to the first equipment listed on the form and as the team
leader, “what temperature am I looking for?” (518). (B)
4.9.1.2. Evaluate if the Team Leader comprehends what they are reading.
(B)
IF the employee doesn’t know or can’t find the correct temperature on the
document, THEN have them re-read the standard documented
in the book (14 pages). (B)
4.9.2. Demonstrate how to record the temperatures of refrigerators and freezers.
(A)(B)(C)
4.9.2.1. First, show the Team Leader how to check the temperature using
the display on the outside of the walk-ins. (C)
4.9.2.2. Second, physically walk with the Team Leader and go into the
walk-ins/freezer and take the temperatures. (C)
Position the card board boxes like a V and point the beam/laser thermometer
(A) (C)
REASON: you don’t want the laser to hit any other part of the walk-in
because that will provide an incorrect temperature. (A)(C)
4.9.3. While in the first walk-in refrigerator, train the employee on how to
determine if the fans are working properly by explaining (A)
4.9.3.1. if the fans in the refrigerators are not working, then it is possible
that the products are defrosting. (A)
4.9.3.2. Indicate that you can feel if the fans are working or not. (A)
if the fans have stopped working, then wait a few minutes to determine if they
are function or it is simply set on “defrosting” time.(A)
if the fans are working and the products are not meeting the temperature, then
it’s a problem and the products should be removed and discarded
(1634). (A)
4.9.4. Evaluate the team leader’s comprehension of the temperature standards.
4.9.4.1. Ask the Team Leader, “what do you do if you are taking the
temperature of the freezer and it doesn’t give you the correct
temperature, then what do you do?” (545)
4.9.4.2. Ask the Team Leader, “If the temperature is 27, then what are we
supposed to do?”
4.9.4.3. Refer the Team Leader to the 14 pages that details out the answers
to the above questions.
4.9.4.4. Observe that the team leader is referencing the 14 pages to
determine next steps/actions if the minimum temperature is not met.
4.9.4.5. Make sure the candidate understands that if the temperatures go
beyond the 41 degrees, then there is a chance the products are
defrosting so you would need to wait and see for 5-10 minutes, go
back and re-check the temperatures (1601). (A)
4.9.5. Repeat the same procedures for the freezer. (A)(C)
4.9.5.1. Re-iterate that if something is in a box or container, then
implement the same “V” technique as described earlier. (A)(C)
4.9.6. Explain and demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the Point of Use (POU) freezers and refrigerators. (A)(C)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 126
4.9.6.1. Demonstrate the steps by first using two sausage patties, place the
immersion probe in between the patties to determine the temperature
(1497). (A) (C)
4.9.6.2. Explain that this procedure must be done wearing gloves. (A)
4.9.6.3. Explain that you must not use the Jumbo meat patties to take the
temperature (1492), with the exception that (A)
4.9.6.4. IF there are no sausage patties, THEN use the jumbo meat or use
the surface probe to determine the temperature within the POU (A)
4.9.6.5. Explain that when there are liquid eggs in the POU refrigerators,
you can use the same “V” technique to take the temperatures. (A)
4.9.6.6. For the fryer freezer POU, using chicken patties, follow the same
probe steps that were used for the sausage patties. (A)
4.9.6.7. For the guest service POU, use the laser for the packaged food. (A)
4.9.7. Explain a best practice, such as - if something is in a box or package, then
you use the laser/air-probe; however, if something is an open food
product, then you use the immersion probe. (A)
4.9.8. Explain and demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the grill refrigerator (C)
4.9.8.1. Obtain one of the set-ups and use the beam probe to take the
temperature. (C)
4.9.8.2. Emphasize for the Team Leader that you can’t take the temperature
of something has already been frozen because that is when we are
using a defrosting method. (C)
4.9.9. Explain and demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the Fryer freezer (C)
4.9.9.1. Take the temperature of the product French fries so you need to
open the bag and take the temperature, it cannot be of the bag (C)
4.9.10. Explain and demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the fryer refrigerator (C)
4.9.10.1. Take the temperature of the shredded lettuce—directly on the
product (C)
4.9.11. Explain and demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the Prep refrigerator (C)
4.9.11.1. Emphasize that cheese sauce didn’t need to get defrosted, so you
can take the temperature of the product. (C)
4.9.12. Explain and demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the Guest Service refrigerators (C)
4.9.12.1. Take the temperature of the OJ using the same “V” technique
described earlier. (C)
4.9.12.2. Show the TEAM LEADER a label that has been created as a job
aid and placed in the POU on the door indicating what products need
the temperature to be taken. (C)
4.9.13. Reinforce with the Team Leader that the temperatures must fall within
range (+/- 33 – 41.0 F degrees), from the lowest to the highest, and outside
of what is known as the “danger zone” is 41 to 135 degrees F (1574, 1585-
1587). (A)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 127
4.9.14. Explain that if the temperatures go beyond the 41 degrees, THEN discard
the food and call Facility Services (1591). (A)
4.9.15. Tell the candidate that the all of the acceptable temperatures ranges can be
referenced within the HACCP book (A)
4.9.16. Evaluate the team leader’s comprehension of the temperature standards.
(B)
4.9.16.1. Ask the Team Leader, “what do you do if you are taking the
temperature of the freezer and it doesn’t give you the correct
temperature, then what do you do?” (545)(B)
4.9.16.2. Ask the Team Leader, “If the temperature is 27, then what are we
supposed to do?”(B)
4.9.16.3. Refer the Team Leader to the 14 pages that details out the answers
to the above questions. (B)
4.9.16.4. Observe that the team leader is referencing the 14 pages to
determine next steps/actions if the minimum temperature is not met
and then move to the next action step (1576). (B)
4.10. Reference the form and discuss the SOP #8 – sanitizer solution (A)(B)(C)
4.10.1. Obtain a red bucket that is in the restaurant. (C)
4.10.2. Explain that every single workstation (fryer, grill, etc.) needs to have a
bucket with the sanitizer solution (1670). (A)(B)
4.10.3. Ensure sanitizer solution strips are available (during the preparation
procedures). (C)
4.10.4. Explain that the sanitizer solution must be changed every 4 hours or when
needed. (A)
4.10.5. Explain that you will use the strips (which are received every time you
order them) to determine the solution strength. (A)(B)
4.10.6. Demonstrate using the cold water and the strip guide to determine if it
meets the standards. (A)
4.10.7. Demonstrate for the TEAM LEADER that you don’t stir but place the
strip in the solution. (C)
4.10.7.1. REASON: Stirring mixes the solution and it will lead to an
inaccurate read. (C)
If it meets the standard, then move on to the next step. (A) (C)
If the solution doesn’t meet the standard, then throw the solution away and
start the procedures over from the beginning. (C)
4.10.8. Evaluate if the team leader is paying attention to what they are reading
using the test strip as an example. (B)
4.10.8.1. Ask questions about what they are reading (e.g. using the test strip
correctly). (B)
4.10.8.2. Ask, “what if there isn’t enough sanitizer solution?” (610) (B)
4.10.8.3. Evaluate the Team Leader’s understanding that if the solution is
too weak, then it won’t fully sanitize what we are cleaning or if the
solution is too strong, then it could dry out the skin (617).(B)
4.10.9. Once the Team Leader understands how to prepare the sanitizer solution,
check off the box on the form to indicate that you’ve covered this area
with the Team Leader and move to the next step. (A)(B)(C)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 128
4.11. Reference the form and discuss SOP #9 – prepping (A)(C)
4.11.1. Create awareness for the TEAM LEADER that their responsibility lasts
throughout the shift, not just during the time you are completing the
HACCP procedures. (B)(C)
4.11.2. Instruct the Team Leader to refer back to the 14 pages and read the
standard aloud. (B)
4.11.3. Explain that employees should not be prepping a lot of products at the
same time. (A)(C)
4.11.4. Tell the TEAM LEADER that they would need to take a corrective action
and coach the employee to reduce the amount of products they take out
onto the prep table at once. (C)
4.12. Reference the form and discuss SOP #10 – Shake and smoothie is inspected by
certified employee (A)(B)(C)
4.12.1. Explain that the TEAM LEADER that the person who works the
graveyard shift, they need to clean out the machines starting at 4 AM so
they can sell product during the night shift. (A)(C)
4.12.2. Continue explaining that the TEAM LEADER who starts the morning
shift will be responsible for inspecting the breakdown of the shake
machine. (B)(C)
4.12.2.1. REASON: the morning-shift, TEAM LEADER, can re-assemble
the machine and validate that the cleaning from the night before took
place. (B)(C)
4.12.3. Reinforce that hands must being washed and sanitized prior to pulling the
machine apart. (B)
4.12.4. Reinforce the importance of this task being completed on a daily basis by
certified person. (B)
4.13. Reference the form and discuss SOP #11 – hand washing stations stocked (B)(C)
4.13.1. Have the team leader read the standard aloud. (B)
4.13.2. Show the Team Leader exactly how the station should look, to include the
sanitizer solution and towels. (B)(C)
4.13.3. Indicate that the reason why this is important is that if there are no paper
towels, then an employee would not have anywhere to wipe their hands.
(B)
4.13.4. Evaluate their understanding, by asking the following question: “if you
don’t have any paper towels, how do you dry your hands?” (B)
4.13.5. Apply the same teaching to other areas of the business (e.g. soap in the
bathroom). (B)
4.13.5.1. Inspire ownership of ensuring things properly stocked. (B)
4.13.6. Explain to the TL that if you see anything running low then start to get
prepared for the rush. (C)
4.14. Reference the form and discuss SOP #13 – Allergens (A)
4.14.1. Have the team leader read the standard aloud. (B)
4.14.2. ASK the candidates questions about “where do you put the eggs?”(A)
4.14.3. Show the special space for the eggs because this cannot be mixed with
meats or other products. (A)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 129
4.14.3.1. Reinforce that even though the eggs are pasteurized, the
expectation is the same. (A)
4.14.4. Explain a scenario regarding allergen and related to the guest (B).
4.14.4.1. Describe the expectation that if a guest comes to the restaurant and
asks what’s in the product, then the employee should be
knowledgeable of the products that contain allergens. (B)
4.14.5. Share a personal story that reinforces the importance of knowing the
products that contain allergens (e.g. “My daughter has a peanut allergy.”)
