TABLE 3.
Background characteristics at study entry and descriptive statistics for key variables, by maternal controlling feeding profiles (n = 180)1
| Controlling feeding profiles |
||||
| Unlimited Access to Snacks(n = 51) | Sets Limits+Does Not Restrict Snacks(n = 42) | Sets Limits+Restricts High Fat/Sugar Snacks(n = 64) | Sets Limits+Restricts All Snacks(n = 23) | |
| Background characteristics at study entry | ||||
| Family income2 | 1.6 ± 0.9a | 2.2 ± 0.9b | 2.0 ± 0.9b | 2.3 ± 0.8b |
| Mothers’ education (y) | 13.8 ± 2.1a | 15.0 ± 2.4a,b | 14.5 ± 2.1a,b | 15.7 ± 2.1b |
| Mothers’ age (y) | 35.1 ± 4.8 | 35.5 ± 5.0 | 35.6 ± 5.0 | 35.6 ± 3.8 |
| Mothers’ BMI | 27.2 ± 7.1a | 24.9 ± 4.8b | 26.7 ± 6.3a,b | 25.6 ± 4.6a,b |
| Girls’ BMI | 15.7 ± 1.5 | 15.6 ± 1.5 | 16.2 ± 1.6 | 15.8 ± 1.4 |
| Girls’ BMI percentile3 | 56.5 ± 27.9 | 55.0 ± 26.7 | 66.2 ± 24.8 | 59.4 ± 27.6 |
| Girls overweight (%)3 | 15.7 | 14.3 | 23.4 | 26.1 |
| Key variables at study entry | ||||
| Maternal restriction (CFQ)4 | 2.6 ± 0.9a | 2.8 ± 0.7a,b | 3.2 ± 0.8b,c | 3.4 ± 0.7c |
| Girls’ perception of maternal restriction (KCFQ)5 | 1.8 ± 0.5 | 2.0 ± 0.5 | 1.9 ± 0.4 | 1.8 ± 0.6 |
| Girls’ perception of controlled access to study snack foods6 | 2.0 ± 0.7a | 1.9 ± 0.8a | 2.0 ± 0.6a,b | 2.4 ± 0.7b |
| Girls’ EAH7 | 4.2 ± 3.68 | 5.2 ± 4.3 | 4.8 ± 3.5 | 6.6 ± 4.6 |
| Girls’ approach9 | 5.2 ± 0.6a | 4.9 ± 0.5b | 5.2 ± 0.7a | 5.7 ± 0.5c |
| Girls’ inhibitory control9 | 5.0 ± 0.9 | 5.3 ± 0.7 | 5.0 ± 0.7 | 4.9 ± 0.8 |
All values are means ± SDs. Four controlling feeding profiles were identified by using Latent Profile Analysis and mothers’ reports on the Restricted Access Questionnaire (2). The Unlimited Access to Snacks profile was characterized by low scores for the limit-setting variables and keeping snack foods out of reach; the remaining 3 profiles had a high limit setting but differed in how much snack foods were kept out of reach. Mothers with the Sets Limits+Does Not Restrict Snack Foods profile kept almost none of the 7 snack foods out of reach, those with the Sets Limits+Restricts High Fat/Sugar Snacks profile kept snacks high in sugar and/or fat (eg, candy, desserts, and chips) out of reach, and those with the Sets Limits+Restricts All Snacks profile kept all snacks out of reach. Values in the same row with different superscript letters are significantly different, P < 0.05 (ANOVA and post hoc Tukey paired comparisons). CFQ, Child Feeding Questionnaire; EAH, eating in the absence of hunger; KCFQ, Kids’ Child Feeding Questionnaire.
Possible scale values = 0–3; 0 = <$20,000; 1 = $20,000–$35,000; 2 = $35,001–$50,000; 3 = >$50,000.
BMI percentiles were calculated with CDC growth charts (15); BMI percentiles ≥85th were used to classify girls as overweight.
Measured by using the restriction subscale from the CFQ (12); range 1 (low) to 5 (high).
Measured by using the restriction subscale from the child version of the CFQ (13); range 1 (low) to 3 (high).
Girls’ perception of parental access to 7 palatable snack foods (ie, popcorn, pretzels, chips, fruit-flavored chewy candies, chocolate, chocolate chip cookies, and ice cream) was measured by using a short interview (2) in which children were asked when they were allowed to access each snack food. Possible scale values = 0–4; 0 = anytime, 1 = snack time, 2 = dessert, 3 = special occasions, 4 = don't allow.
Percentage of available calories consumed in the eating in the absence of hunger protocol (2), a task in which children were given free access to consume 10 palatable snack foods [ie, popcorn, pretzels, chips, fruit-flavored chewy candies, chocolate, chocolate chip cookies, ice cream, nuts, frozen yogurt, and Fig Newtons (Nabisco)] after a standard lunch.
Using ANCOVA, a main effect of maternal feeding profile was observed on EAH after adjusting for maternal BMI and educational level and family income (F[63,6] = 2.56, P < 0.02).
Measured using the Child Behavior Questionnaire (9); range 1 (low) to 7 (high).