Mother and Father Controlling Feeding Behaviors and Associations With Observed Mealtime Family Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mealtime family functioning is important in shaping health behaviors associated with overweight/obesity, particularly for preschool-aged children. Parental controlling feeding behaviors (i.e., restriction and pressure to eat), may impact mealtime family functioning and thus be targets of prevention and intervention efforts. The current study aimed to address literature gaps by examining both mother and father self-reports of controlling feeding behaviors, and the discrepancies between parents' reports. Further, the study examined the associations among controlling feeding behaviors and objective mealtime family functioning in a community sample of preschool-aged children. METHODS: The sample included 27 children between 2 and 6 years of age and their immediate family members. Two mealtimes were videotaped for each family and coded for family functioning using the Mealtime Interaction Coding System, and self-reports of feeding practices were collected using the Child Feeding Questionnaire. RESULTS: Mother controlling feeding behaviors were not significantly related to any mealtime family functioning domain. Father controlling feeding behaviors were only significantly related to interpersonal involvement. However, discrepancies in the use of controlling feeding behaviors accounted for nearly one fourth of the variance in overall family functioning and affect management, with greater discrepancies being related to poorer family functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions may be designed to reduce parental discrepancies in the use of controlling feeding behaviors. Future research should consider longitudinal design, using larger, more representative samples, to better understand the impact of parental controlling feeding behaviors, particularly the impact of parental discrepancies in these areas, on mealtime family functioning and subsequent health outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".