(764) (B)
4.14.6. SHOW the candidate the chart so they can read the allergens. (A)
4.14.7. Point out specific allergens to the candidate. (A)
4.14.8. ASK the candidate to explain back to you their understanding of the
allergens. (A)
4.15. Reference the form and discuss SOP #13 – Cross contamination (A)(B)(C)
4.15.1. Have the team leader read the standard aloud. (B)
4.15.2. Create awareness for the TEAM LEADER that their responsibility lasts
throughout the shift, not just during the time you are completing the
HACCP procedures. (B)(C)
4.15.3. Show how to grab the meat with the tongs as an example of avoiding
cross-contamination. (A)
4.15.4. Procedures need to be followed for hand washing (which can be found in
the HACCP Manual), for instances such as: (A)(B)
4.15.4.1. Hand washing
4.15.4.2. How to handle meat
4.15.4.3. Getting meat out of the walk-ins
4.15.4.4. Gloves
4.15.4.5. When the employee is out cleaning the dining room
4.15.5. Explain that if the employee is doing any one of the tasks listed above,
then they need to wash their hands. (A)(B)
4.15.6. Evaluate if the Team Leader understands what cross contamination is.
(A)(B)(C)
4.15.6.1. Ask, “I’m touching my hair, what do I do next?” (B)
4.15.6.2. Ask a question like “when could a cross contamination take
place?” (C)
4.16. Reference the form and discuss SOP #14 – temperatures are accurate on the grill
(A) (C)
4.16.1. Instead of the Team leader reading aloud, take the lead on reading the
standard. (B)
4.16.2. Explain that this is when you can ensure that all of the lanes are operating
over 350 degree F. (A)(C)
4.16.3. Explain that if all of the lanes are indicated as green, THEN you are good;
however, if the lanes are showing yellow/red symbols, then this is not
good. (C)
4.16.4. Demonstrate for the employee how to take the temperature. (B)
4.16.5. Explain there are 5 lanes on the grill, that require a temperature to be
taken, and that need to fall within the provided temperature range. (B)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 130
4.16.6. Demonstrate how to take the temperature by (B)
4.16.6.1. referring to the bottom of the grill surface, squeeze butter in the
middle of the line, then take the temperature. (B)
4.16.6.2. referring to the top of the grill surface and make sure the Teflon
sheet is taut in order to get an accurate temperature. (B)
4.16.7. Ask the employee to explain the next step in the process. (B)
4.16.7.1. IF they don’t give the correct answer, THEN explain to the team
leader what to do and re-read that section in the 14 pages. (B)
4.16.7.2. Once they understand the temperature standard for the grill and
they have received a demonstration, then you can move to the next
step. (B)
4.16.8. Evaluate the team leader performing the same task. (B)
4.16.8.1. IF they don’t demonstrate the task accurately, provide corrective
feedback, THEN have them practice the task again. (B)
4.16.8.2. IF they demonstrate the task accurately, THEN you can move onto
the next step. (B)
4.16.8.3. Troubleshoot to see if the grill burners are working and turned on.
(C)
4.17. Reference the form and discuss SOP #15 – Grill and fryer times are
working/functioning (C)
4.17.1. Explain that this is something that takes place throughout the entire shift.
(C)
4.17.2. Demonstrate and show where the timers are located and how they can be
accessed on both the fryer and the grill. (A)(C)
4.17.3. Validate that they are working properly by pushing the button on the fryer
times and confirming it with the display chart (A)(B) (C)
4.17.3.1. IF the button is not working properly, THEN call facility services.
(C)
4.17.4. Read aloud the fryer instructions to the candidate on how to program the
timers. (A)
4.17.4.1.1. When there is a new product, bring the book to the equipment
station and walk through the instructions on how to re-program the
timers. (A)
4.17.5. Demonstrate how to check the timers of the grill. (A) (B)(C)
4.17.5.1.1. Explain that this is easier to learn relative to the fryer. (A)
4.17.5.1.2. Demonstrate for the candidate, by pressing the JIB logo, press the
product that needs a timer programmed, and then enter the new time.
(A)(B)
4.17.6. When there are two products that need to be re-programmed, show the
candidate how to do the first one and have them program the second one
as a way to evaluate their performance. (A)
4.17.7. Once the Team Leader programs a timer correctly, move to the next step
(A)
4.18. Reference the form and discuss SOP #16 – temperatures of the fryers are meeting
the standard (A)(B)(C)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 131
4.18.1. Demonstrate for the Team Leader how to take the temperature of the
Fryers oil, using the infrared laser, to ensure it meets the 365 degree F
standard. (A)(B)(C)
4.18.1.1. Obtain a small fryer basket (A)(C)
4.18.1.2. Explain that you must use the basket to swirl the oil. (A)(B)(C)
REASON: so you can get the oil from the bottom (C)
4.18.2. Explain what to do if the minimum temperature (standard is the highest at
365 degrees F and the lowest is 350 degree F) is not met, such as (A)(B)
4.18.2.1. check to determine if the dial needs to be higher. (A)(B)
4.18.2.2. check the temperature after 8-10 minutes and go back if you are
not meeting the temperature. (A)
4.18.2.3. stop using that fryer bin and use another one (1817). (A)
4.18.2.4. call facilities and stop using the fryer that is not working. (A)
4.19. Reference the form and discuss SOP #17 – Kitchen handwashing stations (C)
4.19.1. Have the team leader read the standard aloud. (B)
4.19.2. Verify how many stations need to be verified within the restaurant (i.e.
there are three stations that need to be checked in this restaurant). (A)
4.19.3. Explain to the TEAM LEADER that we take the temperature of the water
(A)(B)(C)
4.19.4. Demonstrate for the Team Leader by using the meat probe, let the water
run, and take the temperature, which must meet 100 degrees F. (A)(B)(C)
4.19.5. Reinforce that you don’t want the laser to capture the metal since this will
lead to an inaccurate temperature. (A)(B)(C)
4.19.6. Explain that the California standard is 100-108 degrees and the following
corrective actions must be taken if this is not met (A) (B)
4.19.6.1. restaurant would be closed down. (A)
4.19.6.2. call facilities services and supervisor to tell them that you don’t
have hot water. (A)
4.19.6.3. reported the matter to the Quality Hotline. (A)
4.19.7. REASON: is that we need to wash our hands using the hot water. (A)
4.19.8. Intentionally make a mistake in front of the team leader (891).(B)
4.19.8.1. Take the temperature of the water at the point where it touches the
metal (since this will be the highest temperature). (B)
4.19.8.2. ASK “Why is this so hot?” to evaluate if the team leader is going
to identify the mistake. (B)
IF the employee does not say anything, THEN ask them “did you see anything
wrong?”(B)
IF the employee does say something, THEN reinforce the fact they are paying
attention (e.g. high five or some kind of positive expression). (B)
4.20. Reference the form and discuss the SOP #18 – dishwashing (A)(B)(C)
4.20.1. Have the Team Leader read the standard aloud. (B)
4.20.2. Explain that if the restaurant has a dishwashing machine, then take the
steps to ensure the chlorine sanitizer solution meets the standard (50-100
ppm). (A) (C)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 132
4.20.3. Explain that you need to set the machine, obtain and immerse the strip, get
the temperature of the chlorine, and ensure the strip color is blue or a very
light blue, which means that it has met the 50-100 ppm (1860). (A)(C)
4.20.4. Make sure that a cycle has run through and place the strip to determine the
chlorine level. (C)
4.20.5. Explain that if it does not give you the correct level, then it may not be
cycling through the system and therefore, you will need to troubleshoot.
(C)
4.20.6. Troubleshooting includes that the TEAM LEADER can follow the pipe
that flows into the dishwasher this is where they can determine if the
pressure is working for the dishwasher. (C)
4.20.7. Ask the Team Leader: “how is this supposed to be done?” or “what
happens if this machine isn’t working?”(B)
4.20.8. Discuss instances when a corrective action would need to be taken.
4.20.8.1. Explain that if the machine isn’t working, then you would use the
three-compartment sink (931). (B)
4.20.8.2. Explain that if you are checking the sanitizer solution, and it’s not
working, then you need to take the corrective action. (B)
4.20.8.3. Refer to the 14 pages in the HACCP to determine what corrective
action is appropriate (940). (B)
4.21. Reference the form and discuss SOP #19 – no mold (A)(B)(C)
4.21.1. Have the Team Leader read the standard aloud. (B)
4.21.2. Provide the employees some specific examples related to this SOP (B)
4.21.2.1. Ask the Team Leader, “When you go to restaurant, what kind of
soda do you like to drink?” (1000)(B)
4.21.2.2. Since the restaurant does not contain dirty nozzles, show the team
leaders pictures of a dirty, moldy, disgusting nozzle (1002). (B)
4.21.2.3. Wait for the team leader’s reaction and reinforce their
understanding of the importance while referring to the images. (B)
4.21.3. Explain that you need to clean the nozzles three times a day with the
sanitizer solution. (A)
4.21.4. Obtain a container, gloves, towels, and soak the towels in sanitizer
solution. (A)(C)
4.21.5. Use gloves so guests see that you are using gloves and explain this
rationale to the Team Leader. (C)
4.21.6. Grab a plastic knife and use it to clean the nozzles. (C)
4.21.7. Emphasize that more mold is apparent with the dark sodas (C)
4.22. Reference the form and discuss SOP #20 – Meat temperature (A)(B)(C)
4.22.1. Have the candidate take the temperature of the hamburger patties and read
it aloud. (A)(B)(C)
4.22.2. Explain that you are determining what is the highest and lowest
temperatures. (A)(B)(C)
4.22.3. Begin the demonstration of taking the temperatures of the grill lanes.
(A)(B)(C)
4.22.3.1. Explain that there are 6 lanes in total. (A)(C)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 133
4.22.3.2. Tell the candidate to write down the temperatures for all lanes and
circle the four lowest temperatures. (A)(C)
4.22.4. Take the temperature of the following products on the lane that has the
lowest temperature as determined in the previous step, by obtaining the
tongs, place a meat patty on the grill, cook it, and when the timer has gone
off, use the spatula to lift the patty and take the temperatures of the patty
where the form indicates to do so. (1986-1902): (A)(B)(C)
4.22.4.1. Regular patty
4.22.4.2. Patty with press (for emergency meat that we need)
4.22.4.3. Jumbo Patty
4.22.4.4. Jumbo Patty with press
4.22.5. Place a patty on the grill, do the procedures with the timer and seasoning,
when it is time to take the temperature, place the immersion probe in the
following places (1917): (A)(B)(C)
4.22.5.1. Middle
4.22.5.2. Top
4.22.5.3. Other side
4.22.5.4. Bottom
4.22.6. Demonstrate re-washing your hands before recording the temperature of
the meat, use gloves, etc. (C)
4.22.7. Evaluate the candidate’s knowledge by asking: (A)(B)
4.22.7.1. Ask the candidate, “what is the standard for the internal
temperature of the meat?” (1925)(A)
4.22.7.2. Ask “what if the temperature is 154.9 degrees F?” (B)
4.22.7.3. Ensure they know the temperature MUST meet 155 degrees F
(1037). (B)
4.22.7.4. Validate that the TL knows the correct standard and is able to
determine if the product has not met the standard. (A)(B)
4.22.8. Similar to the task performed on the hand-washing station, evaluate the
Team Leader’s understanding by intentionally doing the task incorrectly
(1044-1048). (B)
4.22.8.1. IF the team leader does NOT say anything when you take the patty
temperature when it is flat on the grill, THEN show them the proper
way. (B)
4.22.8.2. IF the team leader DOES identify the mistake and explain that the
temperature patty cannot be taken directly on the flat frill but on the
spatula, THEN they can move on. (B)
4.22.9. Perform any troubleshooting if the grill and patties are not meeting the
standard. For example, explain the following scenarios: (A)
4.22.9.1. if the meat is not meeting the standard but the grill is working
properly, then wait 5-10 minutes to re-check and repeat steps for
temperature taking. (A)
4.22.9.2. if the grill lane is not getting the meat to reach the temperature,
then block the lane with a stainless steel press (1945). (A)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 134
4.22.10. Explain to the candidate that this temperature-taking process takes place 6
a.m. – 11 a.m. and a second time at 2 p.m. – 6 p.m. Once you have
completed the demonstration, move to the next main procedure. (A)
4.22.11. Encourage the team leaders to determine if they are still unclear. (B)
4.22.11.1. IF the team leader is still unclear of the procedures, THEN they
should refer to the 14 pages at the beginning of the HACCP book.
