Eating Competent Parents of 4th Grade Youth from a Predominantly Non-Hispanic White Sample Demonstrate More Healthful Eating Behaviors than Non-Eating Competent Parents

Reviewer 1

In this manuscript, the   authors described the various characteristics comparing eating competent (EC)   and non-EC parents in a non-Hispanic sample and relationships between parent   eating and feeding behaviors and EC.    The authors replicated the findings previously reported in a Hispanic   sample.

This is a correct and   succinct summary.  Thank you for your   review.

Minor Comments:

Line 90: Authors mention   that parents clicked a box on the website after reading the consent to   indicate their agreement.  Were study   personnel available to answer any questions that the potential participants   might have?  A statement mentioning   this should be included.

The consent form included   an email and phone number to contact with questions and, as noted in line 90,   they were able to print the consent form for later reference.  Availability of personnel to answer   questions was added to line 90.

Line 100: extra space   before “11”

This is because of the journal   template requiring a full justification of text.

Table 1:  How relevant is perceived stress to this   manuscript.  Does it add anything to   the narration?  The authors do not   mention anything about it in the results or discussion.

We mention the mean level   of stress in the last line of Table 1 in the Results.  This provides additional information about   our sample.  Stress has been shown in   other studies to be a factor in people’s food behaviors, which is why we   added it to our survey set.  The   findings show that our sample had some level of stress, but not extreme.  We limited our discussion of stress to   indicating the level of participants to avoid detracting from the main   purpose of the study.  If you prefer,   we can remove this piece of information about our sample.

Reviewer 2

This paper was interesting   to read. This was a cross-sectional study that surveyed parents of 4^th   graders on many different measures.    Please consider the following comments and suggestions:

Thank you for your review.

General comment:  Your   objectives are to compare the outcomes of a survey from a previous study done   in Hispanic parents but you did not showcase any results that compares the   two populations (there were no comparisons just the findings from the   non-Hispanic population).  I suggest   you include some direct comparisons as this was the primary objective.

Our objective was to determine if the findings from the previous   study with Hispanic parents were replicable in a sample that was not   predominantly Hispanic. The summary [starting line 303] reports that all but   one finding was replicated, therefore it didn’t seem a good use of space to   list all the similar findings between the two samples.  However, we have added in the details for   the results that did differ between the two samples. {lines 314-315).  In addition, we have added into the summary   some background information comparing some demographics of the two samples   that also serves to emphasize the value of the generalizability of the   conclusions.  Please see lines 318-323:  “The comparative findings are remarkable   given that the two samples differed in ethnicity (white ethnicity reported for   14% in the previous sample and 88% in this sample) and education level   (4-year college degree or higher for 18% vs. 65%; high school or less for 51%   vs. < 7%). Both samples were otherwise similar; for example, they were   mostly female ( 89% vs. 86%), with a mean ecSI score > 32 (33.6 ± 8.5 vs.   32.1 ± 8.0) and similar modeling of behaviors related to meals and FV (15.3±   4.8 vs. 15.2 ± 4.2).”

Throughout the text there   were some spacing issues.  I am not   sure if it’s the Editor’s side or yours, please check.

This is a result of the   manuscript template. That requires full justification.  I have contacted the editor who assured me   that spacing issues will be addressed prior to publication.

Intro:

Line 40: In your   description of competent eaters, you talk about “amounts that are   satisfying”… I am not sure if this is referring to them eating foods that are   “high-fat, high sugar”, in other words their ability to control their intakes   of “unhealthier food choices”? Please clarify.

Eating competence does not focus   on specific foods or food components, but rather on persons being comfortable   with their eating, i.e., what they eat, how much, when, where, but consider   dietary variety, eating what is good for them, planning for feeding, eating   regular meals. As a result, dietary adequacy, and impact on body weight are   usually questioned when one first encounters eating competence.  We have conducted several studies that have   shown that persons who had the discipline to plan for eating but didn’t   strictly control what or how much they ate, actually had better dietary   quality [e.g., references 7, 9] and more normal BMI.  In other words eating competence seems to   be a proxy for being reasonable, i.e., eating regular meals, including a   variety of foods, but not getting hung up on low-fat, low-carb, plant-based   only etc….they eat in a way that fits with their lifestyle but care about   eating well for them. Does this help?    If you prefer, I can share a copy of many of the references cited in   the Introduction that are about Eating Competence, especially Reference   4. 

