ml’l l J I ( 1 rll l l I’HI‘IMI’ ”W In I J W I ’ M I 120 091 THS THE EFFECT OF A MDNDTUNOUS DIET 3N THE EATING HAB‘TS 0F PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 133318 PUB. THE DEGREE D? M. 3. Patricia Lucille Nordholm ' 1932 .‘flnn BMW. l“ (y,¢awc1£{6itflr :188‘ THE EFFECT OF A MONOTONOUS DIET ON THE EATING-HABITS OF FEE-SCHOOL CHILDREN BY Patricia Lucille flordholm Submitted in partial fulfillment of the recuirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Food & Nutrition Division of Heme Economics Michigan State College June 1952 TH ES! ‘ Acknowledgements I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. maria Dye, Who acted as adviser through-out the study; to Dr. Jean Hawks and Miss Mary Lewis under whose supervision the study was conducted; and to Professor S. I. Crowe for his supervision and assistance in the statistical interpretation of the data. ii 101319?) ‘Q Ila-i539, . . . . .9... BAA.) 8H)! 31d5huhl. 1. JV. a.) - yum. m . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TJI‘LBLES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 iv LI ST OF CFJALRTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 V1 Chapter I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Nature and Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . 1 Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Critical Analysis of the Profile Method . . . 5 II. Objectivity and Reliability of the Study Description of Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Learning Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO Objectivity of Recorders During Experimental PeriOd ooooooooooooooooooools Agreement of Subjective Method with Profile Method . . . . . . . . . . . . l . . . 18 Reliability Of Sample 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 26 III. Analysis of the Eating Habits of the Two Subjects Procedure 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o I. o o o o o 29 T0175]. Tinle at Ideals O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O 30 Percentage Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Stimulations During'Meal Time . . . . . . . . . 43 Correlation Between Factors Related to Time, Percentage Concentration, and StimUlations O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 46 IV. Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Bibliography 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 56 Appendix 00000000000000. o 000. 57 iii Table II. III. IV. VII. VIII. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. LIST OF TABLES Percent Agreement in Placement of Record- ers A, B and C Against D During Learning PeriOd O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Percentage of Concentration on Subject When Observed by A, B, C and D During the Learning Period 0 O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 Percent Agreement on Concentration of Subject During Learning Period Using D as Stand- ardOfCompaI'ison.............. Comparison of the Placement‘Methcd With the Percentage Concentration Method for Judg- ing the Objectivity of the Recorders . . . . Percent Agreement in Placement of A Against C During EXpeI‘iment o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Percent Agreement in Placement of B Against C During Experiment 0 o o o o c n o o o o o 0 Percentage Agreement of A Against C for Per- cent of Concentration During EXperimental PeriOd90000000000000.0000 Percentage Agreement of B Against C for Per- cent of Concentration During Experimental Period00000000000000.0900 Numerical Intervals used to set Percentage Concentration Equal to the Four Point Sub- JeCtive Rating Scale 9 o o o o o o o o o o 0 Profile Rating with the of Don's Meals . . . . . . Comparison of the Subjective Rating Comparison of the Subjective Rating Profile Rating with the of Bill's Meals . . . . . . Average Number of Stimulations when Profile and Subjective Ratings Agreed and when they Disagreed O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . 0 Calculation used to Test Reliability of theSample................. Total Time at M als in Minutes iv 12 13 13 15 16 17 19 20 22 24 26 51 XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXXI. LIST OF TABLES continued Distribution of Total Time for all Meals in Minutes During Entire Experimental Peri-0d O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 Average Number of Minutes Taken by Bill and Don for Each Meal of the Day . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Lengths of Time Taken for Meals on Varied Diet and on.Monotonous Diet . . . . Percentage Concentration for Entire Study . . Grouping of all'Meals According to Percen- tage Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Percentage Concentration on the two Diets and Percentage Distribution According to Ranges for "Excellent" and "Good" Eating . . Significant Differences for Don and Bill on Percentage Concentration for Various Inter- vals During the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Number of Stimulations on Varied and Monotonous Diet Classified According to Whether They Pertained to Subjects Eating or General Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Number of Stimulations per Meal on Varied and Monotonous Diet . . . . . . . . . . Correlations Related to Time, Percentage Concentration and Stimulations . . . . . . . . Percentage of Concentration for Bill When Observed by B and C Percentage of Concentration for Don When Observed by A and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Profile Rating with Number of timuli and Subjective Rating of Bill’s Meals Comparison of Profile Rating with Number of Stimuli and Subjective Rating of Don's Meals . Concentration Time at Meals in Minutes . . . . Total Number of Stimulations for Bill Classi- fied According to Whether they Pertained to his Eating or General Behavior . . . . . . . . Total Number of Stimulations for Don Classi— ' fied According to Whether they Pertained to his Eating or General Behavior . . . . . . . . . . V 35 34 35 57 39 42 42 45 46 47 57 58 59 61 63 64 66 T .I Chart I. II. III. LIST OF GEARTS Profile Records Taken Simultaneously by Record- ers A and B chowing Disagreements in Placement of Individual Judgment and Agreement in Total Periods of Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,7 Sanple of Profile Record . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 SEmPle Of Stinl'llli Card Used 0 o o o o o o o o o o 10 vi A ICOITOT I‘ToUS DIET OI? THE EATII; HABITS OF PRE-SCHOCL CHILDREN CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Nature and Purpose of the Study. The purpose of this experiment was to study the eat- ing habits of pre-school children and in particular to de- termine the effect of a monotonous diet on their behavior at meal times. Two boys, Don and Bill (ages four years and nine months and four years and seven chosen for the subjects of this and health of the children were periment started. Both Don and cellent eaters, and had no food physical and medical reports of months reapectively), were study. The eating habits ascertained before the ex- Bill were found to be ex- dislihes. According to the the boys in December of 1931, they were in perfect physical condition. Teither had a record of a cold or illness for two months preceeding the experiment which ran from January 25 to Narch 5, 1932. The children lived in the apartment of the Home Economics building through-out the experiment, and followed a normal nursery school proceedure. Certain definite periods of the day were given to meals, sleep and toilet, etc. They had their morning play period out of doors with the nursery school group, and a Special effort was made to keep the children out of doors from two to three hours in the after- noon as well. Records were kept which included not only tears of 532d, t :iet on Review C San be repoz c0:;lete ,_2_ hours of sleep, time spent out of doors, and food con- sumed, but also to determine the effect of a monotonous diet on their behavior at meal times. Review of Literature. Several experiments similar in nature to the one to be reported in this thesis (chapters II and III) had been completed at the University of Chicago. Tupper (1) made a study of children from four to five years of age in order to submit to scientific investigation a definite type of training designed to improve concentra- tion at meal times, as well as food intake of pre-school children. A profile method, using the ten-second inter- val for determining whether the children were in or out of attention, was employed to measure their concentration during the lunch period. The food eaten was recorded only during a thirty-minute period. If the child was in the midst of dessert, the amount consumed was estimated. If he had not finished his plate the food left was measured carefully and subtracted from the food served. Her subjects were eight children from the University of Chicago nursery school; the better eaters composed the control group.and the problem eaters the experimental group. The experiment covered a period of twelve weeks, during which time 150 profile studies were made. Conference periods were held each day before lunch and consisted of a discussion between the trainer and the children of past performances and the participation of the children in setting up a new standard consent percent go V‘. ect *I 3"“ ~13 (I... Cay. for the next meal. The findings gave evidence of the value of the train- ing period in that the experimental group increased their average caloric intake from.348 to 481 or 37 percent, and concentration from 42.5 to 75 percent or an increase of 76 percent. These data are comparisons of the averages of two series, three half-hour studies on each subject. The first three studies were made before training was given, and the last three after six weeks of training, with menus identi- cal in each case. The control group decreased in calories 10 percent and in concentration 8 percent. Tupper Concluded that definite and systematic training is effective in increasing food intake and percent of con- centration in children of four and five years of age; that when systematic, consistent training is being carried on, necessary stimulation during a meal will be reduced as time goes on; and finally that