(B)
4.22.12. Once you have demonstrated, reviewed, and discussed all of the steps of
the HACCP procedures, you can move to the next main procedure.
(A)(B)(C)
Procedure 5: Provide the Team Leader with opportunities to practice
Goal: To provide the Team Leader with opportunities to practice with another employee
(peer or manager).
5. Schedule the candidate for the next day so they can now perform the HACCP. (A)
5.1. Tell the candidate, “This is your turn.” (A)
5.2. Obtain 3-4 blank forms of HACCP from the back office PC – Portal. (C)
5.2.1. Provide the TEAM LEADER with the 3-4 blank forms. (C)
5.2.2. Explain to the Team Leader that these blanks forms are to be used for
practice-purposes throughout the week. (C)
5.3. Identify a Certified Team Leader and the Assistant Manager who will serve as the
peer-mentor to the Team Leader throughout their practice sessions on HACCP.
(B)(C)
5.3.1. Instruct the Team Leader to practice with a peer or the assistant manager
(B)(C)
5.3.2. Encourage the team leader to ask questions (1178). (B)
5.4. Give the TEAM LEADER a week to practice with another TEAM LEADER and
AM(C)
5.5. Schedule the TL with the RM when completing the official HACCP form
5.6. Spend time completing sections of the HACCP in partnership with the Team
Leader and provide corrective feedback. (C)
Procedure 6: Observe the Team Leader performing the procedures
Goal: Observe the Team Leader performing the task.
6. Schedule to work on the floor at 2:00 p.m. or 1:00 p.m. with the TL who will perform the
HACCP, with no interruptions. (A)
6.1.1. REASON: the candidate needs focus during this time and they should not
be called to help on the floor. (A)
6.2. Instruct the TEAM LEADER to perform the task with you observing their
behavior. (A)(C)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 135
6.3. Observe the Team Leader performing the task (A)(C)
6.4. Coach and provide corrective feedback immediately to the candidate. (A)(B)(C)
6.4.1. IF the candidate is not doing it right, THEN have them go back and do the
task over again. (A)(B)(C)
6.4.2. IF the candidate is doing the task but makes a mistake, THEN re-train
him/her on that step. (A)(B)(C)
6.5. Refer to the 14 pages in any instance when the Team Leader is unsure about what
to do next throughout the main HACCP procedures. (C)
6.6. IF you sense the Team Leader is confused in any way, THEN answer the
questions and provide corrective feedback. (C)
Procedure 7: Evaluate the Team Leader to determine if they are prepared to do the task
independently
Goal: Evaluate the Team Leader to determine if they are prepared to do the task
independently.
7. Evaluating the Team Leader to determine if they are prepared to do the task (A) (C)
7.1. Observe the TEAM LEADER performing the full HACCP procedures(C)
7.2. Look for leadership behaviors to determine how they are (C)
7.2.1. giving direction to others
7.2.2. following up with stocking throughout the shift
7.2.3. communicating to others
7.2.4. providing corrective feedback to other employees when a standard is
missed
7.3. Schedule time to work a graveyard shift with the TEAM LEADER (C)
7.4. Determine if the TEAM LEADER demonstrates the required skills and
knowledge of this task and if they are able to do their job without the RM (A)(C)
7.4.1. Call into the restaurant and start asking questions. “How’s the speed of
service?” or “How was breakfast?” (C)
7.4.2. Evaluate the level of confidence in the Team Leader. (C)
7.4.3. Ask the Team Leader to print out an hourly sales report and indicate how
much they have sold by hour. (C)
7.4.3.1. REASON: When the speed of service is high and the excuse is
typically due to a busy, so the hourly reading will tell you if that’s an
accurate picture of the restaurant. (C)
7.4.4. Determine if the TL is able to manage the shift in addition to doing the
HACCP procedures. (C)
7.5. When you are working with the TEAM LEADER, act as a sale production
employee and have the TEAM LEADER guide you as the person in charge. (C)
7.6. Evaluate the team leader randomly by asking questions at various points
throughout the shift. (B)
7.6.1. Ask “did you do the HACCP today? (B)
7.6.2. Ask “how were the temperatures today?” (B)
7.6.3. Audit to determine if the temperature met the minimum standards. (B)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 136
7.7. Determine if the team leader can be responsible for performing the HACCP
procedures independently. (B)
7.7.1. IF they are missing a signature, THEN re-train the team leader (1210). (B)
7.7.2. Ask clarifying questions to determine the root cause of mistakes being
made by the team leader. Ask: (B)
7.7.2.1. When did you do the HACCP? (B)
7.7.2.2. Was the restaurant busy while you were doing HACCP? (B)
7.7.3. Solicit feedback from the Assistant Manager and the experienced team
leader regarding the extent to which they feel the employee is prepared to
take the lead on the HACCP procedures independently. (B)
7.7.4. IF the employee is no longer making mistakes and there is feedback
indicating they are ready, THEN they can take the lead on the HACCP
procedures (1212-1215). (B)
7.8. Ensure the team leader knows and feels the degree of trust you have in their
ability to perform the important and critical HACCP procedures (1129). (B)
7.9. Ask the TL if they have any last questions and if so, answer them.
7.9.1. IF you are not able to answer the TL’s question, THEN demonstrate (in
front of the TL) how to find the answer in the HACCP book.
7.9.2. IF you are able to answer the question, THEN move to the next step.
7.10. Continue to provide blank forms to the TL (print out a blank HACCP form from
the Portal to be used for practice purposes). (A)
7.10.1. IF the candidate is performing 100% of the correct actions, THEN have
the candidate repeat the above steps using the official HACCP document
with management oversight and then proceed to the next main procedure.
(A)
7.10.2. IF they demonstrate the full HACCP procedures the correct way and
consistently, THEN they are ready to be the person-in-charge. (A)(C)
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 137
APPENDIX F
CODING SPREADSHEETS
Type Final Gold Standard Protocol Data Analysis A B C A D
Procedure 1. Identify a candidate to train
A
1. Observe the following behaviors of the
Team Member in order to determine the degree to
which potential to become a Team Leader exists. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
D
1.1.1. IF the Candidate starts to
ask for more hours, and (A) 1 0 0 0 1
D
1.1.2. IF the candidate
demonstrates a desire and willingness to learn more
workstations, THEN proceed to the next step. (A) 1 0 0 0 1
A
1.2. Observe the Team Member and look for
ALL of the following leadership behaviors in order to
determine the degree to which potential to become a
Team Leader exists. (A) (B) 1 0 1 1 0
D
1.2.1. IF the candidate is
friendly with guests, 1 0 1 0 1
D
1.2.2. IF the candidate is
friendly with other staff members, 1 0 1 0 1
D
1.2.3. IF the candidate has an
outstanding personality and comfortable talking to
guests, 1 0 1 0 1
D
1.2.4. IF the candidate is
proactively initiates performing all the duties, 1 0 1 0 1
D
1.2.5. IF the candidate
proactively asks questions about “why” things are
done, and 1 0 1 0 1
D
1.2.6. IF the candidate
demonstrates coaching to others, THEN move to the
next step. 1 0 1 0 1
A
1.3. Obtain the Team Member's certification
records and determine what pre-requisite criterion has
been met. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
D
1.3.1. IF the candidate has the
pre-requisite knowledge to perform ALL of the
following workstation procedures, THEN inform the
candidate that they are ready to enter training to
become a Team Leader (A). Begin with Fryers 1 0 0 0 1
D 1.3.2. Cashier 1 0 0 0 1
D 1.3.3. Kitchen 1 0 0 0 1
D 1.3.4. Grill 1 0 0 0 1
D 1.3.5. Assembly 1 0 0 0 1
D
1.3.6. Administration work,
such as printing reports from the computer e.g. from
the quality department or need to check emails) 1 0 0 0 1
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 138
D 1.3.7. Prep 1 0 0 0 1
D
1.4. IF you ask the candidate, "are you
wanting and willing to become a Team Leader?" and
they respond with the affirmative (“Yes”), THEN go
to procedure 2 (A). 1 0 0 0 1
Procedure 2: Prepare the restaurant for the Team
Leader training on HACCP
A
2. Schedule the training at a time when you
know (C) 0 0 1 1 0
2.1.1. the restaurant will not be
busy
2.1.2. the restaurant will be
fully staffed with all stations covered
2.1.3. an additional
management person can be available to work the shift
2.1.3.1. REASON: so
the Trainer and Team Leader will be able to focus on
being trained without any interruptions
A
2.2. Walk around the restaurant and make
direct observations of the relevant tools required for
the training in order to validate that they are readily
available, such as: (C). 0 0 1 1 0
D
2.2.1. IF all of the following
items are in place, THEN proceed to the next step. IF
any of the items are not in place, THEN make sure
they are made readily available prior to the training
(C) Beginning with Sanitizer solution, 0 0 1 0 1
D 2.2.2. Sanitizer Strips 0 0 1 0 1
D
2.2.3. POU thermometers are in
place 0 0 1 0 1
D 2.2.4. Thermometers 0 0 1 0 1
D 2.2.5. Alcohol wipes 0 0 1 0 1
D
2.2.6. Shake mix is in the
machine 0 0 1 0 1
D
2.2.7. Smoothie mix is in the
machine 0 0 1 0 1
R
2.2.7.1. REASON:
Because it takes a full hour for the machines to have
mix and for the temperature to be accurately taken.
D 2.2.8. Pen and paper 0 0 1 0 1
A
2.3. Review the training plan and HACCP
book 0 0 0 1 0
2.3.1. REASON: This
will refresh you as the trainer.
A
2.4. Obtain a blank HACCP form by
accessing it from the Portal and printing it out from the
back office PC and move to procedure 3 (C). 0 0 1 1 0
Procedure 3: Explain the concept of food safety, the
rationale or importance of food safety and create
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 139
awareness.
