Increasing Self-Feeding in Children

Increasing Self-Feeding in Children

Initial Reaction to the Intervention

The article describes an experiment conducted on a six-year-old Jerod who struggles with food selectivity. Like many other children, Jerod finds it challenging to have a liking for particular foods. In this case, Jerod was subjected to pureed peas, a food which he did not like (Vaz, Volkert, & Piazza, 2011). Essentially, this piece of investigation implemented the use of negative reinforcement by influencing Jerod to take a bite of the target food, including a bite of avoidance foods whenever he refused to feed himself on one bite.

Naturally, a six-year-old does not have the authority to make a choice more so in matters of food. He or she may not like a given food, however, the food might be peppered with adequate nutrients for the child’s growth.  As such, they can be soothed or rewarded positively when they take the food they hate. A major concern was the intervention method deployed by the researchers. By using a Nuk to feed forcefully feed the boy on target food whenever he failed to eat it within five seconds of the presentation was an issue. Even if the child refused to open his mouth, the positioning of the Nuk would provide accessibility. Additionally, the timeline of 5 seconds was an issue. What if the timeline was increased to give the kid more opportunity to make the decision?

Opposing the Intervention

The critics of this intervention program believe some issues can be ironed out. Firstly, the issue of expelled food being represented to the child is sensitive because of possible contamination when the food touches the surface. In addition, the possibility of an allergic reaction to these foods was the other factor. Moreover, the use of a Nuk to enhance forceful feeding is a questionable issue. From the results and further discussion of the investigation, the researchers highlighted the fact that it remains unclear how much effort must be channeled to increase the self-feeding.

Notably, the investigation should have tested the consequences of allowing the child to feed himself with a spoon and compare the child feed with a Nuk minus the target and avoidance manipulations. At the same time, any similar experiment in the future should highlight the difference between the use of a Nuk when administering target foods and giving target foods without using the Nuk (Vaz, Volkert, & Piazza, 2011). This can further elaborate, provide more profound insights, and have more meaningful findings from the experiment.

As per the results, the researchers manipulated Jerod to self-feed, however, they failed to demonstrate whether the quality of manipulations and the response were necessary. As per the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) 2.09, the element of treatment and intervention efficacy springs. Clients have the right to effective treatment (BACB, 2014). Additionally, it is the role of the analysts to educate the patients and clients on the scientifically supported treatment plans.

Supporting the intervention process

The success of any scientific research is founded results, especially if the results are positive. However much this investigation adopted a negative reinforcement-based treatment, there were positive results. In as much as food selectivity can result in severe health risk, it often disappears as the child ages because the child will age and many intervention programs will be increased (Silverman, 2015). The findings showed that manipulations could result in increased self-feeding. It means that intervention worked, although it had some shortcomings.

Additionally, the researchers stated from observations that most of the studies on feeding problems based on the negative reinforcement are always effective.  This further indicates the positive aspect of this investigation.

Revisiting initial reaction

The experiment followed all the professional conducts and guidelines in accordance with the intervention techniques. Additionally, there were challenges encountered by the researchers, such as not being capable of manipulating the results of two possibilities. My concerns stemmed from the fact that researchers were capable of manipulating Jerod to self-feed, however, they could not demonstrate if the quality of such manipulations as well as the response were necessary. Moreover, the research should have tested the implications of allowing Jerod to self-feed with a spoon and compare subsequent results when feeding him with a Nuk.

My initial thoughts remain unchanged.  The researchers should have done multiple analysis and given conclusive results on various aspects of the experiment. Even though the results showed positivity when it came to increased self-feeding of Jerod, other possibilities could have arisen if individual contributions of response effort and the degree of manipulation are essential in increasing self-feeding (Vaz, Volkert, & Piazza, 2011). Additionally, future investigations should devise a way of conducting ongoing assessments to determine the extent to which food preferences change over time.

In conclusion, the use of negative reinforcement to increase self-feeding in children with food selectivity has happened over time with similar results. Children with food selectivity problems have shown positive responses when manipulated to increase their self-feeding capabilities. However, results showed limitations. For example, there was no clear demonstration of whether the response effort and quality manipulations were of any significance. This should form the basis of future similar studies.

References

Vaz P.C., Volkert V.M., & Piazza C.C (2011). Using negative reinforcement to increase self-feeding in a child with food selectivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2011; 44(4):915–920. doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-915

The Behavior Analyst Certification Board (2014). Professional and ethical compliance code

            For behavior analysts. Retrieved on December 1, 2017 from https://www.bacb.com/ethics/ethics-code/

Silverman, A. H. (2015). Behavioral management of feeding disorders of childhood. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 66(Suppl. 5), 33-42. Doi: 10.1159/000381375