Skip to main content
. 2016 Apr 28;19(13):2415–2423. doi: 10.1017/S1368980016000860

Table 4.

Adjusted mean parent report of child eating behaviours, parental feeding practices and parental feeding style scales according to discordant weight status; 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
Overweight sibling (n 29) Healthy-weight sibling (n 29) Mean difference 95 % CI P value
Child Eating Behaviour Questionnaire( 29 ); scale range=1–5 (‘never’–‘always’)
Emotional eating 1·9 1·6 0·3 –0·1, 0·8 0·16
Food responsiveness 2·7 2·4 0·3 –0·2, 0·8 0·18
Satiety responsiveness 2·7 3·3 0·6 0·9, –0·3 <0·001
Food fussiness 2·8 3·0 –0·2 –0·6, 0·2 0·39
Enjoyment of food 3·9 3·4 0·5 0·2, 0·8 0·01
Slowness in eating 3·1 3·2 –0·1 –0·5, 0·3 0·64
Child Feeding Questionnaire–parental feeding practices( 30 ); scale range=1–5 (‘disagree’–‘agree’)
Restriction 3·5 3·1 0·4 0·1, 0·7 0·01
Pressure-to-eat 2·8 3·3 0·5 0·8, –0·1 0·01
Monitoring 3·8 3·6 0·2 –0·3, 0·7 0·48
Parental Feeding Style Questionnaire( 15 ); scale range=1–5 (‘never’–‘always’)
Control 3·3 3·1 0·2 –0·1, 0·5 0·14
Emotional feeding 1·6 1·7 –0·1 –0·4, 0·2 0·54
Encouragement-to-eat 2·6 2·8 0·2 0·4, –0·0 0·04
Instrumental feeding 1·7 1·9 –0·2 –0·4, 0·1 0·22

Analyses adjusted for child race/ethnicity, age and sex. Bold indicates that effects are significant at P<0·05.

Interpretation example: ‘Satiety responsiveness’. Within discordant weight status families, parents reported that the overweight target child exhibited statistically significantly less food satiety when eating than the healthy-weight child (mean difference=–0·6; 95 % CI –0·9, –0·3; P<0·001).