A
3. Provide an overview of what you will be
explaining: the concepts of food safety, the importance
of HACCP, and provide the reason “why” behind this
food safety procedure (A) (B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
3.1. Tell the Team Leader that “throughout
the training, we are going to talk about the concept of
food safety and where this applies in the restaurant.”
(B) (C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
3.2. Tell the Team Leader the importance of
this topic by providing an example of the risks
associated to the food safety practice, such as (A, B,
C): 1 1 1 1 0
A
3.3. Share about the example of what
happened in 1992 with the E. Coli breakout (184). (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.3.1. Explain to the
Team Leader that this was a major crisis that almost
put many out of businesses. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.3.2. Explain that four
children died from the E. Coli. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.4. Reinforce the objective of the training
by explaining to the Team Leader that when they learn
how to do HACCP, they will become an official
person-in-charge (POC), which means they will need
to be able to observe and evaluate if the food safety
standards are being met (C). 0 0 1 1 0
A
3.5. Ask the Team Leader if they have any
questions regarding food safety, (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.6. Tell the candidate watch the computer-
based videos (CBT), located in “Management
Training” category (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.6.1. Instruct the
candidate to watch sections of the videos over the
course of four days, 2-hours each day, (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.6.2. Tell the candidate
to take time away from working at the workstations to
watch the videos. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
D
3.6.3. IF the Team
Leader indicates they have completed the videos,
THEN they are ready to move to the next step. (A) 1 0 0 0 1
A
3.7. Obtain the Team Leader workbook and
begin reviewing it together (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.7.1. Identify how the
contents of the workbook are applicable to this
restaurant (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.7.2. Instruct the
candidate to fill in the workbook and address the
following questions (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.7.2.1. What
happens if we have a guest problem? (A) 1 0 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 140
A
3.7.2.2. Who to
call when we have a problem (including phone
numbers)? (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.7.2.3. Where is
the main water line? (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.7.2.4. What
happens when something is broken or there is an
emergency? (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.7.2.5. What
kind of probe do we use? (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.7.2.6. What
happens if there is no water in the restaurant? (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.7.2.7. How and
where do you go to shut off the gas? (A) 1 0 0 1 0
D
3.7.3. IF the candidate
doesn’t know the answers for the workbook, THEN
physically show the candidate where to find the
answers in the workbook (A) 1 0 0 0 1
D
3.7.4. When asking the
Team Leader questions, IF they do not have the
answers and it is NOT included in the workbook,
THEN print the relevant information from the back
office PC or show them where to find the information
in the HACCP information (the first pages). (A) 1 0 0 0 1
A
3.7.5. Walk with the
candidate to begin showing the equipment related to
HACCP (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A 3.7.5.1. Thermometers 1 0 0 1 0
A 3.7.5.2. Main gas line 1 0 0 1 0
A 3.7.5.3. Water line 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.7.5.4. Drinks
workstation and water line 1 0 0 1 0
R
3.7.5.4.1. REASON: If it’s
broken, you would need to close the restaurant.
A
3.8. Obtain the official HACCP book for the
candidate (A) (B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
3.8.1. Explain “this is
the paperwork that needs to be completed daily” (A)
(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
3.9. Turn to the opening page and refer to
the proceeding 14 pages of the official HACCP book
(A) (B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
3.9.1. Explain to the
Team Leader that there are ever any questions about
HACCP, then you can always reference the first 14
pages as reference in the book (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.9.2. Provide example
questions to the candidate (i.e. hand-washing). (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A 3.9.2.1. “How do 0 1 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 141
you wash your hands?” (B)
A
3.9.2.2. “How
long do you wash your hands?” (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.9.2.3. “Do you
use hot or cold water while washing your hands?” (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.9.2.3.1. Explain the
correct answers and reinforce for the Team Leaders.
(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.10. Review all of the first 14 pages of
the HACCP book. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.10.1. Ask the team
leader to read each one aloud (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.10.2. Ask the team
leader questions to verify that they know where to find
the information in the 14 pages (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.11. Explain that if there are new
HACCP procedures, then take corrective action in
accordance with the new procedures and proceed to
the next step. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
3.12. Introduce the concept of corrective
actions as actions that are taken when a standards is
broken. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.12.1. Explain in detail
that the purpose is to document and corrective the
action. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.12.2. Talk about the fact
there will be mistakes and that you will need to take a
corrective action. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.12.2.1. Explain to
the Team Leader that it’s okay to make mistakes.
Corrective actions are okay. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.12.2.2. Explain
that it’s a red flag if there are no corrective actions. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
3.12.3. Provide an
example, such as, the Team Leader’s role and
responsibility is to ensure proper hand washing is
taking place throughout their shift. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
3.12.4. Make a mistake
while washing your hands and observe the Team
Leader's reaction as a way to evaluate their
understanding © 0 0 1 1 0
D
3.12.4.1. IF you directly
observe the TL coaching the employee or providing
reinforcement for proper hand washing, THEN
reinforce and recognize that they are meeting the
expectation. (C) 0 0 1 0 1
D
3.12.4.1. IF you don’t
directly observe the TL coaching the employee, THEN
role model for them the expected behavior. (C) 0 0 1 0 1
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 142
A
3.12.4.2. Explain to the
Team Leader that this HACCP training is important to
reduce the likelihood of “cutting corners” (234). (B)
(C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
3.13. Explain and define - in detail -
“cutting corners” or “short-cuts”: (B) (C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
3.13.1. Define what a
short-cut is. (B) (C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
3.13.1.1. When
defining a “short-cut”, use the following example for
when a person doesn’t do the HACCP activity, but
they write the number down 0 1 1 1 0
A
3.13.1.2. Explain
that this is also referred to as “pencil-whipping.” (B)
(C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
3.13.2. Talk about the
consequences of taking a short-cut. (B) (C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
3.13.2.1. Explain to
the Team Leader that when an employee is taking a
short-cut, then there will be a individual, verbal, clear
conversation with the employee to discuss it (B) (C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
3.13.2.2. Explain to
the Team Leader that when employee take a short-cut,
then their employment will be terminated (B) (C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
3.13.2.3. Explain to
the Team Leader that if an employee were to take a
short-cut, like not checking the refrigerator today, then
it could lead to a bad outcome, such as a customer
eating the food, getting sick, or the employee getting
sick. (B) (C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
3.14. Preview for the team leader
that they will be checking the HACCP log for the past
two days to specifically look for any corrective action
documentation. (A) (B) (C) 1 1 1 1 0
D
3.15. IF you feel the employee
understands the concept of food safety, THEN you can
move to the next main procedure (C) 0 0 1 0 1
Procedure 4: Explain and demonstrate the food
safety procedures for the Team Leader to observe
A
4. Explain to the Team Leader that you will
be completing the HACCP together (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.1. Obtain and refer to location on
the blank HACCP form where the Team Leader will
need to record the restaurant number and date (A) (C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.2. Show the Team Leader where
and how to check the previous day’s HACCP record
(A) (C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.2.1. Make sure that
the restaurant number and date is correct (441). (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A 4.2.2. Validate that 1 0 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 143
everything on the previous day’s HACCP record is
initialed and checked-off (A) (C)
A
4.2.2.1. Explain to the
Team Leader that if something is not checked off, then
a correction action must be taken (A) (C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.2.2.2. Provide an
example to the Team Leader, such as “if the
shake/smoothie machine wasn’t recorded, then you
would circle and record under ‘corrective actions’ that
the shake/smoothie was not filled in, indicate the
correction, and provide the current temperature.” (A)
(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.2.2.3. Explain that
follow-up (phone call or in-person discussion) would
need to occur with the person who was in charge of
that shift (A) (C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.2.3. Finish explaining
these steps by stating that if there is nothing missing or
incorrect on the previous day’s HACCP, then you
would check the box and initial the form. © 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.3. Demonstrate for the Team Leader how
to calibrate the thermometer probes. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.3.1. Begin by
demonstrating the proper hand-washing procedures,
such as (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.3.1.1. Use soap and
lather hands (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.3.1.2. Wash for 20-
seconds (counting aloud) (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.3.1.3. Sanitize hands
with gel (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.3.2. Obtain a cup, 24 ounce,
fill up with ice and water (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.3.3. Let it sit for five minutes
(A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A 4.3.4. Stir the water (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.3.5. Insert immersion
probe meat and read the temperature (check within
specs) (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.3.6. Check to see if
the thermometer is reading at +/- 32 degree or 30-34
degrees F (480). (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.3.6.1. Explain that if
the correct temperature is provided, then record it on
the HACCP form. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.3.6.2. Explain that if
you don’t have a thermometer that would be used for
the restaurant, then cross it out or record “N/A” on the
form (486). (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 144
A
4.3.7. Complete these
steps by explaining that there should be an extra
thermometer in the restaurant just in case. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.4. Reference the form and explain the
CCP #1 & 2 – Proper hand washing and hourly hand
washing (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.4.1. TELL the
candidate to read #1 (proper hand-washing procedures)
(A)(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.4.2. Discuss the
expectations associated to proper hand washing by
stating that (B)(C) 0 1 1 1 0
4.4.2.1. employees must
wash their hands for 20 seconds and use sanitizer.
4.4.2.3. hand washing
timer must be turned off before all employee complete
the hand washing procedures
4.4.2.2. when the hourly
hand washing timer goes off, the person in charge is
expected to wash their hands first.
R
4.4.3. REASON: The
Team Leader must wash their hands first to determine
the degree of the water to ensure it meets the minimum
standard – it must be more than 100 degrees F (564).
(A)(B)(C)
A
4.4.3.1. Explain that the
role of the person in charge is to send people to wash
their hands by the numbered workstation (i.e.
“workstation #1, #2, etc.”). (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.4.3.1.1. the Team
Leader leaves the water running until the last person
has washed their hands. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.4.3.1.2. all
employees in the restaurant must know that the water
stays running until the last person washes his or her
hands. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.4.3.1.3. End this
by turning off the faucet(C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.4.4. Explain that this
hand-washing task for the whole crew cannot exceed
15 minutes. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.4.5. Explain to the
Team Leader that the following standards must be met:
C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.4.5.1. Looks fors: are
the employees shaking their hands and using the paper
towels (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.4.5.2. Reinforce the
expectation for Team Leader that they must directly
observe the employee washing their hands back inside. 0 0 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 145
(C)
A
4.4.6. TELL the
candidate that you need to send employees every hour
to ensure they are washing their hands in accordance
with the proper procedures (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.4.7. OBSERVE one
rotation of hand-washing station number cycle for
proper hand-washing (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.4.7.1.
Explain that employees are released from each
workstation, in order, to wash their hands
(“workstation 1, workstation 2, etc.”) and expected to
count aloud the number workstation. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
D
4.4.7.1.1.
