Psychometric properties of the oral feeding assessment in premature infants scale

Abstract

Professionals that work in neonatal units need to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the premature infant who is in the transition process from feeding through a gastric tube to oral feeding. The main aim of this study was to validate the Oral FEeding Assessment in premaTure INfants (OFEATINg) instrument. A psychometric validity and reliability study was conducted in Neonatal Intensive Care Units of two public, metropolitan, university hospitals. The study population were premature infants at a postconceptional age of 31–35 weeks. The study included evaluation of the reliability, convergent, discriminant and construct validity, sensitivity and specificity of the OFEATINg instrument. A total of 621 feedings of 56 preterm infants were evaluated. Confirmatory factor analysis identified 3 factors and 13 indicators with a good fit to the model. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.78. The instrument showed high indices of inter-rater reliability (Pearson 0.9 and intraclass correlation coefficient 0.95). The OFEATINg scale is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating the readiness for oral feeding of preterm infants. It may enable clinicians to evaluate the physiological and behavioral abilities involved in the oral feeding process and help them make decisions related to the transition to full oral feeding.Clinical trial registration: This study was prospectively registered at the two Institutional review boards.

Comprehensive Review of Assessment Tools for Nutrition and Feeding Practices in Early Childhood: Applications, Strengths, and Limitations

“…Several tools, like the "Early Feeding Skills (EFS) scale" (5) and "Oral Feeding Assessment in premature infants (OFEAT-INg) instrument" (6), target premature infants without neurological damage or craniofacial malformations, highlighting their narrow age focus.…”

“…Recognizing these limitations is vital for researchers and clinicians when interpreting their findings: • Small Sample Sizes: Numerous assessments were conducted with limited participant numbers, raising concerns about generalizability (5,40,41). • Lack of Validation: Several tools were not validated against gold standards, questioning their reliability and accuracy (6,10,42).…”