children of this age may be stimulated to increased food intake with less effort than behavior or concentration can be controlled. Ball (2) used a modification of the profile method employed by Tupper to compare the concentration at meals and the food intake of a small group of pre-school children under home versus nursery school conditions. She noted the effect of different experimental procedures instituted with this group at the nursery school upon the food intake and concentration. She concluded that both the concentration and food -4- intake of children were improved by controlled eating con- ditions such as are to be found in the nursery school. There appeared to be little difference in the concentrae tion of children during meals, whether seated in groups or at separate tables, though their general attitude and behavior were improved by the latter arrangement, namely, less prodding and urging were necessary to keep the at- tention of children centered on the business of eating. Lewis (3) made a study of daily variations in food consumption and eating habits of three pre-school children while living at the nursery school for fourteen consecu- tive days. I The factors studied pertinent to the present study were: (1) Total calories consumed by the individual children in relation to total time at meals. (2) Variations in the behavior of the children from meal to meal in a given day and from day to day through- out the period as measured by percentage concentration. This investigation showed the following results: (1) Thirty minutes seemed to be a reasonable estimate of the time taken to complete dinners, while breakfasts and suppers required from 15 to 25 minutes. The children spent on the average 75 percent of this time at the busi- ness of eating. (2) There was no definite correlation between the number of calories taken and either the duration of the Ivacuedflnhmfl a. 13 .31 . .. . ..r., -5- meal or the percentage concentration. Critical Analysis of the Profile‘Method. In the experiments by Tupper, Ball and Lewis, which have been discussed above, the writer finds reason to crit- icize the profile studies in regard to training of record- ers, evidences of the degree of objectivity of method and at the reliability of the sample. Tupper indicated that when two of her recorders ob- serving the same child reached a percentage agreement of total concentration periods of above 95 percent, they had reached a sufficient degree of Objectivity in their classi- fication of the subject's behavior to produce reliable records. Ball considered an agreement of above 90 percent reliable. This percentage agreement might be high enough, but the question arises as to how long they were required to maintain this agreement before their records were ac- cepted as valid. No indication was given that the re- corders checked during the esp erimental period to determine whether they maintained this high degree of objectivity while records were being made. The percentage agreement they obtained was calculated on the total periods of con» centration of one recorder, against total periods of con- centration of another, when.observing the same child. This method is valuable, but does not check on the agree- ment of the recorders, period by period. They might check very closely on total number of concentration periods in any given meal, yet disagree considerably on the place- ~6- ment of individual points. Therefore the placement method is more highly objective, since the two records are checked one against the other for agreement on each ten-second period during the meal. For example the records in Chart I taken from.the learning period of the present study, show that recorders A and B on records taken simultaneously, had exactly the sane totals for concentration, giving a percentage agreement of 100 percent; yet disagreeing on seven points when'the two records were checked for the placement of the individual Judgments during each period through-out the meal. CHART I PROFILE RECORDS TAKEN SIMUBTANEOUSLY BY RECORDERS A AND B SHOWING DISAGREENENTS IN PLACEMENT OF INDIVID- UAL JUDGlleI-IT AND AGREE-ENE IN TOTAL PERIODS OF CONCENTRATION e u s a io er 1 erio 3 area OBS ervin er 0 s oncen ra on o a s s rac on er s o 6 Disagreements in placement. -7- CHART I continued PROFILE RECORDS TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY BY RECORDERS A AND B SHOWING DISAGREEMEINTS IN PIACFMENT OF INDIVID- UAL JUDGMENT AND AGREEMENT IN TOTAL PERIODS OF CONCENTRATION 00 er u 68 once: ra on er r S ere 08$ erv r O S oncen ra on O a 8 rec on er S O Thus by the placement method of Judging the objectiv- ity of the two recorders, the percentage agreement was found to be only 80.5, since out_of a total of 56 deci- sions they agreed 29 times. In the studies by Tupper, Lewis, and Ball there were no indications as to whether they had sufficient records to give reliable results on the subjects used. Tupper ob- tained 150 profile records on eight children over a period of twelve weeks. Lewis reported records for breakfasts, lunch and supper on three children for a period of two weeks, and Ball obtained records for lunches at home and at the nursery school on seven children for a period of six 0 Disagreements in placement. -8- weeks. In any one of these cases the number of records may have been sufficient to produce a reliable sample, but no statement was made concerning this factor. With these points in mind the writer has attempted to test out new methods in regard to training of recorders, degree of objectivity of the profile method and reliability of the sample. These findings will be reported in the suc- ceeding chapter. 