If any employee does not wash his/her hands correctly
(following the correct procedure), then tell the TL to
repeat the hand-washing procedures. (A)(C) 1 0 1 0 1
A
4.4.8. Explain that if
there are no observations of improper use of the hand
washing their hands, the Team Leader should
recognize all employees as doing a good job. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
D
4.4.8.1. IF the
Team Leader still does not understand, THEN they can
use the CBT information and watch the “Team
Member Food Safety” section. (A) 1 0 0 0 1
D
4.4.8.2. Or, IF
the employee (being observed by the Team Leader)
still does not understand, THEN have the Team Leader
show them how to properly wash their hands. (A) 0 0 1 0 1
A
4.4.9. Make a mistake
on purpose to evaluate if the Team Leader recognizes
that a standard for hand washing was missed. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.4.10. Demonstrate an
example of when you need to wash your hands,
examples could include: (C) 0 0 1 1 0
4.4.10.1.
Changing trash cans
4.4.10.2. Sneezing
4.4.10.3. Touching
hair
4.4.10.4. Going
out to the dining room
A
4.4.11. ASK the Team
Leader “why is hand washing important?” –refer to
main procedure 3 (3.12.2) for possible answers. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
D
4.4.11.1. IF the
candidate provides the correct answer, in accordance
with the hand-washing procedures and procedure 3
(3.12.2), THEN initial that item in the HACCP and 1 0 0 0 1
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 146
move to the next action. (A)
D
4.4.11.2. If the
candidate doesn’t answer the question, THEN provide
more examples from step 4.4.9. (A) 1 0 0 0 1
A
4.4.12. Check off the box
on the form to indicate that you’ve covered this area of
HACCP with the Team Leader. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.5. Reference the form and discuss CCP #3
– employee health and hygiene (638) (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.5.1. Read the
expectation from the form to the TEAM LEADER. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.5.2. Demonstrate the
expectation for the Team Leader by verifying that the
employees aren’t sick. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.5.3. Identify if there
are any wounds visible on any of the employees.
(B)(C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
4.5.4. Validate that any
employees wearing blue band-aids are covered by a
glove (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.5.5. Check off the box
on the form to indicate that you’ve covered this area
with the Team Leader. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.6. Reference the form and discuss CCP #4
– Tools and tongs (tools, tons, neat, egg, spatula, ladles
and pans and liquid, equal cover, presses). (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.6.1. Explain that
Team Leader must ensure that all tools must be rotated
every four hours. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.6.2. Show the Team
Leader where all of the tools are located in the
restaurant as well as the extra sets of tools. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.6.3. Explain that if
there is only one cook working on the workstation,
then a Team Leader will need to “sub-in” for the cook
so the cook can change out all of the utensils. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
R
4.6.3.1. REASON: The
advantage to have a second cook available, so they can
grab the new utensils (C)
R
4.6.3.2. REASON: You
cannot have the same cook taking old tools and
replacing the new ones because that is cross-
contamination. (C)
A
4.6.4. Demonstrate this
tool rotation with the trainee by the following actions:
(C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.6.4.1. grab the mental
pans, seers, cool cover, the knife, cutting board,
protein holders, 0 0 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 147
A
4.6.4.2. bring them to the
back to the three-compartment sink 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.6.4.3. wash and
sanitize them so they can left for air drying, if time
permits 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.6.4.4. explain that
there are a couple of hours to clean, sanitize, and air
dry (693) the tools. 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.6.4.5. explain that the
tool rotation task could take up to 15 minutes. 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.6.5. Check off the box
on the form to indicate that you’ve covered this area
with the Team Leader. 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.7. Reference the form and explain CCP #5
- Final flip and check. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.7.1. Reinforce the importance
of food safety awareness. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.7.2. Demonstrate for
the team leader what the final flip and check means.
(C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.7.2.1. As the employee
is demonstrating the final flip and check, ask the TL
“how can you tell if the meat is still pink?” (C) 0 0 1 1 0
D
4.7.2.2. IF the employee
demonstrates the answer by twisting the spatula on the
product, THEN reinforce that behavior with positive
feedback and proceed to the next step. Or IF they do
not correctly demonstrate, THEN demonstrate (again),
proceed to the next step and explain the answer. (C) 0 0 1 0 1
A
4.7.2.3. Explain that you
must use the spatula and twist to determine if the
products (eggs and beef patties) are fully cooked. © 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.7.2.4. Check off the
box on the form to indicate that you’ve covered this
area with the Team Leader. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.8. Reference the form and explain CCP #6
– recording the temperatures (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.8.1. Explain to the
TEAM LEADER all of the products that need to have
the temperature taken, to include the cheeses,
shake/smoothie mix, and fish fillet. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
D
4.8.2. IF any of the
temperatures do not meet the standards, THEN show
the TL the 14 pages within HACCP to determine what
the corrective action would be. Explain that this is like
having an “open-book test”. (B)(C) 0 1 1 0 1
A
4.8.3. Demonstrate how
to take the temperature of the Shake and smoothie mix.
(B)(C) 0 1 1 1 0
A 4.8.3.1. Have the team 0 1 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 148
leader read CCP #6 aloud (smoothie/shake machine)-
(364). (B)
A
4.8.3.2. Demonstrate the
proper procedure for the TL by first bringing the
ladder/step stool over the shake/smoothie machine,
then proceed to wash hands. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
R
4.8.3.2.1. REASON:
when you touch the stool prior to using the
thermometer this could lead to cross contamination.
Wash and sanitize hands. (B)
A
4.8.3.3. Make sure the
product is at least half way filled in the machine (C) 0 0 1 1 0
R
4.8.3.3.1. REASON:
Explain that if the product is less than half it will not
take the correct temperature (750) (C)
A
4.8.3.3.2. Explain that
if you just placed the mix into the machine, then you
must wait an hour. This is why during the
“preparation” procedures, the shake/smoothie mix
must be in place. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.8.3.4. Take the probe
and clean it with the alcohol pads to clean the
thermometer for each time that it will be used.
(A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.8.3.5. Clarify that the
use of the immersion probe is for the meat and for the
shake/smoothie machine. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.8.3.6. Explain the
standard that the probe must be cleaned in between
taking the temperatures for the shake and the smoothie
machines to avoid cross-contamination. (A)(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.8.3.7. Take the temp of
the front, middle, back of the mix. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.8.3.8. Explain that if
you take the temperature in one spot, then you may not
reach the correct temperature. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.8.3.9. Instruct the
candidate to read the temperature aloud and have them
identify the highest temperature. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.8.3.10. Record the
highest temperature of the three. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.8.3.11. Ask the team
leader to look at the temperature and determine the
highest temperature. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.8.3.12. Quiz the team
leader by asking (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.8.3.12.1. “What was the
temperature you were reading?” (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.8.3.12.2. “What would you
do if you have a temperature of 41 degrees?”(B) 0 1 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 149
D
4.8.3.12.3. IF they don’t
know the answer, THEN refer them back to the 14
pages of references in the HACCP book. (B) 0 1 0 0 1
A
4.8.3.13. Demonstrate for
the TL how to trouble shoot the machine if the
temperature is not met by showing them that on the
side of the shake machine, there is a rep button to reset
the machine. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.8.4. Demonstrate how
to sanitize the probe in between the tasks to prevent
cross contamination. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.8.5. Demonstrate how
to take the temperature by repeating the same
procedures for the smoothie mix. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.8.5.1. Explain that the
spindle provides more consistent measurement of the
temperature. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.8.6. Explain that
restaurants typically keep 8 slices of cheese in the
serving rail and the rest are kept in the POU. Explain
to the Team Leader that if you keep the cheese in the
serving rail then it won’t meet the temperature
standard. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.8.7. Demonstrate how
to take the temperature of the Fish fillet by doing the
following: (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.8.7.1. Obtain one fish
and place it in the fryer using one basket (with no
other products in the basket). (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.8.7.2. Insert the meat
probe into the fish and validate it meets the 155 degree
F temperature. (B)(C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
4.8.7.3. Explain that
when you cook the fish product in the fryer, you must
record the lowest temperature from the fryers. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.8.8. Demonstrate how to take
the temperature of the rice. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.8.8.1. Make sure there
is rice available (see Preparation procedures). (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.8.8.2. Have the
candidate read the required temperature aloud from the
HACCP form. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.8.8.3. Use the
immersion probe to take temperature and validate it
exceeds the 135 degrees F. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.8.8.4. Ask the
candidate, “What happens if you don’t have 135
[degrees] for the rice?" (A) 1 0 0 1 0
D
4.8.8.4.1. IF the
candidate provides the correct answer, THEN move to 1 0 0 0 1
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 150
the next step (A)
A
4.8.8.4.2. Explain that
if the rice doesn’t reach the minimum temperature of
135 degrees, then explain to the candidate that you
would need to discard the rice, determine if the rice
cooker is broken or not, and cook fresh rice that meets
the minimum temperature. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.8.8.4.3. Explain that
if the rice cooker doesn’t work, then call the
Restaurant Manager, and throw away the rice cooker
as it can be discarded. There is always an extra rice
cooker on hand. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.8.9. Ask the Team
Leader to identify what temperature you are looking
for with each product (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.8.10. Check off the box
on the form to indicate that you’ve covered this area
with the Team Leader. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9. Reference the form and explain CCP #7
– Temperature tacking for equipment (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.9.1. Refer to how the
HACCP document is logically organized with no
jumping around the form. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.9.1.1. Point to
the first equipment listed on the form and as the team
leader, “what temperature am I looking for?” (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.9.1.2. Evaluate
if the Team Leader comprehends what they are
reading. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
D
4.9.1.2.1. IF the
employee doesn’t know or can’t find the correct
temperature on the document, THEN have them re-
read the standard documented in the book (14 pages).
(B) 0 1 0 0 1
A
4.9.2. Demonstrate how
to record the temperatures of refrigerators and freezers.
(A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.9.2.1. Show the Team
Leader how to check the temperature using the display
on the outside of the walk-ins. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.2.2. Physically walk
with the Team Leader and go into the walk-ins/freezer
and take the temperatures. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.2.2.1. Position the
card board boxes like a V and point the beam/laser
thermometer (A) (C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.2.2.2. REASON:
you don’t want the laser to hit any other part of the
walk-in because that will provide an incorrect
temperature. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 151
A
4.9.3. While in the first
walk-in refrigerator, preview for the employee that you
will showing them how to determine if the fans are
working properly (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.3.1. Explain that if
the fans in the refrigerators are not working, then it is
possible that the products are defrosting. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.3.2. Tell the Team
Leader that you can feel if the fans are working or not.
(A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.3.2.1. Continue
explaining that if the fans have stopped working, then
wait a few minutes to determine if they are function or
it is simply set on “defrosting” time.(A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.3.2.2. Explain
that if the fans are working and the products are not
meeting the temperature, then it’s a problem and the
products should be removed and discarded (1634). (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.4. Obtain the official
HACCP book and prepare to evaluate the team
leader’s comprehension of the temperature standards.
