Parent questionnaires measuring feeding disorders in preschool children: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Preschool feeding disorders are common and debilitating and are associated with a range of developmental and medical issues. Parent report allows assessment of feeding in a naturalistic environment over time, with advantages over time-limited, clinic-based observations. However, little is understood about the limitations and advantages of current parent-report measures. We aimed to systematically review the psychometrics and clinometrics of parent-administered feeding questionnaires. METHOD: Five search engines were used to identify questionnaires that met inclusion criteria, i.e. being norm-or criterion-referenced, child focused, appropriate for preschool children, and measured two or more feeding domains (e.g. dysphagia/oral motor delay, food refusal). RESULTS: In total 3535 abstracts were identified and 215 full-text articles were evaluated. Five questionnaires met the criteria. The Behavioral Pediatrics Feeding Assessment Scale (BPFAS) was the most reliable questionnaire identified, with good test-retest reliability and internal consistency. More predictive and concurrent validity data was available for the BPFAS, the Mealtime Behavior Questionnaire, and the Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale than for other measures. INTERPRETATION: Further research is needed on the psychometric properties of feeding questionnaires used in research and clinical practice. To date, the BPFAS has the most comprehensive reliability and validity data of any parent-administered feeding questionnaire for preschool children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".