The relative contributions of parent perceived child characteristics to variation in child feeding behaviour.

Abstract

Background: Few studies have examined the relative impact of co-occurring child characteristics on problematic feeding behaviour. The aim of the current study was to assess the relative contributions of parent perceived child characteristics in multi-variable models of child feeding behaviour. Methods: 161 mothers reported on their child’s feeding behaviour and a number of key child characteristics. These characteristics were entered into controlled multivariable models of child feeding behaviour, using child and parent frequency domains of the Behavioral Pediatrics Feeding Assessment Scale (BPFAS) as outcome measures. Results: Child feeding problems were positively associated with food neophobia and external behavioural and social issues, but not with most domains of temperamental difficulty or sensory sensitivity. Feeding problem frequency was associated with externalising symptoms, whilst parental perceptions of problems and coping were associated with social-interaction problems in the child. Conclusions: Population feeding problems appear to be external and interactive problems, rather than driven by innate or internalising factors. The association with externalising symptoms suggests that feeding problems at this level may fall within a wider profile of challenging behaviour. However, the existence of problematic feeding behaviours may only constitute a challenge for parents when the child’s social interactions are also seen to be deficient.

Description

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.

Keywords

Feeding Problems, Child Behavior, Temperament, Sensory Sensitivity, Food Neophobia

Citation

Aldridge, V.K., Dovey, T.M., Martin, C.I. and Meyer, C. (2016) The relative contributions of parent perceived child characteristics to variation in child feeding behaviour. Infant mental health journal, 37 (1), pp. 56-65

Rights

Research Institute