4,‘ Descri; H H . LL/fi/l .4 .- U ’. (I) (fl/3. -9- CHAPTER II OBJECTIVITY AND.RELIABILITY OF THE STUDY Description of the Method. During each meal the activities of the children were recorded by the profile method, similiar to the one used by Tupper (l) and identical with the one used by Bell (2) and Lewis (3). By this means the child's behavior was re- corded at ten-second intervals through-out the meal. The child's activities were classified under the two main di- visions of concentration and distraction. Concentration included actual time spent in eating and serving, namely, preparation of the food, being served, or table courtesies. Sitting, playing, and talking were all included under dis- traction. One-fourth inch checked paper was used for these records, each square representing twenty seconds, and every minute interval being ruled off as indicated in Chart II. CHART II SAMPEE OF PROFILE RECORD -10- An inch was allowed below the distraction column on each record for recording anything of particular interest that might give a more complete picture of the child's behavior. In addition to checking the concentration and distraction of the child, such stimuli as he received during the meal were recorded. This was accomplished by placing a number. on the profile in the proper minute interval, and on a separate card Opposite the same number the nature of the stimulus and response of the child were recorded. (Chart III) CHART III SAMPLE OF STIHULI CKRD USED Name of Child 1 Meal Day Date Serial Number What Child Was Doing Nature of Stimulus Resgonse ofChild The Learning Period. For three weeks preceding the experiment a prelimi- nary training period was carried on in the nursery school. The recorders A, B and C were trained by D, who had -11- previously used this method in a study. Their records were checked against hers period by period through-out the meal as to whether they classified the child's activities under eating, serving or distraction. Table I shows the percentage agreement by the place- ment method of recorders A, B and C against D during the third week of the learning period in which the three re- corders checked the child's activities independent of the trainer and of one another. Out of a total of fifteen records none were below 62.4 percent while over half were above 90 percent. The average percentage agreements in Lplacement for A, B and c with D were 93.5, 88.6 and 92.5 respectively. Thus Table I shows that over a period of five successive days the three recorders were able to main- tain a fairly high degree of objectivity when.their agree- ments were checked period by period. TABLE I PERCENT AGREEMENT IN PLACEUENT OF RECORDERS A B AND C AGAINST D DURING LEARNING PERIOD ,ggays A A_§ - C 1 100.0 90.0 96.6 2 98.6 97.2 97.2 3 94.4 82.4 87.0 4 90.6 83.3 92.7 5 84.1 90.0 89.1 Average 93.5 88.6 92.5 -12- When the less critical method used by Tupper and Ball for determining the objectivity of the recorders was ap- plied, (namely the agreement on total periods of concen- tration), the degree of objectivity displayed by A, B and C was considerably higher than by the placement method. Table II shows the percentage concentration of the subject when observed simultaneously by the recorders during the learning period. Oh no day did they differ by 5 percent, while the averages of each for the five day period were practically identical. TABLE II PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION ON SUBIECT WHEN OBSERVED BY'A B C AND D DURING THE LEARNING PERIOD Expressing this same measure of the objectivity of the three recorders in terms of percentage agreement with the trainer (Table III) it can be seen that in no case did they drOp below 95 percent. However, it must be pointed out that while Table IV shows that the percentage agree- -13- ments on total concentration periods gave higher figures than by the placement method, the latter was a more diag- nostic measure of the objectivity of the recorders. TABLE III PERCENT AGREEUENT ON CONCENTRATION OE SUBJECT DURING LEARNING PERIOD USING D AS STANDARD OF CONRARISON 1 98.2 100.0 100.0 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 97.8 98.9 98.9 4 98.8 98.8 100.0 5 99.1 97.1 100.0 Average-a ' 98.8 99.0 99.9 TABLE IV COMPARISON OF THE PLACEMENT METHOD WITH THE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION METHOD FOR JUDGING THE OBJECTIVITY OF THE RECORDERS we 0-8 'or u-g- 'o a ’ange o e ~umoer 0'“‘er- ing the Percentage Number Percentage centage Agree- Agreement of the of Agreements for ments above 95 Recorders Iecords the Recorders Percent Placement 15 82.4-100 5 Total Concentration 15 95-100 15 Objectivity of the Recorders During Experimental Period. After three weeks of preliminary training, recorders A, B and C began taking records on the two experimental .3..