Table 1. Descriptives and scale information of child eating behaviours and parenting style dimensions.
| Category | Concept | Measurement year (n) | # items: example item | Answering scalei | Cronbach’s αii | Mean (SD) | Range of scores |
| Child Eating Behaviours | Food Responsiveness | 2009 (1547) | 5: ‘Given the choice, my child would eat most ofthe time.’ | A | 0.79 | 1.9 (0.7) | 1.0 to 5.0 |
| Enjoyment of Food | 2009 (1547) | 4: ‘My child enjoys eating.’ | A | 0.79 | 3.4 (0.7) | 1.0 to 5.0 | |
| Emotional Overeating | 2009 (1547) | 4: ‘My child eats more when anxious.’ | A | 0.75 | 1.6 (0.6) | 1.0 to 4.8 | |
| Desire to Drink | 2009 (1547) | 3: ‘My child is always asking for a drink.’ | A | 0.83 | 2.0 (0.7) | 1.0 to 5.0 | |
| Satiety Responsiveness | 2009 (1547) | 5: ‘My child gets full before his/her meal is finished.’ | A | 0.73 | 2.6 (0.6) | 1.0 to 4.8 | |
| Slowness in Eating | 2009 (1547) | 4: ‘My child eats slowly.’ | A | 0.80 | 2.5 (0.8) | 1.0 to 5.0 | |
| Emotional Undereating | 2009 (1547) | 4: ‘My child eats less when s/he is upset.’ | A | 0.78 | 2.3 (0.8) | 1.0 to 5.0 | |
| Food Fussiness | 2009 (1547) | 6: ‘My child decides that s/he does not like food,even without tasting it.’ | A | 0.89 | 2.8 (0.9) | 1.0 to 5.0 | |
| Sum score (SD) | |||||||
| Parenting style dimensions | Support | 2008 (1839) | 7: ‘When my child gets a low grade in school,I offer to help him/her’ | B | 0.71 | 11.0 (2.4) | 1.7 to 14.0 |
| Behavioural control | 2008 (1839) | 7: ‘I try to know where my child goes after school’ | B | 0.72 | 9.5 (4.2) | −5.0 to 14.0 | |
| Psychological control | 2008 (1839) | 8: ‘I make my child feel guilty when he/she getsa low grade in school’ | B | 0.72 | −6.7 (4.1) | −16.0 to 16.0 | |
a
Answering scale A: never (1) to always (5); answering scale B: completely disagree (−2) to completely agree (+2).
b
The reliability of the child eating behaviour scales was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alphas (internal consistency) and (average) corrected item-total correlations, which indicate the degree to which an individual item relates to the total scale score. Corrected item-total correlations above 0.30 are regarded as good and below 0.15 as unreliable. Average corrected item-total correlations in our study were good and ranged from 0.56 to 0.71. None of the corrected item-total correlations was below 0.3 (lowest value was 0.37 for a Satiety Responsiveness-item).