Use of parent report to screen for feeding difficulties in young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to collect data on Australian children with regard to feeding difficulties using a standardised questionnaire, compare these data to international data collected using the same tool, assess the short-term reliability of this tool and determine the sensitivity and specificity of this tool in detecting feeding difficulties. METHODS: Parents completed the Behavioral Pediatric Feeding Assessment Scale. Data on 54 typically developing children and 81 children with feeding difficulties aged 2-6 years are presented. RESULTS: Our Australian sample performed comparably to normative data from Canada and the UK. Reliable results were demonstrated over a 2-week period, and the scale was shown to have high specificity. There was a significant difference between typically developing children and children with feeding difficulties in frequency of undesirable mealtime behaviours (P < 0.01) and the number of behaviours reported as a problem by parents using this tool (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that the Behavioral Pediatric Feeding Assessment Scale is a valid tool for identifying Australian children with feeding difficulties. Given that it is simple to administer and has a high reliability and specificity, it is suggested as a useful screening tool for physicians working with young children. Data collected using this tool found that typically developing children display few undesirable feeding behaviours, and few behaviours are perceived as problems by parents. Therefore, any child presenting with a large number of feeding problems on this parent-reported measure should be referred for further multidisciplinary evaluation and treatment as required.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".