«.s.4......!. _. 9...... .. $.43. r».A..««.§.H§§J1» . -14- subjects. It was thought best to have recorder A take records on Don and B on Bill continuously, while C checked A and B on alternate days through-out the experiment, in order to determine whether the same degree of objectivity could be maintained by the recorders over a long period of time. Table V shows the percentage agreement in placement of A against C during the entire experimental period. Out of the sixty records half showed a percentage agreement above 95 percent, and over three-fourths were above 90 percent agreement. Table VI shows the percentage agreement in placement of B against 0 during the entire experimental period. Out of 58 records practically half showed a percentage agree- ment above 94 percent, and over three-fourths were above 90 percent agreement. It can be seen from these tables that even with this highly objective method of checking one recorder against another, they were able to maintain as con- sistent a degree of objectivity as they displayed in the learning period. While the percentage agreement on total concentration periods was less accurate, in light of the fact that this was the measure of reliability used by previous workers, it was thought interesting to show how the periods of con- centrat ion checked for percentage agreement. Table VII shows the percentage agreement on concentration for A against C. Out of 60 records, all but two were above 95 -15- TABLE V PERCENT AGREEMENT IN PLACEKTNT OF A AGAIEST C DURING EXPERIME Day . E Breakfast Lunch Sppper 3 90.5 87.4 96.6 5 87.7 95.0 90.0 7 95.6 78.9 86.2 9 95.2 83.8 86.0 11 95.9 96.1 90.7 13 92.8 93.5 90.3 15 98.0 92.3 98.6 17 93.0 95.9 94.4 19 97.6 94.4 93.3 21 86.5 95.7 94.1 23 93.9 97.8 97.3 25 94.6 99.1 91.0 27 96.7 90.8 90.7 29 96.4 96.3 97.9 31 99.1 97.2 98.0 33 100.0 95.0 96.1 35 100.0 88.1 95.4 37 97.7 98.7 95.7 39 95.6 92.4 97.70 43 95.2 96.7 100.00 Eyerage 95.1 93.3 94.0 W. -16.. TABLE VI PERCENT AGREEMENT IN PLACETENT OF B AGAINST C DURING EXPERIMENT u----u-ua===a=a=====a================================== Day Breakfast Lunch Supper 4 86.9 90.1 94.7 6 86.9 87.8 85.6 8 77.8 88.5 91.4 10 86.0 92.1 82.1 12 82.3 94.7 87.6 14 89.8 90.2 88.1 16 71 .4 * 18 92.9 93.4 91.8 20 87.8 92.5 91.9 22 97.3 100.0 96.8 24 97.0 98.2 96.2 26 97.1 92.9 100.0 28 93.8 96.7 95.6 30 98.6 97.3 98.9 32 98.4 98.6 99.0 34 98.6 54.1 96.8 36 95.7 97.0 98.1 38 100.0 87.6 90.9 40 94.4 94.8 94.6 42 91.1 93.0 89.1 90.5 93.1 —.'. * B111 111. Average -‘VO‘ -17- TABLE VII PERCENTAGE AGREE-JEEQT OF A AGAD‘TST C FOR PERCENT OF CONCENTRATION DURING EXPERIUENTAL PERIOD Day BreAkfast Lunch Supper 3 98.4 99.0 98.9 5 100.0 97.1 94.8 7 98.6 96.2 100.0 9 98.3 98.9 96.2 11 98.6 99.2 95.0 13 98.5 97.8 100.0 15 98.8 95.6 97.2 17 '92.5 99.0 97.5 19 88.1 100.0 95.0 21 98.9 100.0 97.4 23 100.0 99.0 99.3 25 81.6 98.9 100.0 27 98.0 96.6 98.1 29 100.0 98.4 97.9 31 100.0 100.0 100.0 33 100.0 100.0 100.0 35 100.0 94.9 98.4 37 97.3 95.4 100.0 39 97.6 96.1 98.1 43 96.2 100.0 98.3 Average 97.1 98.1 98.1 W ~18- percent. 0f the fifty-eight records in which E checked against C (Table VIII) the agreement was equally high. The correlation coefficient*for A against 0 was .905 12025, and for B against C was .925 1.019. Thus by this measure which had been u-ed in previous studies, as well as by the placement method, it was demon- strated that these recorders were able to maintain a high de- gree of objectivity through-out the experimental period. Agreement of the Subjective Method with the Profile Method. In the profile method the percentage concentration was used as a measure of the child‘s application to the business of eating. Lewis found that a child who was con- sidered an excellent eater showed a percentage concentra- tion of 85 percent, or above, and a good eater was somewhere between 65 and 85 percent. On this basis it might be as- sumed that a fair meal would show a concentration somewhere between 50 and 65 percent, and that anything below 50 per- cent could be considered a poor meal. It was thought that it might prove interesting to de- termine to what extent a subjective rating of a person who was accustomed to eating with groups of pie-school children would agree with the profile method in classifying the childrens' eating as excellent, good, fair, or poor. a: Mean. fuses + Correction =§7§£ 4: i FX Y‘N £_N_X_ %—H a": ”El—’5 "(éfl ‘ N07 for N N . -19- TABLE VIII PERCENTAGE AGREEMENT OF B AGAINST C FOR PERCENT OF CONCENTRATION DURING EXPERIMENTAL PERIOD W Day Breakfast Lunch Supper 4 97.