What is the relationship between composite index of anthropometric (AI) failure and behavioral pediatric feeding assessment scale in children?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 21, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Relationship Between Composite Index of Anthropometric Failure and Behavioral Pediatric Feeding Assessment Scale in Children

Children with feeding behavior problems, as measured by the Behavioral Pediatrics Feeding Assessment Scale, demonstrate significantly lower anthropometric measurements including BMI, tri-ponderal mass index, upper middle arm circumference, and triceps skinfold thickness, indicating a direct association between feeding difficulties and composite anthropometric failure. 1

Understanding the Composite Index of Anthropometric Failure (CIAF)

The CIAF provides a more comprehensive assessment of undernutrition than conventional single indicators like underweight alone, capturing the overall extent of anthropometric failure through six mutually exclusive measurements combining height-for-age, weight-for-height, and weight-for-age. 2 This composite approach reveals that nearly 48% of children under 5 years demonstrate some form of anthropometric failure, with 6% showing all three forms simultaneously. 3

The key advantage of CIAF over traditional weight-for-age measurements is that it provides an unequivocal statement on the direction and degree of change in undernutrition over time, whereas single indicators can sometimes provide contradictory information about nutritional status. 2

Direct Association with Feeding Behavior Problems

Evidence from Specific Learning Disability Population

In children with specific learning disability, feeding behavior problems were present in 39.5% of cases, with clear anthropometric correlates. 1 Binary logistic regression demonstrated significantly higher frequency of feeding problems in children with:

  • Lower BMI (adjusted odds ratio: 0.841,95% CI: 0.722-0.979) 1
  • Lower tri-ponderal mass index (AOR: 0.738,95% CI: 0.585-0.933) 1
  • Lower upper middle arm circumference (AOR: 0.772,95% CI: 0.649-0.918) 1
  • Lower triceps skinfold thickness (AOR: 0.890,95% CI: 0.808-0.980) 1

Evidence from ADHD Population

Children with ADHD demonstrate even more pronounced associations between feeding problems and anthropometric failure. 4 Specifically:

  • 11.1% had wasting and 1.9% had severe wasting compared to no wasting in typically developing children 4
  • More than half had mid-upper arm circumference below the 5th percentile, indicating undernutrition, versus 35.2% of controls 4
  • More than one-third had feeding problems compared to only 9.3% of typically developing children 4

Significant negative correlations existed between feeding problems and bodyweight (r = -0.338, P = 0.012), BMI (r = -0.322, P = 0.017), and MUAC (r = -0.384, P = 0.004). 4 Nearly half of ADHD children had suboptimal nutrition compared to 11.1% of controls. 4

Clinical Mechanism: Active Feeding as Compensation

An important nuance emerges from observational feeding studies: active feeding behaviors by caregivers often represent compensation for child disinterest in food rather than enhancement of growth trajectory. 5 This suggests that:

  • Caregiver encouragement and active feeding attempts may mask underlying feeding problems when assessed through questionnaires alone 5
  • The Behavioral Pediatrics Feeding Assessment Scale captures child disinterest and feeding difficulties that correlate with poor anthropometric outcomes 1, 4
  • Observational methodology reveals feeding behaviors that participants may not self-report, providing more accurate assessment than questionnaires subject to social desirability bias 6

Practical Assessment Algorithm

Step 1: Screen for Anthropometric Failure

Calculate CIAF using WHO growth standards to capture:

  • Height-for-age (stunting) 3
  • Weight-for-height (wasting) 3
  • Weight-for-age (underweight) 3
  • Combined failures 2, 3

Step 2: Administer Behavioral Pediatrics Feeding Assessment Scale

Identify specific feeding behavior problems including:

  • Child disinterest in meals 5, 1
  • Inability to sit through meals 4
  • Mealtime behavioral difficulties 1, 4

Step 3: Measure Specific Anthropometric Indicators

When feeding problems are identified, obtain:

  • BMI and tri-ponderal mass index as primary indicators 1
  • Mid-upper arm circumference to detect undernutrition 4
  • Triceps skinfold thickness for body composition 1

Step 4: Evaluate for Underlying Conditions

Consider screening for:

  • Neurodevelopmental disorders (ADHD, specific learning disability) where feeding problems are 3-4 times more prevalent 1, 4
  • Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) when significant nutritional deficiency with marked psychosocial interference is present 7
  • Failure to thrive requiring comprehensive evaluation including feeding history, swallowing dysfunction, and gastroesophageal reflux 8

Important Clinical Caveats

The relationship between feeding problems and anthropometric failure is bidirectional but not always linear. 5 Active caregiver feeding may temporarily maintain weight despite underlying feeding difficulties, masking the problem until more severe anthropometric failure develops. 5

Observational assessment provides superior data to self-report measures for capturing feeding behaviors, though it is more resource-intensive. 6 When feasible, videotaped mealtime observations should complement standardized feeding assessment scales. 6

Maternal factors contribute substantially to the rich-poor gap in CIAF, including maternal underweight status, high parity, and lack of media exposure. 3 Intervention programs must address these maternal covariates to reduce overall burden of undernutrition. 3

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.