ArticleJournal of global health2025
Evaluation of the reliability and validity of a Caregivers' Complementary Feeding Practice Scale (CCFPS) for children aged 6-23 months in urban areas of China.
Article in Journal of global health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Caregivers' feeding practices significantly influence children's eating behaviours. We previously developed a Caregivers' Complementary Feeding Practice Scale (CCFPS) for children aged 6-23 months in China. We aimed to comprehensively assess the CCFPS's reliability and validity, thus establishing a reliable and robust tool for evaluating caregivers' feeding practices. Methods: Through convenience sampling, we recruited 928 caregivers from community health centres. We assessed the scale's reliability with Cronbach's alpha and split-half analysis. Additionally, we used the content validity index (CVI) for content validity. Lastly, we examined structural validity with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: The scale's Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.783, and its split-half reliability coefficient reached 0.750. The CVI was 0.910. EFA supported the scale's six-factor structure, which explained 51.43% of the total variance. The CFA results demonstrated that the fit indices of the model were higher than the acceptable level, indicating the scale provides a good level of validity. Conclusions: The CCFPS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing caregivers' feeding practices with infants and young children aged 6 to 23 months in urban China, suitable for research and clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.