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.5 98.9 8 96.9 98.8 98.8 10 98.6 93.4 97.6 12 95.7 98.7 98.9 14 98.7 99.4 98.9 16 100.0 18 94.4 98.5 96.1 20 98.4 98.8 99.0 22 100.0 100.0 98.9 24 96.7 98.9 100.0 26 100.0 98.7 100.0 28 95.3 100.0 100.0 30 98.3 98.3 100.0 32 98.4 98.6 98.8 34 100.0 100.0 98.9 36 100.0 100.0 98.7 38 100.0 98.3 96.4 40 96.9 100.0 96.5 42 93.8 98.4 96.1 Average 97.9 98.8 98.6 'b “‘0‘- -20- During the entire experimental period the writer sat at the table with the children and after each meal made a subjective rating on the four point scale, namely, Excel- lent, Good, Fair and Poor. The rating was probable highly subjective since the writer was a participant in each meal, in that it was her responsibility to control the behavior of the children, and to secure their cOOperation in con- suming the experimental diet. In order to compare the findings of the profile method ‘with the subjective rating it was found necessary to group the percentage concentrations into intervals which would set them equal to the four point scale used in the sub- jective rating. Table IX below shows the numerical inter- vals (based partially upon the findings reported by Lewis) which were used in grouping the profile records. TABLE IX NUEERICAL INTERVALS USED TO SET PERCENTAGE CONCENTRA- TION EQUAL‘TO THE FOUR POINT SUBJECTIVE RATING SCALE Range of Percentage subjective Rating Concentration Comparable to Points on Subjective Rating Excellent 85-100 Good 65-85 Fair 50-65- Poor Below 50 When a comparison was made between these two methods -21- of judging the eating habits of the subjects, it was found they agree somewhere between 70 and 75 percent of the time. In the case of Don, Table X shows that out of a total of one hundred and twenty meals, the subjective rating agreed with the percentage concentration.rating 84 times, while with Bill, Table XI shows that out of one hundred and eighteen meals, the subjective rating agreed with the per- centage concentration eighty-nine times. In the cases 'where the subjective judgments did not agree with the per- centage concentration ratings, the subjective judgment was lower on the four point scale than the percentage concen- tration rating. This seemed to indicate that there was some factor other than the child's application to the busi- ness of eating, which entered into the writer's subjective evaluation of the meal. It was found (Table XII) that when the subjective rat- ing disagreed.with the profile rating of’a meal by one point, the average number of stimulations given the child were from two to three times as many as when the two rat- ings agreed. It would appear,therefore,that the writer's judgment of the meal was influenced not only by the child's application to the business of‘eating, but also the number of times he required stimulation. Hence in the use of the profile method as a measure for judging the success of the meal it would be necessary to evaluate it not only in terms of concentration, but also in terms of the number of stimulations given the child. '38 -22- TABLE I COMPARISON OF THE PROFILE RATING TWITH THE SUBJECTIVE RATING OF DON'S MEALS ‘1'», AV Su er Breakfast 1 Lunch pp ‘3 C3 5 9 a 2 o 3 53 I; 3 .23 . 49 (D 0 “’2 2 I? 3’02 30:. :> 303 3503;?» 3°05 599.. 3:; agency 49:: fig”? Day 733 55°“ 99 5.2:... 99 9922:: 82 233% 33 3833;??? 35 38mg; 5, m 9 .5 E c 90.8 E c 9 2:92 a E G 3,.3 H ' c c . 6 100. E E I 85.9 F 84 4 c c 7 98.6 E E 83.2 c . 90.7 E E 8 95.0 E E , 65.8 c F . n c 96.5 E 9 95.1 E c 89.8 E 95 9 E c 10 95.5 E E i 81.0 c r 94.4 E c 95.2 E c 95.7 E r . 1% 100.0 E c a 83.7 c c 95.5 E c 15 94 2 E c i 83.8 c c 84.0 g g ° ' c 82.5 14 87.0 E E 87.9 E c r 72.5 c 15 84.0 c c 77.8 c c r 88.9 E 16 91.8 E E 76.4 c c c 72.8 c 17 89.5 E c 95.9 E c F 79.4 c 18 92. E g 33.3 g G 84.3 c c 23 27.7 g E 95.9 E E 95.5 E E O ' C G . E c 86.3 E 21 86‘ I g i 32.2 E c 100.0 E E 22 95' c ' 79 5 c c 80.7 c G :2 £5. E r i 86:5 E c 90.5 g g ' - c 87.5 25 89' E E I 23.1 g c 86.7 E c 26 94° E E 81.7 c c 92.5 E c 27 86. E G I 81.8 c 9 100.0 E E 28 79' g 5 83:8 8 5 100.0 E r 29 85° E a ’ 92.0 E E 98.0 E E 5° 94' l 0 E E 100.0 E s 1 100 E E 100. 3 ° ' E E 95.0 E n 100. E E . 100.0 32 E E 96.0 E n 92 E E ' 100.0 35 ' E ' 95 8 E E 87.8 E E 34 96' E A ' E E 92.5 E 5 95 E E . 100.0 . 35 ' E E 96.2 E r 36 J 81 c c . 100.0 E “ ' 97 7 E E 98.0 E 57 I 100. E E . . -25- TABLE X cont inued COMPARISON OF THE IROFILE RATING WITH THE SUBJECTIVE RATING OF DON'S MEALS opfipoonnum‘ » Inla-1-e;, r $.53me EGEEEE 8 8835920280 1 m. t-.. 55655..” S flOdeHPflooflOO % % W % W W omwpauouom magnum EEEEEE o>Hvommpbm wnfipom .m nofipwnpaooqoo EEEEEE n ommpnoonwm 1 3.5.3.0.] L O O O O O O aofipwnpaoonoo 505208 omwpaoonom 9 m 8 9 9 9 Day muflpwm a 03900:: mqfipwm a. f aofipanpnoouoo EEEEEE .w ovawdmonoP m 700080 B O O O O O 0 839348300 WWWW%% owwpnoohom 111 890125 554444 ’8‘ K‘ \4 4‘ ‘ (.\\ . .. . ”:19. .er’ .I ‘nq/«uli-qufil ELI- 3...- 000000 U . . 3t ....1.k-.;I-!1 usurisg Ely-Igfill Iln'bl. 5 tat. in...