4.5 Article

Longitudinal factor analysis of the Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire among parents of preschool-aged children

Journal

APPETITE
Volume 129, Issue -, Pages 94-102

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.006

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Illinois Council for Agriculture Research
  2. University of Illinois Health and Wellness Initiative
  3. United States Department of Agriculture [Hatch 793-328]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (CFPQ) assesses 12 specific parent feeding practices (Musher-Eizenman & Holub, 2007). However, the original 12-factor structure may not be consistent across age groups, and no studies have yet evaluated the factor structure of the CFPQ over time. Therefore, the aim of the current study is to evaluate the model fit of the original and alternative CFPQ factor structures at two time points in early childhood. Method: Mothers (n = 260) of preschoolers completed validated surveys assessing parent feeding practices and child eating behaviors when children were on average 37 months of age at Time 1 (T1), and 57 months of age at Time 2 (T2). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) procedures were used to evaluate the original CFPQ factor structure, and to identify and evaluate modified factor structures at both time points. Results: The original 12-factor CFPQ model did not adequately fit the data at T1 or T2. EFA identified a 7-factor model at T1, and a 5-factor model at T2. Bivariate correlations provided preliminary evidence for the validity of the modified scales. Discussion: Overall, these findings suggest that parent feeding measures should the developmental significance of specific feeding practices, and/or that parents' reliance on certain feeding practices may shift as children age. Thus, a developmental framework to conceptualize how feeding changes during early childhood is sorely needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available