Assessment & Research

Social validity of pediatric feeding treatment components across time

Taylor et al. (2022) · Behavioral Interventions 2022
★ The Verdict

Parents view non-removal of the spoon and re-presentation as kind and acceptable feeding tactics.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running home-based feeding treatment for children with feeding disorders.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who only treat picky eating without behavior-analytic procedures.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Taylor et al. (2022) asked parents what they thought of common feeding tactics.

The team used a short survey before and after home-based feeding treatment.

Kids had feeding disorders; parents rated tactics like non-removal of the spoon.

02

What they found

Parents gave high thumbs-up to every tactic at both time points.

Ratings stayed strong or even rose after treatment ended.

Core moves like re-presenting bites and non-removal felt kind to families.

03

How this fits with other research

Taylor et al. (2024) extends this work by weaving the same survey into live treatment. They let caregiver scores guide when to fade demands across six feeding skills.

Demchuk et al. (2026) seems to clash: one child improved with only pairing and shaping, skipping non-removal. The gap is likely child severity, not parent taste.

Flanagan et al. (2021) backs the package: modeling plus praise worked, but the two slow starters only took off after nonremoval was added.

Leif et al. (2024) remind us that most ABA studies still skip social validity; this paper is a rare full check.

04

Why it matters

You can keep using non-removal and re-presentation without fear of parent push-back. Share the survey before you start; high early scores build trust. If a caregiver later hesitates, show them these data and revisit goals rather than dropping the tactic.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Hand the 5-item social-validity survey to caregivers before session one and again after week four.

02At a glance

Intervention
feeding intervention
Design
pre post no control
Sample size
8
Population
feeding disorder
Finding
positive
Magnitude
large

03Original abstract

AbstractThere is limited research on the social validity of treatment for pediatric feeding disorders. When it is assessed, the evaluation of treatment acceptability may focus on a few specific procedures or the entire program post‐treatment. This report took place within a home‐based behavior‐analytic treatment model in Australia. Caregivers of eight children (aged 3–11) with pediatric feeding disorders provided treatment acceptability ratings for the full range of treatment procedures, at pre‐ and post‐treatment. Caregivers were also provided the opportunity to provide open‐ended responses. Results showed that caregivers unanimously gave strong ratings of the importance of goals, and preferred that treatment be effective and quick, over minimizing side effects. Procedures experienced by all caregivers (differential attention, tangible reinforcement, nonremoval of the spoon, and re‐presentation) were rated highly at admission and increased at discharge, with the exception of tangible electronics. Caregivers of children receiving additional procedures for acceptance or clean mouth also provided high acceptability ratings for these at both timepoints. This report is the first to examine pre‐ and post‐acceptability measures on the full range of treatment procedures with caregivers experiencing treatment. Results inform future research and will serve to improve efforts to disseminate behavior analysis as an acceptable and effective treatment for pediatric feeding disorders.

Behavioral Interventions, 2022 · doi:10.1002/bin.1879