Table 3.
Responsive subscales | Restrictive subscales | Pressuring to eat subscales | Indulgent subscales | Laissez-Faire subscales | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Infant Gender |
|
|
|
|
|
Infant Relative Weighta |
|
|
|
|
|
Maternal Education Level |
Diet Quality** |
Satiety and Hunger Cues* |
Cereal** |
Coaxing* |
|
|
|
|
Permissive* |
|
|
|
|
|
Soothe* |
|
|
Maternal Ethnicity |
|
|
Cereal** |
Coaxing* |
Attention* |
|
|
To Soothe* |
Soothe* |
|
|
Family Income Level |
|
|
|
Pampering* |
|
Marital Status |
Diet Quality* |
|
|
Coaxing** |
Attention* |
Amount of Food Consumed* |
|
Cereal** |
Permissive** |
|
|
|
|
|
Soothe** |
|
|
Maternal Weight Status |
*p<0.05
**p<0.01
a The association between infant relative weight and the IFSQ subscales were assessed by Spearman Correlation, due to the continuous nature of the covariate, while Analysis of Variance analyses were performed for all other covariates.
Note: All categorical covariates were coded as follows: Gender (Male=1, Female=2); Maternal Education Level (College Grad or Higher=1, Less than College Grad=0); Maternal Ethnicity (White=1, Black=2, 3=Hispanic); Income level (1=less than $35,000, 2=$35,000-49,999, 3=$50,000-74,999, 4=$75,000-99,999, 5=100,000 or greater); Marital Status (Married=1, Not Married=0); Maternal weight status (Overweight/Obese=1, Not overweight/obese=0).