Table Talk: revision of an observational tool to characterize the feeding environment in early care and education settings

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.

Feeding practices in Australian early childhood education and care settings

“…Future studies which examine the impact of educator practices on child outcomes in Australia could consider using tools that assess the intensity of a given feeding practice. One such example is 'Table Talk' which characterises verbal interactions at meal times (34) .…”

Evaluation of competencies for academic internship students

“…In this method of assessment, the mentor observes, records and evaluates the performance of the trainee over a long period of time (depending on the strategy designed). This process at certain levels and depending on the academic practice, can be impractical and generate an unrealistic evaluation [27].…”

De-Implementation of Detrimental Feeding Practices in Childcare: Mixed Methods Evaluation of Community Partner Selected Strategies

“…Unfortunately, detrimental feeding practices are common. For example, recent observational data suggest that ECE teachers pressure children to eat 7 times per meal on average and up to 32 times per lunch per classroom (i.e., more than once per minute) [ 24 ]. At the same time, ECE teachers cued children to their own hunger/satiety less than once per meal, on average [ 24 ].…”

“…For example, recent observational data suggest that ECE teachers pressure children to eat 7 times per meal on average and up to 32 times per lunch per classroom (i.e., more than once per minute) [ 24 ]. At the same time, ECE teachers cued children to their own hunger/satiety less than once per meal, on average [ 24 ]. Detrimental feeding practices have been linked with negative outcomes for children including decreased intake of healthy foods [ 10 ], increased intake of unhealthy foods [ 25 , 26 ], food aversions [ 27 ], neophobia [ 25 ], emotional eating [ 23 ], picky eating [ 23 ], diminished self-regulation [ 28 ], and excess weight development [ 23 ].…”