“ , I-I-Ill'lllll ill¥l ‘.il|l.l5\ll..' -24- TABLE II COMPARISON OF THE PROFILE RATING WITH THE SUBJECTIVE RATING OF BILL'S MEALS 33am GGGGGGGEGGGG FGGGEGGGGGGGGGEGGGGGGG o>H1poo nma P r wcfipmm W floapmhpdoofloo EEEEEEGEGEGG GGGGEEGGGGGGGGEGGGGGEG D. owmmamonmm & T4708232169040 911304003966 93300208mfl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Elgfifiggé 477313072953 981997015493 4453241990 m 999999888877 6687888888788888888787 o mucmohmm 33mm GGGEGGPF EGGGGGGE FGGGGGGGGGEEGGGEGG wwwpoorpbm .n 33cm 0 flOngHpflmofloo EEEEEEEEEEGGGGGE GGGGGGGGGGEEGGGEGG m mmwpcoonmm L 7075939914197690 904995839717612982 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O Efigfiagfié 6322998160804067 828000931211007742 r 9999888989787868 787887788899887888 omwpcoopmm ll Altai} AAA»! E t 33mm EGEEGEGGGGGFGGGGGFGGEGEFGGGEEGGGGGE s o>mpoofimsm m ufiplmm .M dofipmhpdoocoo EEEEGEEEGGGGGGGGGGGGEGEFGGEEEGEEGEE e omenoopmA Ln [La m 30032712836826647470005930174672806 «MOHPGHPHHOOQOU o o.oooooooooooooooooooooooococo m 34530380437084656096835455750413965 . owfi52§m 99998989886777776877878677899899789 L.” l * 45678901234567890123456789012345678 ~ 11111111112222222222333333333 Mm -25- TABIE XI cont inued COMPARISON OF THE PROFILE RATING WITH THE SUBJECTIVE was Em G E E G E OPHPIOOWDMHEM r wwflpmm m. 53633800 3 GEFG E w. omwmnmonmm S 23081 8322028 0...“ a“ ,1 on owwpnmonom 89 68 8 33% G G G G E m>fip00npsm T mqfipmm .m noHPwHfiHmoGoo GGEGE m mwwpqoonmnr L EEJEE nogmnpnmonoo 31 61 0 owwpnmohmm 7 8 8 7 9 33cm EEEE E 1.“ opflpoo 5mm 5 mfipam U qu pwnpqmoqoo EEEEE w omanoohmP urn noapcnpdooaoo 9” 9. 4.. aw 7. own pdoohom % % w W % v. 9 O 1 2 3 m 34444 -25- TABEE XII AVERAGE NUMBER OF STIMULATIONS WHEN PROFILE AND SUB- JECTIVE RATINGS AGREED AND WHEN THEY DISAGREED __.____..- —_~—.~.--—_._—o——.__ .__.__.. ~_-_.____._——.~ -.____—._.__.—_.m -——-—.—_—.—-_ 'm‘—_’ -—~—_. .._ Average Number Stimuli Average Number Stimuli When the Subjective When the subjective Rating Agreed With Rating Disagreed With the Profile Rating the Profile Rating Scale Don Bill Don Bill Excellent 2.0 3.0 6.6 6.7 Good 6.0 6.5 10.0 13.7 Fair W Reliability of the Sample. In order to test whether or not the number of records taken on these two children.gave a.reliable mean, namely, whether an increased number of records on the same children wculd have caused the mean to vary to any great extent, the probable error was calculated. ”It has been found by ex- perience that the occurence of a deviation of more than three times the probable error is either very unlikely, or is due to peculiar influences not covered by the investi- gation. Hence three times the probable error is referred to as the maximum.probable error".* The following table (XIII) gives a summary of the calculations used in testing the reliability of the sample, composing the present study. The significance of these factors will be discussed below. *Forsyth, C. H. Analysis of Statistics Page 156 -27- TABLE XIII CALCULATION USED TO TEST RELIAPILITY OE TEE SAWPLE r otal Mean ofWStandard Stand- Prob- Coeffi- Name Records Concen- Deviation on ard able cient of trationAConcentration Error Error Variability ’ 1 Don 129 90.6 L 7.4 .65 .44 at Don had a mean for percentage concentration of 90.6 and a probable error of .44 which means that if three times as many records had been taken (3 x .44=:l.32) (90.6—-l.32) 90.6-1.32::89.3) it would not be eXpected that the new mean would lie outside of the interval 89.3-91.9 since by chance, only once out of every 22 times would it fall out- side of this range. In the sane way Bill having a mean of 83.6::3(.45), it would not be expected that the new mean would fall outside of the interval 82.3-84.9, by chance but once out of every 22 times. By dividing the standard deviation by the mean times Mean glgtalg Concen trat ion number of records G'Or Standard Deviation :(Deviation from the mean) number Standard Error (Standard Deviation) number Probable Error 2.67457(Standard Deviation number Coefficient of VariabilityZStfindard Deviation X 100 mean b, an; [it was... luv... v - . var. I..~...., M .r.!. .. .. I. I I I IQI . .{A -28- 100, the coefficient of variability was obtained. This factor is significant in that it tells how concentrated the different numbers are around the mean. It has been found that a good variability lies within the range of 10-50 per- cent. Don's coefficient of variability was found to be 8 percent and Bill's 9 percent. This extremely low varia— bility would indicate the different percentage concentra- tions were very concentrated around the mean. From the preceding calculations the writer concludes that the number of records obtained on Don and Bill gave a reliable sample of their behavior at meal times, and that an increased number of records up to and including three times as many, would not have caused the mean to vary more than two percent on either side of the present mean. -29... CHAPTER III ANALYSIS OF EAITNG HABITS OF THE TWO SUBJECTS Procedure. As stated in Chapter I the two subjects Don and Bill lived in the apartment suite in the Home Economics Build- ing through-out the experiment, and the order of the day followed a normal nursery school procedure with two ex- ceptions, namely, the children ate their meals and had their naps in the apartment. Due to the fact that the children were on a metabolic balance study where it was necessary for them to eat all the food given them, special emphasis was put on their meal time procedure, in order to train the children in such factors as sitting quietly at the table, careful handling of food, and minimum amount of conversation. During the first fifteen.days of the