© 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.4.1. Ask the
Team Leader, “what do you do if you are taking the
temperature of the freezer and it doesn’t give you the
correct temperature, then what do you do?” (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.4.2. Ask the
Team Leader, “If the temperature is 27, then what are
we supposed to do?” © 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.4.3. Refer the
Team Leader to the 14 pages that details out the
answers to the above questions, regardless of the
responses they give to the questions.(C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.4.4. Observe
that the team leader is referencing the 14 pages to
determine next steps/actions if the minimum
temperature is not met. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.4.5. Explain to the
Team Leader that if the temperatures go beyond the 41
degrees, then there is a chance the products are
defrosting so you would need to wait and see for 5-10
minutes, go back and re-check the temperatures. (A) 1 0 1 0
A
4.9.5. Repeat the same
procedures for the freezer. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.5.1. Re-iterate that if
something is in a box or container, then implement the
same “V” technique as described earlier. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.6. Explain and
demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the Point of Use (POU) freezers and 1 0 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 152
refrigerators. (A)(C)
A
4.9.6.1. Demonstrate the
steps by first using two sausage patties, place the
immersion probe in between the patties to determine
the temperature. (A) (C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.6.2. Explain that this
procedure must be done wearing gloves. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.6.3. Explain that you
must not use the Jumbo meat patties to take the
temperature, with the exception that (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.6.4. Explain that if
there are no sausage patties, THEN use the jumbo
meat or use the surface probe to determine the
temperature within the POU (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.6.5. Explain that
when there are liquid eggs in the POU refrigerators,
you can use the same “V” technique to take the
temperatures. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.6.6. For the fryer
freezer POU, using chicken patties, follow the same
probe steps that were used for the sausage patties. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.6.7. For the guest
service POU, use the laser for the packaged food. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.7. Explain a best
practice, such as - if something is in a box or package,
then you use the laser/air-probe; however, if something
is an open food product, then you use the immersion
probe. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.8. Explain and
demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the grill refrigerator (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.8.1. Obtain one of
the set-ups and use the beam probe to take the
temperature. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.8.2. Emphasize for
the Team Leader that you can’t take the temperature of
something has already been frozen because that is
when we are using a defrosting method. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.9. Explain and
demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the Fryer freezer (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.9.1. Take the
temperature of the product French fries so you need to
open the bag and take the temperature, it cannot be of
the bag (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.10. Explain and
demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the fryer refrigerator (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A 4.9.10.1. Take the 0 0 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 153
temperature of the shredded lettuce—directly on the
product (C)
A
4.9.11. Explain and
demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the Prep refrigerator (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.11.1. Emphasize that
cheese sauce didn’t need to get defrosted, so you can
take the temperature of the product. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.12. Explain and
demonstrate for the Team Leader how to check the
temperature of the Guest Service refrigerators (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.12.1. Take the
temperature of the OJ using the same “V” technique
described earlier. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.12.2. Show the TEAM
LEADER a label that has been created as a job aid and
placed in the POU on the door indicating what
products need the temperature to be taken. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.9.13. Reinforce with the
Team Leader that the temperatures must fall within
range (+/- 33 – 41.0 F degrees), from the lowest to the
highest, and outside of what is known as the “danger
zone” is 41 to 135 degrees F. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.14. Explain that if the
temperatures go beyond the 41 degrees, THEN discard
the food and call Facility Services. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.15. Tell the candidate
that the all of the acceptable temperatures ranges can
be referenced within the HACCP book (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.9.16. Obtain the official
HACCP book in preparation for evaluating the team
leader’s comprehension of the temperature standards.
(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.9.16.1. Ask the
Team Leader, “what do you do if you are taking the
temperature of the freezer and it doesn’t give you the
correct temperature, then what do you do?” (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.9.16.2. Ask the
Team Leader, “If the temperature is 27, then what are
we supposed to do?”(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.9.16.3. Refer the
Team Leader to the 14 pages that details out the
answers to the above questions, regardless of the
responses to the above questions. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.9.16.4. Observe
that the team leader is referencing the 14 pages to
determine next steps/actions if the minimum
temperature is not met and then move to the next
action step. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A 4.10. Reference the form and discuss the 1 1 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 154
SOP #8 – sanitizer solution (A)(B)(C)
A
4.10.1. Obtain a red bucket that is
in the restaurant. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.10.2. Explain that every
single workstation (fryer, grill, etc.) needs to have a
bucket with the sanitizer solution (1670). (A)(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.10.3. Ensure sanitizer
solution strips are available (during the preparation
procedures). (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.10.4. Explain that the
sanitizer solution must be changed every 4 hours or
when needed. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.10.5. Explain that you
will use the strips (which are received every time you
order them) to determine the solution strength. (A)(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.10.6. Demonstrate using
the cold water and the strip guide to determine if it
meets the standards. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.10.7. Demonstrate for
the TEAM LEADER that you don’t stir but place the
strip in the solution. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
R
4.10.7.1. REASON:
Stirring mixes the solution and it will lead to an
inaccurate read. (C)
A
4.10.7.1.1. If it meets
the standard, then move on to the next step. (A) (C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.10.7.1.2. If the
solution doesn’t meet the standard, then throw the
solution away and start the procedures over from the
beginning. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.10.8. Evaluate if the
team leader is paying attention to what they are
reading using the test strip as an example. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.10.8.1. Ask
questions about what they are reading (e.g. using the
test strip correctly). (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.10.8.2. Ask,
“what if there isn’t enough sanitizer solution?” (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.10.8.3. Evaluate
the Team Leader’s understanding that if the solution is
too weak, then it won’t fully sanitize what we are
cleaning or if the solution is too strong, then it could
dry out the skin.(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.10.9. Once the Team
Leader understands how to prepare the sanitizer
solution, check off the box on the form to indicate that
you’ve covered this area with the Team Leader and
move to the next step. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.11. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #9 – prepping (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 155
A
4.11.1. Create awareness
for the TEAM LEADER that their responsibility lasts
throughout the shift, not just during the time you are
completing the HACCP procedures. (B)(C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
4.11.2. Instruct the Team
Leader to refer back to the 14 pages and read the
standard aloud. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.11.3. Explain that
employees should not be prepping a lot of products at
the same time. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.11.4. Tell the TEAM
LEADER that they would need to take a corrective
action and coach the employee to reduce the amount of
products they take out onto the prep table at once. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.12. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #10 – Shake and smoothie is inspected by
certified employee (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.12.1. Explain that the
TEAM LEADER that the person who works the
graveyard shift, they need to clean out the machines
starting at 4 AM so they can sell product during the
night shift. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.12.2. Continue
explaining that the TEAM LEADER who starts the
morning shift will be responsible for inspecting the
breakdown of the shake machine. (B)(C) 0 1 1 1 0
R
4.12.2.1. REASON: the
morning-shift, TEAM LEADER, can re-assemble the
machine and validate that the cleaning from the night
before took place. (B)(C)
A
4.12.3. Reinforce that
hands must being washed and sanitized prior to pulling
the machine apart. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.12.4. Reinforce the
importance of this task being completed on a daily
basis by certified person. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.13. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #11 – hand washing stations stocked (B)(C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
4.13.1. Have the team
leader read the standard aloud. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.13.2. Show the Team
Leader exactly how the station should look, to include
the sanitizer solution and towels. (B)(C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
4.13.3. Indicate that the
reason why this is important is that if there are no
paper towels, then an employee would not have
anywhere to wipe their hands. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.13.4. Evaluate their
understanding, by asking the following question: “if
you don’t have any paper towels, how do you dry your 0 1 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 156
hands?” (B)
D
4.13. 5 IF the TL doesn't
acknowledge the rhetorical question, THEN reiterate
the point that there needs to be paper towels. 0 1 0 0 1
A
4.13.6. Apply the same
teaching to other areas of the business (e.g. soap in the
bathroom). (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.13.5.1. Inspire
ownership of ensuring things properly stocked. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.13.7. Explain to the TL
that if you see anything running low then start to get
prepared for the rush. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.14. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #13 – Allergens (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.14.1. Have the team
leader read the standard aloud. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.14.2. ASK the
candidates questions about “where do you put the
eggs?”(A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.14.3. Show the special
space for the eggs because this cannot be mixed with
meats or other products. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.14.3.1. Reinforce
that even though the eggs are pasteurized, the
expectation is the same. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.14.4. Explain a scenario
regarding allergen and related to the guest (B). 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.14.4.1. Describe
the expectation that if a guest comes to the restaurant
and asks what’s in the product, then the employee
should be knowledgeable of the products that contain
allergens. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.14.5. Share a personal
story that reinforces the importance of knowing the
products that contain allergens (e.g. “My daughter has
a peanut allergy.”) (764) (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.14.6. SHOW the
candidate the chart so they can read the allergens. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.14.7. Point out specific
allergens to the candidate. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.14.8. ASK the candidate
to explain back to you their understanding of the
allergens. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.15. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #13 – Cross contamination (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.15.1. Have the team
leader read the standard aloud. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.15.2. Create awareness
for the TEAM LEADER that their responsibility lasts 0 1 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 157
throughout the shift, not just during the time you are
completing the HACCP procedures. (B)(C)
A
4.15.3. Show how to grab
the meat with the tongs as an example of avoiding
cross-contamination. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.15.4. Explain that the
procedures need to be followed for hand washing
(which can be found in the HACCP Manual), for
instances such as: (A)(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.15.4.1. Hand
washing 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.15.4.2. How to
handle meat 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.15.4.3. Getting
meat out of the walk-ins 1 1 0 1 0
A 4.15.4.4. Gloves 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.15.4.5. When the
employee is out cleaning the dining room 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.15.5. Explain that if the
employee is doing any one of the tasks listed above,
then they need to wash their hands. (A)(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.15.6. Evaluate if the
Team Leader understands what cross contamination is.
(A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.15.6.1. Ask, “I’m
touching my hair, what do I do next?” (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.15.6.2. Ask a question
like “when could a cross contamination take place?”
(C) 0 0 1 1 0
D
4.15.7. IF the TL doesn't
understand, THEN re-define cross-contamination.
(A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 0 1
A
4.16. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #14 – temperatures are accurate on the grill (A)
(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.16.1. Instead of the
Team leader reading aloud, take the lead on reading
the standard. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.16.2. Explain that this is
when you can ensure that all of the lanes are operating
over 350 degree F. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.16.3. Explain that if all
of the lanes are indicated as green, THEN you are
good; however, if the lanes are showing yellow/red
symbols, then this is not good. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.16.4. Demonstrate for
the employee how to take the temperature. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.16.5. Explain there are 5
lanes on the grill, that require a temperature to be
taken, and that need to fall within the provided 0 1 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 158
temperature range. (B)
A
4.16.6. Demonstrate how
to take the temperature by (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.16.6.1. referring
to the bottom of the grill surface, squeeze butter in the
middle of the line, then take the temperature. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.16.6.2. referring
to the top of the grill surface and make sure the Teflon
sheet is taut in order to get an accurate temperature.
