Parent Attribution for Child Eating Scale (PACES). Psychometric characteristics and associations with child and parent variables

Hendy, Helen M.; Williams, Keith E.; Harclerode, Whitney; Riegel, Katherine

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.029

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on attributions of fussy eating is relatively new. Although a Parent Attribution for Child Eating Scale has been developed in a hospital feeding clinic setting [47], there has not been any quantitative research investigating how parent attributions of typical fussy eating behaviours relate to feeding practices. Therefore, it would be beneficial for future research to investigate both self-efficacy beliefs and parent attributions further, specifically how these beliefs develop and how they relate to parent feeding practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Childhood fussy/picky eating behaviours: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

Wolstenholme

Kelly

Hennessy

et al. 2020

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fussy/picky eating behaviours are common across childhood. Recent reviews of the fussy eating literature focus on quantitative research and do not adequately account for families' subjective experiences, perceptions and practices. This review aims to synthesise the increasing volume of qualitative work on fussy eating. A systematic search of relevant databases was carried out. Studies were included if they were qualitative, published since 2008, with a primary focus on families' experiences, perceptions and practices regarding fussy eating, food neophobia, or food refusal in children (aged one to young adult). Studies with clinical samples, or relating to children under one year were excluded. Ten studies were eligible for this review and were synthesised using meta-ethnography (developed by Noblit and Hare). This review provides a comprehensive description and definition of fussy eating behaviours. A conceptual model of the family experience of fussy eating was developed, illustrating relationships between child characteristics (including fussy eating behaviours), parent feeding beliefs, parent feeding practices, mealtime emotions and parent awareness of food preference development. Our synthesis identified two ways in which fussy eating relates to mealtime emotions (directly and via parent feeding practices) and three distinct categories of parent beliefs that relate to fussy eating (self-efficacy, attributions and beliefs about hunger regulation). The model proposes pathways which could be explored further in future qualitative and quantitative studies, and suggests that parent beliefs, emotions, and awareness should be targeted alongside parent feeding practices to increase effectiveness of interventions. The majority of studies included in this review focus on preschool children and all report the parent perspective. Further research is required to understand the child's perspective, and experiences of fussy eating in later childhood.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Childhood fussy/picky eating behaviours: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

Wolstenholme

Kelly

Hennessy

et al. 2020

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A total of 22 articles describing 14 PROMs were included for data extraction. These PROMs included: the 10-question swallowing index (31); the Airway-Dyspnoea-Voice-Swallow scale and PROM (32,33); the Behavioral Pediatrics Feeding Assessment Scale (BPFAS) (34,35); the Child and Oral Motor Proficiency Scale (ChOMPS) (36); Children’s Eating Behavior Inventory (CEBI) (37); Feeding and Swallowing Impact Scales (FS-IS) (38); the Feeding Assessment Scale (39); the Feeding Impact Scales (40); the Four-Item Measure of Texture Problems (41); the Parent Attribution for Child Eating Scale (42); the Pediatric Assessment Scale for Severe Feeding Problems (43); the Pediatric Eating Assessment Tool (Pedi-EAT) (44); an unnamed PROM that investigates swallowing disorders in otherwise healthy infants and toddlers (45); and the Sensory Eating Problems (SEP) Scale (46).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures That Describe the Feeding Skills Domain for Pediatric Feeding Disorder: A Clinimetric Review

Marshall

Gosa

Dodrill

2023

Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology &Amp; Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Pediatric feeding disorder (PFD) is defined as "impaired oral intake that is not age-appropriate, and is associated with medical, nutritional, feeding skill, and/or psychosocial dysfunction." Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are tools that complement clinical assessment, but many have limited clinimetric data. This review aimed to assess PROMs that reported on the feeding skills domain for PFD in children. Methods: A search strategy across 4 databases was conducted (July 2022). PROMs were included in the review if they described elements of the feeding skills domain of PFD, had criterion/norm-referenced data and/or a standardized assessment procedure, description, or scoring system available, and were applicable to children ≥6 months. PROMs were mapped to the PFD diagnostic domains and aspects of the International Classification of Function (ICF) model. Quality assessment was completed using the COnsensus-based Standards to the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology. Results: Overall, 14 PROMs across 22 papers met inclusion criteria. There was variable methodological quality across the tools, with those more recently developed often receiving better scores, particularly where a more rigorous process for tool development and content validity was reported. Most tools captured ICF aspects of impairment (n = 11, eg, biting/chewing) or activity (n = 13, eg, eating a meal), rather than social participation (n = 3, eg, going to a restaurant). Conclusions: Using PROMs with strong content validity, and including some measure of social participation, is recommended as part of an assessment battery for PFD. Consideration of the caregiver/child perspective is an essential component of family-centered care.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, caregivers provide autonomy support, meaning that they trust children’s competence to determine what, how much, and whether they eat from the food that is served. The sDOR differs from existing models that tend to focus on parents’ management of children’s eating [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ] or maladaptation in children’s competence [ 14 , 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The sDOR.2-6y™ Is a Valid Measure of Nutrition Risk Independent of BMI-for-Age z-Score and Household Food Security Status in Preschool Aged-Children

Ruder,

Lohse

2024

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parents’ feeding practices are a function of child eating behaviors, health, and other factors. Adherence to the Satter Division of Responsibility in Feeding (sDOR) model has not been examined relating to child BMI, household food security, or child eating behavior. This study evaluates the adherence to sDOR in relation to child eating behavior, nutrition risk, BMI-for-age, dietary intake, and food security. Ninety-one parent–child (3 to <6 years) dyads completed a cross-sectional asymmetric survey in August–November 2019; n = 69 parents from the original sample completed additional and retrospective questions in June 2021. Main outcomes included sDOR adherence (sDOR.2-6y™), a Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire (CEBQ), nutrition risk (NutriSTEP®), the USDA 6-item screener, the Block Kids Food Screener, and eating competence (ecSI 2.0™). The children’s weight and height were investigator-measured. Associations were tested with Pearson’s r and Chi Square for continuous and categorical variables, independent sample t-test, one-way ANOVA, or Mann–Whitney U compared means. The dietary comparisons used Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient. sDOR adherence was associated with a lower nutrition risk (r = 0.26, p = 0.03) and showed convergent validation with child eating behavior for three child eating behavior (CEBQ) constructs. sDOR.2-6y™ was not related to the child BMI-for-age z-score (r = 0.11, p = 0.39, n = 69). NutriSTEP® was associated with dietary quality and higher ecSI 2.0TM (r = 0.32, p = 0.008, n = 69). No associations between sDOR.2-6y™ and food security or dietary intake were noted.

show abstract

Parent Attribution for Child Eating Scale (PACES). Psychometric characteristics and associations with child and parent variables

Cited by 7 publications

References 28 publications

Childhood fussy/picky eating behaviours: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

Childhood fussy/picky eating behaviours: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures That Describe the Feeding Skills Domain for Pediatric Feeding Disorder: A Clinimetric Review

The sDOR.2-6y™ Is a Valid Measure of Nutrition Risk Independent of BMI-for-Age z-Score and Household Food Security Status in Preschool Aged-Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About