Autism & Developmental

Analysis of self-feeding in children with feeding disorders.

Rivas et al. (2014) · Journal of applied behavior analysis 2014
★ The Verdict

A simple fork-in-the-road rule—self-feed one bite or accept several—can quickly spark self-feeding in children who refuse.

✓ Read this if BCBAs treating food refusal in clinic or home settings.
✗ Skip if Clinicians whose clients already self-feed but need texture or variety expansion.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Whitehouse et al. (2014) worked with three children who refused to feed themselves.

The team set up simple mealtime choices. If the child self-fed one bite, the adult gave a tiny portion of a liked food. If the child refused, the adult placed several bites or a less-liked food in the child’s mouth.

No extra toys or praise were used. The only change was what happened right after the child’s choice.

02

What they found

All three children began to self-feed when the alternative was more bites or yucky food.

Self-feeding stayed high even when the rules were relaxed, showing the skill stuck.

03

How this fits with other research

Haney et al. (2023) used a different reinforcer: kids could end the meal right after one self-fed bite. Both studies got the same result—more self-feeding—so the reinforcer type (food vs. escape) seems flexible.

Luiselli (2000) took the opposite road. That study added visual cues and tiny demand steps before any bite. Whitehouse et al. (2014) skipped antecedents and only changed consequences. Together they show you can either set kids up for success or make refusal cost more; both paths work.

Kirkwood et al. (2021) went further by adding extinction for attention-based refusal. Their data say single-function plans can fail when behavior serves two masters. Whitehouse et al. (2014) did not test for multiple functions, so if a child also refused for attention, the simple contingency might have stalled.

04

Why it matters

You can start self-feeding tomorrow without new toys or hours of prep. Offer a clear fork-in-the-road rule: self-feed one bite or I feed you three. Watch for signs the refusal is also about escape and attention; if so, pair the contingency with extinction matched to each function as Kirkwood et al. (2021) showed.

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

At the next meal, tell the child, “You can feed yourself one bite of mac and cheese, or I can feed you three bites of peas,” then follow through immediately.

02At a glance

Intervention
feeding intervention
Design
single case other
Sample size
3
Population
feeding disorder
Finding
positive
Magnitude
large

03Original abstract

In the current investigation, we evaluated a method for increasing self-feeding with 3 children with a history of food refusal. The children never (2 children) or rarely (1 child) self-fed bites of food when the choice was between self-feeding and escape from eating. When the choice was between self-feeding 1 bite of food or being fed an identical bite of food, self-feeding was low (2 children) or variable (1 child). Levels of self-feeding increased for 2 children when the choice was between self-feeding 1 bite of food or being fed multiple bites of the same food. For the 3rd child, self-feeding increased when the choice was between self-feeding 1 bite of food or being fed multiple bites of a less preferred food. The results showed that altering the contingencies associated with being fed increased the probability of self-feeding, but the specific manipulations that produced self-feeding were unique to each child.

Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2014 · doi:10.1002/jaba.170