(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.16.7. Ask the employee
to explain the next step in the process. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
D
4.16.7.1. IF they
don’t give the correct answer, THEN explain to the
team leader what to do and re-read that section in the
14 pages. (B) 0 1 0 0 1
A
4.16.7.2. Once they
understand the temperature standard for the grill and
they have received a demonstration, then you can
move to the next step. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.16.8. Evaluate the team
leader performing the same task. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
D
4.16.8.1. IF they
don’t demonstrate the task accurately, provide
corrective feedback, THEN have them practice the
task again. (B) 0 1 0 0 1
D
4.16.8.2. IF they
demonstrate the task accurately, THEN you can move
onto the next step. (B) 0 1 0 0 1
A
4.16.8.3. Troubleshoot to
see if the grill burners are working and turned on. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.17. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #15 – Grill and fryer times are
working/functioning (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.17.1. Explain that this is
something that takes place throughout the entire shift.
(C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.17.2. Demonstrate and
show where the timers are located and how they can be
accessed on both the fryer and the grill. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.17.3. Validate that they
are working properly by pushing the button on the
fryer times and confirming it with the display chart
(A)(B) (C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.17.3.1. Explain that if
the button is not working properly, then you would
need to call facility services. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.17.4. Read aloud the
fryer instructions to the candidate on how to program 1 0 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 159
the timers. (A)
A
4.17.4.1.1. When there is a
new product, bring the book to the equipment station
and walk through the instructions on how to re-
program the timers. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.17.5. Demonstrate how
to check the timers of the grill. (A) (B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.17.5.1.1. Explain that this
is easier to learn relative to the fryer. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.17.5.1.2. Demonstrate for
the candidate, by pressing the JIB logo, press the
product that needs a timer programmed, and then enter
the new time. (A)(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.17.6. When there are
two products that need to be re-programmed, show the
candidate how to do the first one and have them
program the second one as a way to evaluate their
performance. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.17.7. Once the Team
Leader programs a timer correctly, move to the next
step (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.18. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #16 – temperatures of the fryers are meeting the
standard (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.18.1. Demonstrate for
the Team Leader how to take the temperature of the
Fryers oil, using the infrared laser, to ensure it meets
the 365 degree F standard. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.18.1.1. Obtain a small
fryer basket (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.18.1.2. Explain that you
must use the basket to swirl the oil. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
R
4.18.1.2.1. REASON: so you
can get the oil from the bottom (C)
A
4.18.2. Explain what to do
if the minimum temperature (standard is the highest at
365 degrees F and the lowest is 350 degree F) is not
met, such as (A)(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.18.2.1. check to
determine if the dial needs to be higher. (A)(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.18.2.2. check the
temperature after 8-10 minutes and go back if you are
not meeting the temperature. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.18.2.3. stop using that
fryer bin and use another one. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.18.2.4. call facilities and
stop using the fryer that is not working. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.19. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #17 – Kitchen handwashing stations (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A 4.19.1. Have the team 0 1 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 160
leader read the standard aloud. (B)
A
4.19.2. Verify how many
stations need to be verified within the restaurant (i.e.
there are three stations that need to be checked in this
restaurant). (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.19.3. Explain to the
TEAM LEADER that we take the temperature of the
water (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.19.4. Demonstrate for
the Team Leader by using the meat probe, let the water
run, and take the temperature, which must meet 100
degrees F. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.19.5. Reinforce that you
don’t want the laser to capture the metal since this will
lead to an inaccurate temperature. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.19.6. Explain that the
California standard is 100-108 degrees and the
following corrective actions must be taken if this is not
met (A) (B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.19.6.1. restaurant
would be closed down. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.19.6.2. call
facilities services and supervisor to tell them that you
don’t have hot water. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.19.6.3. reported
the matter to the Quality Hotline. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
R
4.19.7. REASON: is that
we need to wash our hands using the hot water. (A)
A
4.19.8. Intentionally make
a mistake in front of the team leader.(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.19.8.1. Take the
temperature of the water at the point where it touches
the metal (since this will be the highest temperature).
(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.19.8.2. ASK “Why is
this so hot?” to evaluate if the team leader is going to
identify the mistake. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.19.8.2.1. IF the
employee does not say anything, THEN ask them “did
you see anything wrong?”(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.19.8.2.2. IF the
employee does say something, THEN reinforce the
fact they are paying attention (e.g. high five or some
kind of positive expression). (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.20. Reference the form and discuss
the SOP #18 – dishwashing (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.20.1. Have the Team
Leader read the standard aloud. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.20.2. Explain that if the
restaurant has a dishwashing machine, then take the 1 0 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 161
steps to ensure the chlorine sanitizer solution meets the
standard (50-100 ppm). (A) (C)
A
4.20.3. Explain that you
need to set the machine, obtain and immerse the strip,
get the temperature of the chlorine, and ensure the strip
color is blue or a very light blue, which means that it
has met the 50-100 ppm. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.20.4. Make sure that a
cycle has run through and place the strip to determine
the chlorine level. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.20.5. Explain that if it
does not give you the correct level, then it may not be
cycling through the system and therefore, you will
need to troubleshoot. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.20.6. Troubleshooting
includes that the TEAM LEADER can follow the pipe
that flows into the dishwasher this is where they can
determine if the pressure is working for the
dishwasher. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.20.7. Ask the Team
Leader: “how is this supposed to be done?” or “what
happens if this machine isn’t working?”(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.20.8. Discuss instances
when a corrective action would need to be taken.(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.20.8.1. Explain
that if the machine isn’t working, then you would use
the three-compartment sink. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.20.8.2. Explain
that if you are checking the sanitizer solution, and it’s
not working, then you need to take the corrective
action. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.20.8.3. Refer to
the 14 pages in the HACCP to determine what
corrective action is appropriate (940). (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.21. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #19 – no mold (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.21.1. Have the Team
Leader read the standard aloud. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.21.2. Provide the
employees some specific examples related to this SOP
(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.21.2.1. Ask the
Team Leader, “When you go to restaurant, what kind
of soda do you like to drink?” (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.21.2.2. Since the
restaurant does not contain dirty nozzles, show the
team leaders pictures of a dirty, moldy, disgusting
nozzle. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
4.21.2.3. Wait for
the team leader’s reaction and reinforce their 0 1 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 162
understanding of the importance while referring to the
images. (B)
A
4.21.3. Explain that you
need to clean the nozzles three times a day with the
sanitizer solution. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.21.4. Obtain a
container, gloves, towels, and soak the towels in
sanitizer solution. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.21.5. Use gloves so
guests see that you are using gloves and explain this
rationale to the Team Leader. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.21.6. Grab a plastic
knife and use it to clean the nozzles. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.21.7. Emphasize that
more mold is apparent with the dark sodas (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.22. Reference the form and discuss
SOP #20 – Meat temperature (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.22.1. Have the
candidate take the temperature of the hamburger
patties and read it aloud. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.22.2. Explain that you
are determining what is the highest and lowest
temperatures. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.22.3. Begin the
demonstration of taking the temperatures of the grill
lanes. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.22.3.1. Explain
that there are 6 lanes in total. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.22.3.2. Tell the
candidate to write down the temperatures for all lanes
and circle the four lowest temperatures. (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
4.22.4. Take the
temperature of the following products on the lane that
has the lowest temperature as determined in the
previous step, by obtaining the tongs, place a meat
patty on the grill, cook it, and when the timer has gone
off, use the spatula to lift the patty and take the
temperatures of the patty where the form indicates to
do so (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.22.4.1. Regular
patty 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.22.4.2. Patty with
press (for emergency meat that we need) 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.22.4.3. Jumbo
Patty 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.22.4.4. Jumbo
Patty with press 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.22.5. Place a patty on
the grill, do the procedures with the timer and
seasoning, when it is time to take the temperature, 1 1 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 163
place the immersion probe in the following places
(A)(B)(C)
A 4.22.5.1. Middle 1 1 1 1 0
A 4.22.5.2. Top 1 1 1 1 0
A 4.22.5.3. Other side 1 1 1 1 0
A 4.22.5.4. Bottom 1 1 1 1 0
A
4.22.6. Demonstrate re-
washing your hands before recording the temperature
of the meat, use gloves, etc. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
4.22.7. Stand next to the
grill workstation and prepare to evaluate the
candidate’s knowledge by asking: (A)(B) 1 1 0 1 0
A
4.22.7.1. Ask the
candidate, “what is the standard for the internal
temperature of the meat?” (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.22.7.2. Ask “what
if the temperature is 154.9 degrees F?” (B) 0 1 0 1 0
D
4.22.7.3. Ensure the
TL knows the temperature MUST meet 155 degrees F.
IF the TL knows the correct standard (or where to find
the answer), THEN move to the next step. IF they do
not, THEN re-train the employee on where to find the
answer. (A)(B) 1 1 0 0 1
A
4.22.8. Similar to the task
performed on the hand-washing station, evaluate the
Team Leader’s understanding by intentionally doing
the task incorrectly (B) 0 1 0 1 0
D
4.22.8.1. IF the
team leader does NOT say anything when you take the
patty temperature when it is flat on the grill, THEN
show them the proper way. (B) 0 1 0 0 1
D
4.22.8.2. IF the
team leader DOES identify the mistake and explain
that the temperature patty cannot be taken directly on
the flat frill but on the spatula, THEN they can move
on. (B) 0 1 0 0 1
A
4.22.9. Explain that there
are times when troubleshooting will need to take place
if the grill and patties are not meeting the standard. For
example, explain the following scenarios: (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.22.9.1. Explain
that if the meat is not meeting the standard but the grill
is working properly, then wait 5-10 minutes to re-
check and repeat steps for temperature taking. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.22.9.2. Explain
that if the grill lane is not getting the meat to reach the
temperature, then block the lane with a stainless steel
press (A) 1 0 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 164
A
4.22.10. Explain to the
candidate that this temperature-taking process takes
place 6 a.m. – 11 a.m. and a second time at 2 p.m. – 6
p.m. Once you have completed the demonstration,
move to the next main procedure. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
4.22.11. Encourage the
team leaders to determine if they are still unclear. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
D
4.22.11.1. IF the team
leader is still unclear of the procedures, THEN they
should refer to the 14 pages at the beginning of the
HACCP book. (B) 0 1 0 0 1
A
4.22.12. Once you have
demonstrated, reviewed, and discussed all of the steps
of the HACCP procedures, you can move to the next
main procedure. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
Procedure 5: Instruct the Team Leader to practice
with a peer or the assistant manager
A
5. Schedule the candidate for the next day so
they can now perform the HACCP. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
5.1. Tell the candidate, “This is
your turn.” (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
5.2. Obtain 3-4 blank forms of
HACCP from the back office PC – Portal. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
5.2.1. Provide the
TEAM LEADER with the 3-4 blank forms. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
5.2.2. Explain to the
Team Leader that these blanks forms are to be used for
practice-purposes throughout the week. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
5.3. Use a Certified Team Leader
or Assistant Manager, who will serve as the peer-
mentor to the Team Leader throughout their practice
sessions on HACCP. (B)(C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
5.3.1. Instruct the Team
Leader to practice with a peer or the assistant manager
(B)(C) 0 1 1 1 0
A
5.3.2. Encourage the
team leader to ask questions. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
5.4. Give the TEAM LEADER a
week to practice with another TEAM LEADER and
AM(C) 0 0 1 1 0
D
5.5. IF an official HACCP form is
being used for practice purposes, THEN this task must
be completed with the RM present with the TL. 0 0 0 0 1
A
5.6. Spend time completing
sections of the HACCP in partnership with the Team
Leader and provide corrective feedback. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
Procedure 6: Observe the Team Leader
performing the procedures.
