Efficacy of functional analysis for informing behavioral treatment of inappropriate mealtime behavior: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children diagnosed with a feeding disorder often exhibit inappropriate mealtime behavior such as throwing or swiping food, which can exacerbate feeding difficulties during treatment. We conducted a meta‐analysis of 86 behavioral treatments for inappropriate mealtime behavior from 23 studies to assess the extent to which treatments based on a pretreatment functional analysis were more efficacious than those treatments not based on a functional analysis. Procedural escape extinction and attention extinction for inappropriate mealtime behavior, as well as differential reinforcement for food acceptance or consumption, represented the most common treatments independent of whether a functional analysis was conducted. No difference was detected between treatments that were and were not based on a functional analysis, and mean effect size across measures was identical (79%). The requirement of a pretreatment functional analysis for inappropriate mealtime behavior is equivocal given that standard care often includes efficacious treatment components that are not informed by a functional analysis.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it