Table 2.
Adjusted mean parent report of child eating behaviours, parental feeding practices and parental feeding style scales according to higher and lower child BMI percentile; parents and 6–12-year-old siblings from diverse racial/ethnic and low-income households, Minneapolis/St. Paul area, Minnesota, USA (Family Meals, LIVE!: Sibling Edition)
| Mean scale response | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher BMI sibling (n 86) | Lower BMI sibling (n 86) | Mean difference | 95 % CI | P value | |
| Child Eating Behaviour Questionnaire( 29 ); scale range=1–5 (‘never’–‘always’) | |||||
| Emotional eating | 1·9 | 1·5 | 0·4 | 0·1, 0·7 | 0·01 |
| Food responsiveness | 2·7 | 2·5 | 0·2 | −0·1, 0·5 | 0·25 |
| Satiety responsiveness | 2·8 | 2·9 | −0·1 | –0·3, 0·2 | 0·69 |
| Food fussiness | 2·7 | 2·8 | –0·1 | –0·4, 0·2 | 0·62 |
| Enjoyment of food | 3·6 | 3·5 | 0·1 | –0·1, 0·3 | 0·28 |
| Slowness in eating | 3·1 | 3·1 | 0·0 | –0·3, 0·3 | 0·92 |
| Child Feeding Questionnaire–parental feeding practices( 30 ); scale range=1–5 (‘disagree’–‘agree’) | |||||
| Restriction | 3·2 | 3·1 | 0·1 | –0·2, 0·3 | 0·54 |
| Pressure-to-eat | 2·8 | 3·0 | –0·2 | –0·4, 0·0 | 0·06 |
| Monitoring | 3·6 | 3·6 | 0·0 | –0·3, 0·3 | 0·93 |
| Parental Feeding Style Questionnaire( 15 ); scale range=1–5 (‘never’–‘always’) | |||||
| Control | 3·3 | 3·2 | 0·1 | –0·0, 0·2 | 0·07 |
| Emotional feeding | 1·6 | 1·7 | –0·1 | –0·3, 0·1 | 0·15 |
| Encouragement-to-eat | 2·4 | 2·7 | –0·3 | –0·5, –0·1 | 0·01 |
| Instrumental feeding | 1·8 | 1·8 | 0·0 | –0·2, 0·1 | 0·39 |
Analyses adjusted for child race/ethnicity, age and sex. Bold indicates that effects are significant at P<0·05.
Weight status was not available for two families with sibling children (eighty-six families and 172 children were available for analysis).
Interpretation example: ‘Restriction’. Parents reported ‘neutral’ to using restrictive feeding practices with higher and lower BMI children. The higher BMI child was not statistically different on restriction compared with the lower BMI child (P=0·54).