Validation of a brief food parenting measure for fathers: A test of factorial validity, measurement invariance, internal reliability, and concurrent validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fathers are underrepresented in food parenting research partly due to the lack of succinct, theory-informed, and father-mother equivalent food parenting measurement tools. To address this, we 1) tested the factorial validity of a brief food parenting measure utilizing a subset of items from the Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (CFPQ) to represent coercive control, structure, and autonomy support, 2) assessed the extent to which the brief tool works similarly in fathers and mothers (i.e., measurement invariance), and 3) evaluated its internal reliability and concurrent validity. Participants included 1071 fathers of children aged 2-6 years and 487 of their co-parents (mothers) from the Fathers & Families study. Fathers and mothers responded to 16 CFPQ items, and fathers reported on children's diets. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test factorial validity. Multi-group CFA was used to examine measurement invariance across fathers and mothers. Internal reliability was examined using Cronbach's alpha and the Spearman-Brown coefficient. Concurrent validity was assessed utilizing multiple logistic regressions to examine associations between the three food parenting factors and children's intakes of fruit, vegetables, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), and fast food. CFA confirmed a three-factor model with 11 items, including coercive control (four items), structure (five items), and autonomy support (two items). Multi-group CFA indicated measurement invariance across fathers and mothers. Internal reliability was established. Concurrent validity was strong for structure, but weaker for coercive control and autonomy support. Further refinements are encouraged to enhance items' utility in characterizing fathers' food parenting practices, including in different social and cultural contexts.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".