Risk Factors Associated With the Prevalence of Tuberculosis-Like Lesions in Fenced Wild Boar and Red Deer in South Central Spain

In recent decades the management of large game mammals has become increasingly intensive in south central Spain (SCS), resulting in complex epidemiological scenarios for disease maintenance, and has probably impeded schemes to eradicate tuberculosis (TB) in domestic livestock. We conducted an analysis of risk factors which investigated associations between the pattern of tuberculosis-like lesions (TBL) in wild boar (Sus scrofa) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) across 19 hunting estates from SCS and an extensive set of variables related to game management, land use and habitat structure. The aggregation of wild boar at artificial watering sites was significantly associated with an increasing risk of detecting TBL in both species, which probably relates to enhanced opportunities for transmission. Aggregation of wild boar at feeding sites was also associated with increased risks of TBL in red deer. Hardwood Quercus spp. forest availability was marginally associated with an increased risk of TB in both species, whereas scrubland cover was associated with a reduced individual risk of TBL in the wild boar. It is concluded that management practices that encourage the aggregation of hosts, and some characteristics of Mediterranean habitats could increase the frequency and probability of both direct and indirect transmission of TB. These findings are of concern for both veterinary and public health authorities, and reveal tuberculosis itself as a potential limiting factor for the development and sustainability of such intensive game management systems in Spanish Mediterranean habitats.

Food Handling Practices, Knowledge and Beliefs of Families with Young Children Based on the Health Belief Model

Objective: To determine current food handling practices, knowledge and beliefs of primary food handlers with children 10 years old and the relationship between these components. Design: Surveys were developed based on FightBac!™ concepts and the Health Belief Model (HBM) construct. Participants: The majority of participants (n= 503) were females (67%), Caucasians (80%), aged between 30 to 49 years old (83%), had one or two children (83%), prepared meals all or most of the time (76%) and consumed meals away from home three times or less per week (66%). Analysis: Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho) (p<0.05 and one-tail) and Chi-square were used to examine frequency and correlations. Results: Few participants reached the food safety objectives of Healthy People 2010 for safe food handling practices (79%). Mixed results were reported for perceived susceptibility. Only half of the participants (53-54%) reported high perceived severity for their children if they contracted food borne illness. Most participants were confident of their food handling practices for their children (91%) and would change their food handling practices if they or their family members previously experienced food poisoning (79%). Participants’ reasons for high self-efficacy were learning from their family and independently acquiring knowledge and skills from the media, internet or job. The three main barriers to safe food handling were insufficient time, lots of distractions and lack of control of the food handling practices of other people in the household. Participants preferred to use food safety information that is easy to understand, has scientific facts, causes feelings of health-threat and has lots of pictures or visuals. Participants demonstrate high levels of knowledge in certain areas of the FightBac!TM concepts but lacked knowledge in other areas. Knowledge and cues to action were most supportive of the HBM construct, while perceived susceptibility was least supportive of the HBM construct. Conclusion: Most participants demonstrate many areas to improve in their food handling practices, knowledge and beliefs. Adviser: Julie A. Albrecht

Evaluating Measurement Invariance with Censored Ordinal Data: A Monte Carlo Comparison of Alternative Model Estimators and Scales of Measurement

Evaluations of measurement invariance provide essential construct validity evidence. However, the quality of such evidence is partly dependent upon the validity of the resulting statistical conclusions. The presence of Type I or Type II errors can render measurement invariance conclusions meaningless. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of categorization and censoring on the behavior of the chi-square/likelihood ratio test statistic and two alternative fit indices (CFI and RMSEA) under the context of evaluating measurement invariance. Monte Carlo simulation was used to examine Type I error and power rates for the (a) overall test statistic/fit indices, and (b) change in test statistic/fit indices. Data were generated according to a multiple-group single-factor CFA model across 40 conditions that varied by sample size, strength of item factor loadings, and categorization thresholds. Seven different combinations of model estimators (ML, Yuan-Bentler scaled ML, and WLSMV) and specified measurement scales (continuous, censored, and categorical) were used to analyze each of the simulation conditions. As hypothesized, non-normality increased Type I error rates for the continuous scale of measurement and did not affect error rates for the categorical scale of measurement. Maximum likelihood estimation combined with a categorical scale of measurement resulted in more correct statistical conclusions than the other analysis combinations. For the continuous and censored scales of measurement, the Yuan-Bentler scaled ML resulted in more correct conclusions than normal-theory ML. The censored measurement scale did not offer any advantages over the continuous measurement scale. Comparing across fit statistics and indices, the chi-square-based test statistics were preferred over the alternative fit indices, and ΔRMSEA was preferred over ΔCFI. Results from this study should be used to inform the modeling decisions of applied researchers. However, no single analysis combination can be recommended for all situations. Therefore, it is essential that researchers consider the context and purpose of their analyses.