Table 3.
Unstandardized direct and indirect effects of Wave 1 maternal binge eating (BE) frequency, Wave 1 Distress responses to children’s negative emotion (CCNES), and Wave 2 feeding practices (CFPQ) on child BMI percentile at Wave 2 a,b
| B (SE) | 95 % CI | |
|---|---|---|
| (IV) Maternal BE→ (M1) CCNES Distress→ (M2) CFPQ Balance/Variety | ||
| Total effect | .030 (1.312) | (-3.096, 1.797) |
| Direct effect | -.563 (1.286) | (-4.265, 1.014) |
| Indirect effect via CCNES Distress | .556 (.429)* | (.002, 1.901) |
| Indirect effect via Balance/Variety | .051 (.274) | (-.151, .770) |
| Specific indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Balance/Variety | -.015 (.047) | (-.237, .032) |
| Total indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Balance/Variety | .592 (.468) | (-4.265, 1.014) |
| (IV) Maternal BE→ (M1) CCNES Distress→ (M2) CFPQ Food Reward | ||
| Total effect | .230 (1.357) | (-2.620, 2.418) |
| Direct effect | -.538 (1.280) | (-4.298, 1.219) |
| Indirect effect via CCNES Distress | .330 (.325) | (-.026, 1.729) |
| Indirect effect via Food Reward | .317 (.806) | (-.139, 1.498) |
| Specific indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Food Reward | .121 (.091)* | (.022, .510) |
| Total indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Food Reward | .768 (.523)* | (.125, 2.693) |
| (IV) Maternal BE→ (M1) CCNES Distress→ (M2) CFPQ Restriction-Health | ||
| Total effect | .141 (1.306) | (-2.938, 2.025) |
| Direct effect | -.595 (1.290) | (-4.590, 1.024) |
| Indirect effect via CCNES Distress | .458 (.385) | (-.061, 1.547) |
| Indirect effect via Restriction-Health | .217 (.307) | (-.134, 1.333) |
| Specific indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Restriction-Health | .061(.074) | (-.014, .445) |
| Total indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Restriction-Health | .736 (.510)* | (.069, 2.493) |
| (IV) Maternal BE→ (M1) CCNES Distress→ (M2) CFPQ Pressure to Eat | ||
| Total effect | .537 (1.344) | (-2.728, 2.425) |
| Direct effect | -.052 (1.358) | (-3.280, 1.654) |
| Indirect effect via CCNES Distress | .555 (.373)* | (.058, 1.746) |
| Indirect effect via Pressure to Eat | .043 (.256) | (-.227, .986) |
| Specific indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Pressure to Eat | -.009 (.057) | (-.241, .043) |
| Total indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Pressure to Eat | .589 (.439)* | (.058, 1.746) |
| (IV) Maternal BE→ (M1) CCNES Distress→ (M2) CFPQ Involvement | ||
| Total effect | .072 (1.332) | (-2.995, 1.681) |
| Direct effect | -.408 (1.273) | (-3.990, 1.192) |
| Indirect effect via CCNES Distress | .475 (.442) | (-.114, 1.514) |
| Indirect effect via Involvement | -.029 (.136) | (-.667, .086) |
| Specific indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Involvement | .034 (.056) | (-.012, .378) |
| Total indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Involvement | .480 (.459) | (-.187, 1.519) |
| (IV) Maternal BE→ (M1) CCNES Distress→ (M2) CFPQ Emotion Regulation | ||
| Total effect | .111 (1.366) | (-3.067, 2.002) |
| Direct effect | -.335 (1.281) | (-3.787, 1.242) |
| Indirect effect via CCNES Distress | .541 (.420)* | (.029, 1.890) |
| Indirect effect via Emotion Regulation | -.048 (.195) | (-.567, .229) |
| Specific indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Emotion Regulation | -.048 (.061) | (-.253, .015) |
| Total indirect effect via CCNES Distress and Emotion Regulation | .445 (.469) | (-.203, 1.894) |
Note. IV Independent Variable, M1 Mediator 1, M2 Mediator 2, DV Dependent Variable, CFPQ Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire, CCNES Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale
aAll analyses adjusted for child BMI percentile at Wave 1, maternal BMI at wave 1 and 2, and change in feeding practices from Wave 1 to Wave 2. Pressure to Eat feeding practices were also related to parent age, child age, child BMI percentile, and parent race/ethnicity and so these were included as additional controls in analyses estimating effects on Pressure to Eat only
bIn order to account for missingness on exogenous covariates, all control variables were brought into the model in Mplus. There were few differences in results between models with control variables and without control variables in the model. Therefore, conservative findings with covariates in the model and no missingness are presented