The relation between child feeding problems as measured by parental report and mealtime behavior observation: A pilot study

Abstract

Because feeding problems have clear negative consequences for both child and caretakers, early diagnosis and intervention are important. Parent-report questionnaires can contribute to early identification, because they are efficient and typically offer a 'holistic' perspective of the child's eating in different contexts. In this pilot study, we aim to explore the concurrent validity of a short screening instrument (the SEP, which is the Dutch MCH-FS) in one of its target populations (a group of premature children) by comparing the total score with the observed behavior of the child and caretaker during a regular home meal. 28 toddlers (aged 9-18 months) and their caretakers participated in the study. Video-observations of the meals were coded for categories of eating behavior and parent-child interaction. The results show that the total SEP-score correlates with food refusal, feeding efficiency, and self-feeding, but not with negative affect and parental instructions. This confirms that the SEP has a certain degree of concurrent validity in the sense that its total score is associated with specific 'benchmark' feeding behaviors: food refusal, feeding efficiency and autonomy. Future studies with larger samples are needed to generalize the findings from this pilot to a broader context.

The Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale: Relationships with parental report of child eating behaviours and observed feeding interactions

“…Interestingly, there were no significant relationships between parental report of feeding problems and observations of maternal emotional expression or sensitivity in mealtime interactions. This reflects a similar pattern of relationships between the MCHFS and observations of infant but not parent behaviour in a previous pilot study (Van Dijk et al, 2016).…”

“…Finally, it is also vital to examine observations of parent-child interaction at a mealtime in addition to parental reports of feeding and eating behaviour. One pilot study has evaluated the relationship between the Dutch version of the MCHFS and observations of mealtimes with 29 prematurely born 9-18 month olds (Van Dijk et al, 2016). In this study, MCHFS scores were related to observed food refusal and feeding autonomy but did not relate to parental negative affect or mealtime instructions.…”

“…It has been used to identify feeding problems in clinical samples (e.g. toddlers who spent 4 days or more in neonatal intensive care; premature infants and toddlers; Hoogewerf et al, 2017;Nieuwenhuis et al, 2016;Van Dijk et al, 2016). However, there has been little examination of its potential for use in a nonclinical research setting.…”

Escala Argentina de Dificultades Alimentarias en Niños (EADAN): Propiedades Psicométricas

“…Los prematuros fueron quienes tenían más probabilidades de ser diagnosticados, probablemente debido a problemas neurológicos, como consecuencia de la alimentación mediante sonda naso u orogástrica y de las características de la relación temprana madre-hijo (Hvelplund, Hansen, Vinkel-Koch, Andersson, & Skovgaard, 2016). En una investigación reciente conducida en niños prematuros (Van Dijk, Bruinsma, & Hauser, 2016), hallaron que a medida que los padres informaban mayores problemas en la alimentación, los niños observados rechazaban en mayor medida los alimentos y comían de manera menos eficiente e independiente. Los niños prematuros de este estudio presenta-ron puntajes que indicaban ausencia de problemas en la alimentación o problemas leves.…”

The association of problematic eating behaviours with food quality and body mass index at 7 years of age

“…Despite variation on the definition of problematic eating behaviours, these include food refusal (of certain types of foods), food fussiness or pickiness (refusal of new and familiar foods, accepting only a narrow range of foods), refusal of new foods (neophobia), grumpiness during mealtime and inadequate self-feeding skills [1,3,4]. The prevalence of these eating behaviours may vary between 7 and 65% [4,5].…”