4.2 Article

Use of parent report to screen for feeding difficulties in young children

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 307-313

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jpc.12729

关键词

feeding behaviour; childhood feeding difficulties; referral and consultation; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsThis study aimed to collect data on Australian children with regard to feeding difficulties using a standardised questionnaire, compare these data to international data collected using the same tool, assess the short-term reliability of this tool and determine the sensitivity and specificity of this tool in detecting feeding difficulties. MethodsParents completed the Behavioral Pediatric Feeding Assessment Scale. Data on 54 typically developing children and 81 children with feeding difficulties aged 2-6 years are presented. ResultsOur Australian sample performed comparably to normative data from Canada and the UK. Reliable results were demonstrated over a 2-week period, and the scale was shown to have high specificity. There was a significant difference between typically developing children and children with feeding difficulties in frequency of undesirable mealtime behaviours (P < 0.01) and the number of behaviours reported as a problem by parents using this tool (P < 0.01). ConclusionsThis study confirmed that the Behavioral Pediatric Feeding Assessment Scale is a valid tool for identifying Australian children with feeding difficulties. Given that it is simple to administer and has a high reliability and specificity, it is suggested as a useful screening tool for physicians working with young children. Data collected using this tool found that typically developing children display few undesirable feeding behaviours, and few behaviours are perceived as problems by parents. Therefore, any child presenting with a large number of feeding problems on this parent-reported measure should be referred for further multidisciplinary evaluation and treatment as required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据