4.5 Article

Maternal report of young children's eating styles. Validation of the Children's Eating Behaviour Questionnaire in three ethnically diverse Australian samples

Journal

APPETITE
Volume 64, Issue -, Pages 48-55

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.01.003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [426704]
  2. HJ Heinz
  3. Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA)
  4. Department Health South Australia
  5. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)
  6. Queensland University of Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to validate the Children's Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (CEBQ) in three ethnically and culturally diverse samples of mothers in Australia. Confirmatory factor analysis utilising structural equation modelling examined whether the established 8-factor model of the CEBQ was supported in our three populations: (i) a community sample of first-time mothers allocated to the control group of the NOURISH trial (mean child age = 24 months [SD = 1]; N = 244); (ii) a sample of immigrant Indian mothers of children aged 1-5 years (mean age = 34 months [SD = 14]; N = 203), and (iii) a sample of immigrant Chinese mothers of children aged 1-4 years (mean age = 36 months [SD = 14]; N = 216). The original 8-factor model provided an acceptable fit to the data in the NOURISH sample with minor post hoc re-specifications (two error covariances on Satiety Responsiveness and an item-factor covariance to account for a cross-loading of an item (Fussiness) on Satiety Responsiveness). The re-specified model showed reasonable fit in both the Indian and Chinese samples. Cronbach's alpha estimates ranged from .73 to .91 in the Australian sample and .61-.88 in the immigrant samples. This study supports the appropriateness of the CEBQ in the multicultural Australian context. Crown Copyright (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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