4.5 Article

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

期刊

APPETITE
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 94-102

出版社

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

关键词

-

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.5
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