Table 4.
Child Intervention Effects M(SD)
| Control | Intervention | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | B(SE) | |
| Plate Wastea | |||||
| Protein (n= 100) | 13 (31) | 18 (43) | 18 (43) | 29 (50) | −0.10 (1.66) |
| Fruit (n=l98) | 51 (45) | 37 (33) | 26 (31) | 17 (20) | −0.54 (0.51) |
| Vegetables (n=154) | 45 (65) | 35 (51) | 49 (58) | 40 (47) | −0.01 (0.52) |
| Fruit and Vegetable Preference (FVP) | |||||
| Fruit (n=244) | 1.40(0.48) | 0.44(0.27) | 1.38(0.41) | 1.41(0.38) | 0.01(0.06) |
| Vegetables (n=234) | 1.24(0.53) | 1.20(0.47) | 1.17(0.47) | 1.20(0.49) | 0.02(0.06) |
| Fruit or vegetables total (n=234) | 1.31(0.47) | 1.29(0.40) | 1.26(0.39) | 0.40(0.42) | 0.01(0.05) |
*
p<.05
Note: Multi-level covariance linear regression analyses (FVP continuous variables) and covariance logistic regression analyses (plate waste categorical variables) were conducted to assess the difference in follow-up scores between intervention and control groups (intervention effect), adjusting for baseline scores, and accounting for clustering of children in the centers. Separate analyses were conducted for protein, fruit, and vegetable categories of plate waste, and for fruit, vegetable, and total scores on the Fruit and Vegetable Preference measure.
a
Percentage of any waste vs. no waste