Neonatal Eating Assessment Tool - Mixed Breastfeeding and Bottle-Feeding (NeoEAT - Mixed Feeding): factor analysis and psychometric properties

Britt Frisk Pados; Suzanne M. Thoyre; Kara Galer

doi:10.1186/s40748-019-0107-7

Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology

Table 1 Psychometric Properties of Currently Available Tools for the Assessment of Infants who are Both Breast- and Bottle-Feeding

From: Neonatal Eating Assessment Tool - Mixed Breastfeeding and Bottle-Feeding (NeoEAT - Mixed Feeding): factor analysis and psychometric properties

Tool (Author)	Purpose & intended user	Target population	Items – number & constructs	Reliability			Validity
Tool (Author)	Purpose & intended user	Target population	Items – number & constructs	Internal consistency	Inter-rater	Test-retest	Content	Construct
Early Feeding Skills (EFS) [27, 28]	Assess oral feeding skills; Clinician-reported (Training available, but not required)	Preterm and term infants birth to 52 weeks post-menstrual age.	19 items on revised version; Respiratory Regulation, Oral-Motor Function, Swallowing Coordination, Engagement, Physiologic Stability	+	+	NR	*	+
Early Feeding Skills (EFS) [27, 28]				Acceptable internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = .81) [28]. Inter-rater reliability reported as acceptable between trained clinicians.			* Item generation consistent with content validity, but not tested [27]. Construct validity with the Infant Drive Feeding Scale – Quality (r = −.18- - .73; p < .05) [28].
Neonatal Oral Motor Assessment Scale (NOMAS) [29]	Describe disorganized and dysfunctional sucking patterns; Clinician-reported (Training Required)	Preterm infants and those with complex medical conditions.	28 items; Jaw and tongue movement and function	+	+	+/−	NR	+/−
Neonatal Oral Motor Assessment Scale (NOMAS) [29]		Preterm infants and those with complex medical conditions.	28 items; Jaw and tongue movement and function	Internal consistency reliability acceptable [30]. Inter-rater reliability acceptable after scoring system change (k = .78–.9) [31]. Test-retest inconsistent (k = .33–.94 and r = .23–.57) [32, 33].			Inconsistent evidence of construct validity with related constructs across studies [32, 34, 35].

+ = Acceptable reliability/ validity defined as Cronbach’s α > .7 [36], Cohen’s k > .6, ICC > .75, percent agreement > 80% [37], or correlation coefficient (r) > .4 [38]; − = Unacceptable reliability/validity by these definitions; +/− = Mixed findings; * = Description of item generation is consistent with content validity, but no formal testing conducted; NR = Not Reported

Back to article page