Taren Swindle1, Josh Phelps2, Nicole M McBride3, James P Selig4, Julie M Rutledge5, Swapna Manyam3. 1. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham St, #530, Little Rock, AR, 72205-7199, USA. tswindle@uams.edu. 2. Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham St, #530, Little Rock, AR, 72205-7199, USA. 3. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham St, #530, Little Rock, AR, 72205-7199, USA. 4. College of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham St, #530, Little Rock, AR, 72205-7199, USA. 5. School of Human Ecology, Louisiana Tech University, P.O. Box 3167, Ruston, LA, 71272, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Table Talk tool is an observational assessment of early care and education teacher (ECET) mealtime practices. The Table Talk Revised (TT-R) tool incorporates new constructs that emerged from qualitative research and teases apart existing categories to improve nuance of data capture. The objective of this study was to evaluate the TT-R, document interrater reliability for the TT-R, and report on ECET feeding communications in broader settings than previously studied (i.e., beyond a single Lunch and Head Start only). METHODS: Trained observers conducted mealtime observations in classrooms (Nclassroms = 63, 10 sites) during Breakfast and two Lunches for both Lead and Assistant ECETs (N = 126). Classrooms were spread across Head Start in an urban area (60%), Head Starts in a rural area (24%), and a state-funded preschool (16%). RESULTS: On average, there were 22.17 (SD = 10.92) total verbal feeding communications at Breakfast, 37.72 (SD = 15.83) at Lunch1, and 34.39 (SD = 15.05) at Lunch2 with meals averaging 25 min. The most commonly observed supportive statement category was Exploring Foods for Lead (Breakfast = 1.61, Lunch1 = 3.23, Lunch2 = 2.70) and Assistant ECETs (Breakfast = .89, Lunch1 = 2.03) except for Lunch2 which was Encourages Trying in a Positive Way (Lunch2 = 1.30). The most commonly observed unsupportive statement category was Firm Behavioral Control for both Lead (Breakfast = 3.61, Lunch1 = 5.84, Lunch2 = 5.51) and Assistants ECETs (Breakfast = 3.11, Lunch1 = 6.38, Lunch2 = 4.32). The majority of Interclass Correlation Coefficients indicating interrater reliability were in the excellent range (64%) for commonly occurring statement categories, and 14 of the 19 low frequency statement categories had > 80% agreement. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall, items added to the Table Talk tool performed well, and interrater reliability was favorable. Our study also documented differences between Lead and Assistant teachers in mealtime practices and illustrated differing patterns of interaction between lunches and breakfast, important findings to inform future research and practice. The TT-R may be a useful measurement tool for monitoring and evaluating ECET practices in mealtime environments as well as informing intervention.
OBJECTIVE: The Table Talk tool is an observational assessment of early care and education teacher (ECET) mealtime practices. The Table Talk Revised (TT-R) tool incorporates new constructs that emerged from qualitative research and teases apart existing categories to improve nuance of data capture. The objective of this study was to evaluate the TT-R, document interrater reliability for the TT-R, and report on ECET feeding communications in broader settings than previously studied (i.e., beyond a single Lunch and Head Start only). METHODS: Trained observers conducted mealtime observations in classrooms (Nclassroms = 63, 10 sites) during Breakfast and two Lunches for both Lead and Assistant ECETs (N = 126). Classrooms were spread across Head Start in an urban area (60%), Head Starts in a rural area (24%), and a state-funded preschool (16%). RESULTS: On average, there were 22.17 (SD = 10.92) total verbal feeding communications at Breakfast, 37.72 (SD = 15.83) at Lunch1, and 34.39 (SD = 15.05) at Lunch2 with meals averaging 25 min. The most commonly observed supportive statement category was Exploring Foods for Lead (Breakfast = 1.61, Lunch1 = 3.23, Lunch2 = 2.70) and Assistant ECETs (Breakfast = .89, Lunch1 = 2.03) except for Lunch2 which was Encourages Trying in a Positive Way (Lunch2 = 1.30). The most commonly observed unsupportive statement category was Firm Behavioral Control for both Lead (Breakfast = 3.61, Lunch1 = 5.84, Lunch2 = 5.51) and Assistants ECETs (Breakfast = 3.11, Lunch1 = 6.38, Lunch2 = 4.32). The majority of Interclass Correlation Coefficients indicating interrater reliability were in the excellent range (64%) for commonly occurring statement categories, and 14 of the 19 low frequency statement categories had > 80% agreement. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall, items added to the Table Talk tool performed well, and interrater reliability was favorable. Our study also documented differences between Lead and Assistant teachers in mealtime practices and illustrated differing patterns of interaction between lunches and breakfast, important findings to inform future research and practice. The TT-R may be a useful measurement tool for monitoring and evaluating ECET practices in mealtime environments as well as informing intervention.
Entities:
Keywords:
Childcare; Childcare teachers; Communication; Early childhood educators; Feeding; Meals
Authors: Sheryl O Hughes; Heather Patrick; Thomas G Power; Jennifer O Fisher; Cheryl B Anderson; Theresa A Nicklas Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.225
Authors: Rebecca A Byrne; Kimberley Baxter; Sue Irvine; Helen Vidgen; Danielle Gallegos; Elizabeth Martin; Stewart G Trost Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Taren Swindle; Julie M Rutledge; Dong Zhang; Janna Martin; Susan L Johnson; James P Selig; Amy M Yates; Daphne T Gaulden; Geoffrey M Curran Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 6.706