Related Experiment Videos
An ABAC comparison of two intensive interventions for food refusal
W H Ahearn1, M E Kerwin, P S Eicher
1Children's Seashore House and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, USA. Bahearn@necc.org
Insights
Two behavioral interventions for food refusal were effective in increasing food acceptance in children. The order of treatment exposure influenced which intervention parents preferred, but both improved eating behaviors.
Area of Science:
- Behavioral Psychology
- Pediatric Nutrition
- Applied Behavior Analysis
Background:
- Food refusal is a common challenge in pediatric feeding.
- Effective behavioral interventions are crucial for improving limited food acceptance.
- Comparing different treatment packages helps identify optimal strategies.
Observation:
- Two treatment packages, physical guidance and nonremoval of the spoon, were compared using an ABAC/ACAB design.
- Both treatments included prevention of escape from presented food.
- Children with limited food acceptance received one treatment, followed by the second after reaching a 75% acceptance threshold.
Findings:
- Both physical guidance and nonremoval of the spoon effectively increased food acceptance.
- Initial exposure to either treatment facilitated faster acquisition of food acceptance during the second treatment phase.
- The order of treatment exposure influenced parental preference, suggesting potential order effects.
Implications:
- Behavioral interventions are viable for addressing pediatric food refusal.
- The sequence of treatment delivery may impact treatment effectiveness and parent satisfaction.
- Further research could explore optimizing treatment order for specific populations.
Abstract:
An ABAC comparison of two treatment packages for food refusal, physical guidance and nonremoval of the spoon, was conducted with two children with limited food acceptance. Both of these treatment packages included prevention of escape from presented food. Subsequent to baseline, one of the two treatment packages was implemented for each child. The treatment packages were implemented ABAC for one child and ACAB for the other child. Once the percentage of bites accepted had increased to at least 75% with the initial exposure to a treatment package, that treatment was withdrawn with a subsequent exposure to the second treatment package. The results indicated that both treatment packages were effective in establishing food acceptance. Also, initial exposure to either of the two treatment packages facilitated acquisition of food acceptance during the second exposure. Parental preference of the treatment package may have been influenced by the order of exposure to the treatment conditions.