Validates an Arabic version of the Infant and Child Feeding Questionnaire for screening feeding disorders in children.
Background The Infant and Child Feeding Questionnaire (ICFQ) is a validated instrument designed for the early screening of feeding disorders and guides referrals for at-risk infants and children. To date, there is no data on the ICFQ from Arab countries, a gap that is likely due to the lack of an Arabic-language version. Aim of the study This study aims to produce a linguistically adapted Arabic version of Infant and Child Feeding Questionnaire (A-ICFQ) and to assess its psychometric properties, including validity and reliability, within an Arabic-speaking caregivers of children with feeding disorders, in order to facilitate early detection of pediatric feeding problems. Methods This study was conducted in four stages: (I) translation of the questionnaire, (II) a pilot study to identify any issues with question comprehension, (III) full administration of the questionnaire, and (IV) statistical analysis and validation. We recruited caregivers of children aged 48 months or younger, with and without known feeding problems, to fulfill the A-ICFQ together with sociodemographic survey. Responses analysis were done to determine the ability of the items to distinguish between the two groups. Results A total of 60 caregivers were recruited (30 cases, 30 controls), thirty caregivers of children with feeding problems (FP) and thirty from the non-feeding problem (NFP) group. A combination of two A-ICFQ questions successfully distinguished between the groups. Additionally, significant odds ratios were identified for four specific feeding behaviors that also differentiated the groups. Conclusions Several items from the A-ICFQ demonstrated potential to differentiate between the feeding problems and non- feeding problems groups. Future studies should recruit larger, geographically diverse Arabic-speaking samples with balanced age representation to further confirm the discriminatory performance of these specific items.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Othman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: