Parent‐report instruments for assessing feeding difficulties in children with neurological impairments: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to review the psychometric properties and clinical application of parent-report instruments that assess feeding difficulties in children with neurological impairments. METHOD: Papers were identified through five electronic databases based on 15 keywords and were included if they met the following criteria: published in English, described the implementation of parent-report instruments, and included children with neurological impairments (either in the report or a related study population). RESULTS: In total, 1220 relevant abstracts were screened and 22 full-text articles were evaluated. The following six parent-report instruments met the inclusion criteria: (1) Screening Tool of Feeding Problems applied to children, (2) Paediatric Eating Assessment Tool, (3) Paediatric Assessment Scale for Severe Feeding Problems, (4) Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale, (5) Children's Eating Behaviour Inventory, and (6) Behavioural Paediatric Feeding Assessment Scale (BPFAS). Based on comprehensive psychometric testing and consistently good results, the BPFAS was considered the most valid and reliable instrument. The BPFAS also showed good clinical applicability because it was readily available, required a short administration time, and used a simple scoring system. INTERPRETATION: We reviewed the available parent-report instruments for assessing feeding difficulties in children with neurological impairments. The BPFAS had the best psychometric properties and clinical applicability. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Six parent-report instruments were suitable for assessing feeding in children with neurological impairments. The Behavioural Paediatric Feeding Assessment Scale (BPFAS) has the strongest psychometric properties. The BPFAS also has good clinical applicability.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".