Toward an operative diagnosis of fussy/picky eating: a latent profile approach in a population-based cohort

BACKGROUND: Definitions and assessment methods of fussy/picky eating are heterogeneous and remain unclear. We aimed to identify an eating behavior profile reflecting fussy/picky eating in children and to describe characteristics of fussy eaters. METHODS: Eating behavior was assessed with the Child E...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity 2014-02, Vol.11 (1), p.14-14
Main Authors: Tharner, Anne, Jansen, Pauline W, Kiefte-de Jong, Jessica C, Moll, Henriette A, van der Ende, Jan, Jaddoe, Vincent WV, Hofman, Albert, Tiemeier, Henning, Franco, Oscar H
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Body Mass Index
Child Behavior
Child, Preschool
children
Choice Behavior
Cohort Studies
eating habits
Female
fish
Food habits
Food Preferences
Humans
low income households
Male
questionnaires
research and development
satiety
snacks
Surveys and Questionnaires
sweets
vegetable consumption
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:BACKGROUND: Definitions and assessment methods of fussy/picky eating are heterogeneous and remain unclear. We aimed to identify an eating behavior profile reflecting fussy/picky eating in children and to describe characteristics of fussy eaters. METHODS: Eating behavior was assessed with the Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire (CEBQ) in 4914 4-year olds in a population-based birth cohort study. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was used to identify eating behavior profiles based on CEBQ subscales. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We found a “fussy” eating behavior profile (5.6% of children) characterized by high food fussiness, slowness in eating, and satiety responsiveness in combination with low enjoyment of food and food responsiveness. Fussy eaters were more often from families with low household income than non-fussy eaters (42% vs. 31.8% respectively; Χ ² (1) = 9.97, p 
ISSN:1479-5868
1479-5868
DOI:10.1186/1479-5868-11-14