ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2025
The right dose of data: balancing reliability and participant burden in a validated daily measure of food parenting practices.
Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntensive longitudinal methods are increasingly used to capture daily fluctuations in food parenting practices (FPP), but reliable tools for daily assessment are limited. Most studies rely on a fixed recall period for all FPP constructs; yet, the reliability of such approach remains unclear as some FPP may fluctuate more than others. Identifying the minimum number of measurement days needed can improve the feasibility and quality of daily FPP research. This Daily Diary study aimed to: 1) assess the test–retest reliability of daily FPP measures among mothers and fathers over a 14-day period; 2) estimate the minimum number of days needed to achieve adequate reliability; and 3) validate these reliability estimates using a second 14-day period.
methodsA total of 315 parents (aged 40 ± 5 years; 60% mothers) of children aged 2.5–6 years completed 28 daily assessments across two 14-day periods, three months apart, yielding 8820 observations. Seven FPP constructs were assessed daily using 13 binary items, and evidence of validity was obtained with a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated from mixed-effect models using data from the first 14-day period. The Spearman-Brown formula estimated the minimum number of days needed for ICC ≥ 0.70. These minimum-day estimates were validated using the second 14-day period, drawing random sets of consecutive and non-consecutive days.
resultsICCs in the first period ranged from 0.80–0.97. Required days for acceptable reliability varied by FPP construct: Coercive control (1 day); Autonomy support, Child involvement, and Meal routines (5–6 days); and Rules and limits, Nondirective support, and Healthy opportunities (8–9 days). Compared to fathers, mothers required fewer days to reliably assess Rules and Limits, Healthy Opportunities, Autonomy and Nondirective Support. Validation in the second period showed ICCs ≥ 0.70 except for Healthy opportunities, Nondirective support, and Child involvement, which had borderline ICCs (0.63–0.68) in some subgroups and sampling approaches.
conclusionsThis study provides a valid and reliable instrument to measure FPP in Daily Diary protocols. Although 14 days of data collection ensures high reliability, many FPP constructs can be assessed reliably with fewer days. To reduce participant burden, researchers may tailor diary duration based on the specific construct and caregiver sex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.