A
6. Schedule to work on the floor at 2:00 p.m.
or 1:00 p.m. with the TL who will perform the 1 0 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 165
HACCP, with no interruptions. (A)
A
6.1.1. REASON: the
candidate needs focus during this time and they should
not be called to help on the floor. (A) 1 0 0 1 0
A
6.2. Instruct the TEAM LEADER
to perform the task with you observing their behavior.
(A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
6.3. Observe the Team Leader
performing the task (A)(C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
6.4. Coach and provide corrective
feedback immediately to the candidate. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 1 0
D
6.4.1. IF the candidate is
not doing it right, THEN have them go back and do the
task over again. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 0 1
D
6.4.2. IF the candidate is
doing the task but makes a mistake, THEN re-train
him/her on that step. (A)(B)(C) 1 1 1 0 1
A
6.5. Refer to the 14 pages in any
instance when the Team Leader is unsure about what
to do next throughout the main HACCP procedures.
(C) 0 0 1 1 0
D
6.6. IF you sense the Team Leader
is confused in any way, THEN answer the questions
and provide corrective feedback. (C) 0 0 1 0 1
Procedure 7: Evaluate the Team Leader to
determine if they are prepared to do the task
independently
A
7. Schedule time with the Team Leader to
determine if they are prepared to do the task (A) (C) 1 0 1 1 0
A
7.1. Observe the TEAM LEADER
performing the full HACCP procedures(C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
7.2. Look for leadership behaviors
to determine how they are (C) 0 0 1 1 0
D
7.2.1. IF the TL is giving
direction to others, 0 0 1 0 1
D
7.2.2. IF the TL is following up
with stocking throughout the shift, 0 0 1 0 1
D
7.2.3. IF the TL is
communicating to others, and 0 0 1 0 1
D
7.2.4. IF the TL is providing
corrective feedback to other employees when a
standard is missed, THEN proceed to the next step. 0 0 1 0 1
A
7.3. Schedule time to work a
graveyard shift with the TEAM LEADER (C) 0 0 1 1 0
D
7.4. IF the TEAM LEADER
demonstrates the required skills and knowledge of this
task and IF they are able to do their job without the
RM, THEN proceed to the next step. (A) © 1 0 1 0 1
A
7.4.1. Call into the
restaurant and start asking questions. “How’s the speed 0 0 1 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 166
of service?” or “How was breakfast?” (C)
A
7.4.2. Observe the TL to
gain a sense of their level of confidence to perform the
duties independently. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
7.4.3. Ask the Team
Leader to print out an hourly sales report and indicate
how much they have sold by hour. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
R
7.4.3.1. REASON:
When the speed of service is high and the excuse is
typically due to a busy, so the hourly reading will tell
you if that’s an accurate picture of the restaurant. (C)
D
7.4.4. IF the TL is able to
manage the shift in addition to doing the HACCP
procedures, THEN proceed to the next step. (C) 0 0 1 0 1
A
7.5. When you are working with
the TEAM LEADER, act as a sale production
employee and have the TEAM LEADER guide you as
the person in charge. (C) 0 0 1 1 0
A
7.6. Contact the team leader (via phone or
in- person) in order to randomly ask questions at
various points throughout the shift. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
7.6.1. Ask “did you do
the HACCP today? (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
7.6.2. Ask “how were
the temperatures today?” (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
7.6.3. Audit to
determine if the temperature met the minimum
standards. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
7.7. Review completed HACCP practice or
official forms to determine if the team leader can be
responsible for performing the HACCP procedures
independently. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
D
7.7.1. IF they are
missing a signature, THEN re-train the team leader.
(B) 0 1 0 0 1
A
7.7.2. While reviewing
the forms, ask the TL clarifying questions to determine
the root cause of mistakes being made by the team
leader. Ask: (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
7.7.2.1. Ask,
"when did you do the HACCP"? (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
7.7.2.2. Ask, "was
the restaurant busy while you were doing HACCP?"
(B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
7.7.3. Solicit feedback
from the Assistant Manager and the experienced team
leader regarding the extent to which they feel the
employee is prepared to take the lead on the HACCP
procedures independently. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 167
D
7.7.4. IF the employee
is no longer making mistakes and there is feedback
indicating they are ready, THEN they can take the lead
on the HACCP procedures. (B) 0 1 0 0 1
A
7.8. Ensure the team leader knows and feels
the degree of trust you have in their ability to perform
the important and critical HACCP procedures. (B) 0 1 0 1 0
A
7.9. Ask the TL if they have any last
questions and if so, answer them. 0 0 0 1 0
D
7.9.1. IF you are not
able to answer the TL’s question, THEN demonstrate
(in front of the TL) how to find the answer in the
HACCP book. 0 0 0 0 1
D
7.9.2. IF you are able to
answer the question, THEN move to the next step. 0 0 0 0 1
A
7.10. Continue to provide blank forms to
the TL (print out a blank HACCP form from the Portal
to be used for practice purposes). (A) 1 0 0 1 0
D
7.10.1. IF the candidate is
performing 100% of the correct actions, THEN have
the candidate repeat the above steps using the official
HACCP document with management oversight and
then proceed to the next main procedure. (A) 1 0 0 0 1
D
7.10.2. IF they
demonstrate the full HACCP procedures the correct
way and consistently, THEN they are ready to be the
person-in-charge. (A)(C) 1 0 1 0 1
472 Total Action and Decision Steps 221 193 242
407 Action Steps 190 177 210
65 Decision Steps 31 16 32
Total Action and Decision Steps 46.82% 40.89% 51.27%
Action Steps 46.68% 43.49% 51.60%
Decision Steps 47.69% 24.62% 49.23%
Action and Decision Steps Omitted 251 279 230
Action Steps Omitted 217 230 197
Decision Steps Omitted 34 49 33
Action and Decision Steps Omitted 53.18% 59.11% 48.73%
Action Steps Omitted 53.32% 56.51% 48.40%
Decision Steps Omitted 52.31% 75.38% 50.77%
Average Captured Omitted
Total Action and Decision Steps 46.33% 53.67%
COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS 168
Action Steps 47.26% 52.74%
Decision Steps 40.51% 59.49%
Highly Aligned 49 10.38%
Partially Aligned 91 19.28%
Slightly Aligned 327 69.28%
Zero Aligned 5 1.06%
472
100.00
%
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to apply cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods to capture expert instruction of food safety training for novice employees at the national restaurant company, JQR Incorporated (JQR), a pseudonym. Restaurant managers at JQR are primarily responsible for ensuring that all employees flawlessly and consistently execute specific food safety standards of practice, involving complex tasks and procedures within the operations. Employees are often trained by experts to perform these critical food safety tasks. Unfortunately, research shows that experts, when teaching novices, may omit up to 70% of the critical information that novices would need to replicate performance. Although experts can perform the tasks unconsciously, the double-edged sword of automaticity makes it difficult for experts to recall essential information that is necessary for instructional purposes. CTA semi-structured interviews were conducted with three managers who were qualified as experts to elicit their knowledge. Action and decision steps, as well as conditions, standards, and references from the subject matter experts were captured and aggregated to form a gold standard protocol which was then reviewed by a fourth expert. This study also sought out to identify the numbers and percentages of expert knowledge and skills recalled and aligned among the experts in their descriptions of how they train novice team leaders in food safety. Findings indicated that expert managers recalled an average of 46.33% of the action and decision steps when compared to the gold standard protocol. The experts were “highly aligned” on 10.38% of the total action and decision steps captured. The expert knowledge captured by CTA methods may be used to train future managers and team leaders on complex food safety tasks, which may improve learning outcomes and performance.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The use of cognitive task analysis to capture expert instruction in teaching mathematics
PDF
Using incremental cognitive task analysis to capture expert instruction in expository writing for secondary students
PDF
Using cognitive task analysis to capture expert reading instruction in informational text for students with mild to moderate learning disabilities
PDF
Using individual cognitive task analysis to capture expert writing instruction in expository writing for secondary students
PDF
Towards a taxonomy of cognitive task analysis methods: a search for cognition and task analysis interactions
PDF
Using cognitive task analysis to capture expert instruction in division of fractions
PDF
The effect of cognitive task analysis based instruction on surgical skills expertise and performance
PDF
Using cognitive task analysis to capture how expert principals conduct informal classroom walk-throughs and provide feedback to teachers
PDF
The use of cognitive task analysis to capture exterptise for tracheal extubation training in anesthesiology
PDF
The use of cognitive task analysis for the postanesthesia patient care handoff in the intensive care unit
PDF
The use of cognitive task analysis to capture expert patient care handoff to the post anesthesia care unit
PDF
Using cognitive task analysis to capture how expert anesthesia providers conduct an intraoperative patient care handoff
PDF
Using cognitive task analysis to capture palliative care physicians' expertise in in-patient shared decision making
PDF
The use of cognitive task analysis for identifying the critical information omitted when experts describe surgical procedures
PDF
Using cognitive task analysis to determine the percentage of critical information that experts omit when describing a surgical procedure
PDF
Cognitive task analysis for instruction in single-injection ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia
PDF
Identifying the point of diminishing marginal utility for cognitive task analysis surgical subject matter expert interviews
PDF
The use of cognitive task analysis to determine surgical expert's awareness of critical decisions required for a surgical procedure
PDF
The use of cognitive task analysis to investigate how many experts must be interviewed to acquire the critical information needed to perform a central venous catheter placement
PDF
Employing cognitive task analysis supported instruction to increase medical student and surgical resident performance and self-efficacy
Asset Metadata
Creator
McGuinness, Megan Ann
(author)
Core Title
Using cognitive task analysis for capturing expert instruction of food safety training for novice employees
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/10/2015
Defense Date
02/09/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
cognitive task analysis,eliciting expert knowledge,food safety training,instructional design,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Yates, Kenneth A. (
committee chair
), Blankenship, Mark (
committee member
), Malloy, Courtney L. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ekno@usc.edu,megan.patel@disruptivecharm.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-546153
Unique identifier
UC11297584
Identifier
etd-McGuinness-3271.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-546153 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-McGuinness-3271.pdf
Dmrecord
546153
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
McGuinness, Megan Ann
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
cognitive task analysis
eliciting expert knowledge
food safety training
instructional design