Evidence mapPaperPMID 40489193Full record

ArticleThe American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association2025

Convergent Validity of the Feeding and Eating in AutiSm Together Assessment (FEAST).

Brittany St John, Hsiang-Ting Chen, Alana Woolley, Karla Ausderau

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Brittany St JohnBrittany St. John, PhD, MPH, OTR/L, is Assistant Professor, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle; bstjohn@uw.edu.
Hsiang-Ting ChenHsiang-Ting Chen, OTD, OTR/L, is Occupational Therapist, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Alana WoolleyAlana Woolley, OTD, OTR/L, is Occupational Therapist, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Karla AusderauKarla Ausderau, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA, is Professor, Department of Kinesiology and Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceComprehensive and validated assessments for use in clinical and research settings are needed to identify and address the complexities of feeding challenges for autistic children.

objectiveTo establish the convergent validity of the Feeding and Eating in AutiSm Together (FEAST) questionnaire compared with two other validated parent-reported feeding assessments with similar constructs, the Behavior and Mealtime Behavior Index of Children (BAMBIC) and Screening Tool of Feeding Problems applied to Children (STEP-CHILD).

methodData from the Survey for Characterization of Feeding Challenges in Autistic Children-US (N = 349) were used to determine the convergence between the FEAST, BAMBIC, and STEP-CHILD using Pearson's correlation tests.

designCross-sectional validation study.

resultsThe FEAST total score and FEAST Behavior subscale were found to have moderate, positive correlations with comparison measures, supporting the convergent validity of the FEAST. Relationships between the remaining FEAST subscales and BAMBIC and STEP-CHILD subscales were primarily weak or nonsignificant, demonstrating that their respective scores are capturing distinct factors related to feeding. One expected exception was a moderate positive correlation between the FEAST Oral Motor subscale and the STEP-CHILD Chewing Problems subscale. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The FEAST demonstrates adequate convergent validity the BAMBIC and STEP-CHILD. The weak correlations of the FEAST Gastrointestinal Health, Sensory Processing, and Oral Motor Skills subscales provide evidence that FEAST may capture additional information about the factors that influence feeding challenges. The FEAST provides clinicians and researchers with a new comprehensive assessment of feeding challenges for autistic children.  Plain Language Summary: This study tested how well the Feeding and Eating in AutiSm Together (FEAST) questionnaire, used to assess feeding and eating challenges among autistic children, matches up with two established feeding assessments, the Behavior and Mealtime Behavior Index of Children (BAMBIC) and the Screening Tool of Feeding Problems applied to Children (STEP-CHILD). Researchers used data from a survey about feeding challenges in autistic kids to compare these feeding assessment tools. They found that the FEAST questionnaire's total score and Behavior subscale scores showed good agreement with the other assessments. Other FEAST subscales (Sensory, Oral-Motor, and Gastrointestinal) were not as related to the BAMBIC or STEP-CHILD scores. This suggests that although FEAST aligns well with general feeding and behavioral concerns, it may offer extra insights into more specific feeding issues. Overall, the FEAST questionnaire could give a more detailed view of feeding challenges among autistic children compared with the other tools. Positionality Statement: Identity-first language is used throughout this article to align with the preferences of our research laboratory's autistic collaborators as well as the majority of autistic adults and parents of autistic children in a recent U.S. sample (Taboas et al., 2023).

Indexed as

Autistic DisorderFeeding BehaviorChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40489193
PMCPMC12186771

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.