Your description of the   importance to reproduce the study by quoting Schmidt is in my opinion not   necessary.  Yu can simply state in   general words (paraphrase) and reference, no need to quote.

When reviewing your   introduction after the abstract I would have never questioned your   objectives.  By putting this paragraph   in, it made me wonder what the validity of the study was with the   justification.  In other words, I felt   this was short-changing yourselves.

We removed the quote as you   suggested; it was originally included to strengthen the statement that the   call to attend to replication is urgent in social sciences. That statement   had also included the Schmidt reference.

M&M

What is meant by “impact”   in 83 classrooms? Sentence is off…

The study from which these   baseline data were utilized was a controlled, randomized study to the results   of the primary study have the level of denoting impact, rather than   association.  To clarify we have listed   the specific impact outcomes on line 80, “. . . impact on FV preferences,   attitudes and self-efficacy toward cooking and making foods. . .”

PA: It was only after   reviewing your tables that I understood you were surveying parents PA levels,   not child.  Please add this to the   2.3.5 paragraph.

Thank you for this   clarification. So noted on line 126.

A comment:  I would have rather seen the comparisons   side-to side from the previous study instead of Table 3.  The tertiles are not as interesting and it   would be of more value to see what the parents from Study 1 reported compared   to this study.  I suggest removing   Table 3.

We included tertile   analyses and median analyses (as shown in Table 3) because these results were   included in the examination of the Hispanic sample.  Unless there is strong opposition, we would   like to keep them in this paper to effect as much comparison between the two   samples as possible.  We agree that   describing the comparisons between the two samples would be useful,   especially for those who do not have access to the Journal of Nutrition   article. With the exception of the item on lines 312-315 all findings were   comparable suggesting a better use for manuscript space.  Please see above for a response about how   we added some comparisons between the two studies.

Did you survey on number of   children/family members per household?    What about seasonality effects.    Which season was this administered?

Yes, we asked how many   children were in these age groups:    < 2; 2-5; 6- 10; 11-18; > 18 and then we summed the responses to   know total number of children in the family.    We did not ask about family size (e.g., extended family members).  The mean number of children/family was 2.4 ± 1.1. Here is the information in more detail:

1 child 16%; 2 children   50%; 3 children 21%; 4 children 9%; 5 children 1%; 6 children 2%; 7 or more   children 1% .  Breakdown by age is as   follows:  [e.g., 26 had 1 child < 2 y;   176 had 2 children 6 –   10 y old]

Since the number of   children/family was not unusual, we did not include this information in the   sample description; however if you want this included certainly, we can do   so.

You are correct to be   concerned about differences based on seasonality of data collection.  However, seasonality difference is not an   issue in this report because these data were all collected in   mid-September/mid-October after the school year had started.

Tables/Figures

Please justify your tables   to have your left columns to the left-very hard to read.

I agree but the table was   developed with the template provided by the journal.  My understanding is that the columns will   be made more legible when edited for publication.  To help at this stage, I’ve double spaced   between rows when possible to separate categories of findings/descriptions   for easier reading.

Table 1:  Can you put the PA measures together.  You have listed the PA yes/no then lower   down review the IPAQ results.  This   table is filled with rich information and I found it so hard to follow.

Yes, this was done.  Thanks for the suggestion.

Figure 1 needs a 1.  I suggest you change the format of this   figure to box-plots so you can clearly ID the significance because as it   stands I have no idea what the p-values are referring too.  Also, add the n in each or on top of each   box-plot to reduce the massive paragraph under the Figure.  In other words, amazing data but make it   super simple for the reader please.

A “1” was added when   denoting the figure. This is the format used to show these data for the   Hispanic sample published earlier so we want to replicate the presentation of   these findings.  Each bar represents a   stacked graph of EC vs non-EC.  In our   previous paper we had the n’s in the graph, but several reviewers asked us to   remove them to a caption because they made the graph too busy.  We agree that the meaning of P should be clearer.   The P values represent the significance of the test of association between   eating competence and response options for each of the questions posed as   measured by Chi Square. Therefore we have added to the caption on line 231:  P values denote a test of whether or not   response options for each question are independent of eating competence   status as measured by Chi Square.

Tables 2 and 4:  justification issues

As noted above, the   information was inserted into the manuscript submission template.  I queried the editor about this concern and   was told that it would be fixed in final preparation of the manuscript.  To help at this stage, I’ve double spaced   between rows when possible to separate categories of findings/descriptions   for easier reading.