exper- iment the subjects received the usual varied diet for pre- school children, but during the following 28 days they were fed'what might be called a monotonous diet, since each day they ate the following foods: Food Weight in grams Food Weight in grans Whole milk 720 Lettuce 14 Farina (uncooked) 18 Carrots 72 Orange juice 180 Tomatoes 90 Beef (raw) 45 Butter 18 Egg (raw) 45 Patato 63 Prunes 90 Sugar 18 Applesauce 90 Whole Wheat bread 72 C. L. O 4.5 .. J . v 1 I till, {Ir it {slip if. Itiuu‘ufifllleu.) E. ”ninth... .rfiqguflaulrdw..uifi 4.1...nf. the ... L. . new. .. -50- During the entire experiment of 43 days the record- ers took profile records on the children in order to de- termine whether or not their eating habits were modified by the experimental procedure. Such factors as total time spent at meals, percentage concentration, number of stimulations, and possible correlations between these fac- tors, were studied in relation to the experimental proce- dure. These findings will be discussed in the present chapter. Total Time at Meals. From previous group studies conducted at the Univer- sity of Chicago, 30 minutes was found to be a reasonable length.of time for the completion of noon meals. Lewis found that the children in her study completed 90 percent of all three meals within the half hour. While Table XIV shows that the time taken by Bill and Don during the entire eXperimental period of 43 days ranged from 6 to 48 minutes, Table xv shows that out of a total of 256 meals, 253 or 98.8 percent were completed within 30 minutes. In the case of Bill his records show that 125 of his 127 meals were completed within 30 minutes, and that all but one of Don's were completed within the same length of time. On the whole Don was a more rapid eater than Bill since he completed 80 of his meals, or practically two-thirds of them, within 15 minutes, while Bill complet- ed approximately half of his within that same interval. -31- TABLE XIV TOTAL TIME AT ALL MEALS IN MINUTES Breakfast - Lunch Supper Day Bill Don Bill Don Bill Don I 30 21 20 18 16 18 2 21 15 24 28 19 15 3 15 10 16 23 19 15 4 15 12 15 17 15 16 5 11 12 21 23 ‘ 17 17 6 10 10 21 27 l5 l7 7 10 ll 15 16‘ 17 18 8 15 12 16 21 16 18 9 13 10 20 17 13 10 10 16 15 52 52 18 16 ll l4 13 21 21 22 18 l2 l3 9 16 l6 18 18 15 16 11 21 26 21 19 14 18 16 22 25 21 24 l5 19 17 22 20 29 23 16 15 12 26 26 15 17 10 14 24 16 48 27 18 24 15 50 21 50 18 19 20 l4 l5 l2 18 15 20 15 8 . 12 19 15 21 18 15 19 S 20 14 17 22 15 a 17 ' 19 16 14 -52- TABLE XIV continued TOTAL TIME AT ALL LEALS IN MINUTES W T N Breakfast Lunch Supper Day Bill Don Bill Don Bill Don 25 26 14 22' i 25 26 25 24 11 10 ' 18 ' 16 22 21 25 1 21 18 19 18 17 19 26 ll 10 18 20 14 20 27 . 19 10 17 E 18 18 18 28 A 14 11 15 A 15 15 9 29 10 9 A 16 13 15 8 50 12 9 _ 15 10 15 11 51 11 10 A 11 12 15 9 32 10 10 12 9 17 12 55 15 9 14 10 19 15 34 12 9 17 12 16 14 35 10 9 10 . 15 10 16 11 56 16 11 i 11 a 17 15 57 10 A 6 4 11 7 16 9 38 , 11 7 12 8 13 10 39 10 7 l4 9 14 10 4O 12 ‘ 7 l3 8 16 10 41 11 6 l3 9 13 10 42 9 8 12 12 15 15 43 j 10 10 . 14 8 12 12 Avg. 14 ll l7 16 18 15 W -33- TABLE XV DISTRIBUTION OF‘TOTAL TIME FOR ALL MEALS IN MINUTES DURING ENTIRE EDCPERDIENTAL PERIOD :1 m too on O H 0):") (Du-l .40) a) 4-D m +3 a) 223 a 222 222 and .4. fitness 30.43:: 0.4:: H «3849:: 43843:: Sit-4H r-l mOor-I-r-I (DOHr-l 335 4 20am E032 5:35 otal Bill on Total Bill Don Total Bill Don 5-10 54 11 43 253 , 125 128 142 62 80 11-15 88 51 37 p 16-20 71 41 30 21-25 29 l6 13 26-30 11 6 5 s 31 and Above 3 2 l Total —-.—.~.J Table XVI shows that the average lengths of time for all breakfasts, luncheons and suppers for Bill were l4, l7 and 18 minutes respectively; and for Don 11, 16 and 15 minutes respectively. From these figures it can be seen that there was no significant difference between the average lengths of time spent by each of the children at luncheons and suppers. These results coincide with the findings in Lewis' study in Which breakfasts tended to be the shortest meal of the day, with no appreciable differences between luncheons and suppers. ....urdm:|..u..1|!!¥.\ 111.9 11.9.» -54- Since the experiment ran.over a period of 43 days in- cluding 15 days on a varied diet and 27 days on a monot- onous diet, it was thought interesting to note whether there were significant variations in the time taken at meals. during these two dietary regimes. TABLE XVI AVERAGE NUMBER OF MINUTES TAKEN BY BILL AND DON FOR EACH MEAL OF TILE DAY ' Name All Meals Breakfasts Luncheons Suppers Bill l7 14 L l7 18 Don 14 ll 16 15 Table XVII shows that in the case of Bill there prob- ably was not a significant difference between the average lengths of time tacen for meals on the two types of diets, since his average for the varied diet was 18 minutes and for the monotonous period 16 minutes. However, if the percentage of meals completed in 15 minutes is used as a measure of comparison between.the two periods, the find- ings would be in favor of the monotonous diet, since in that case, he completed 57.3 percent of his meals in that interval as against 33.3 percent for the varied diet. In the case of Don, the comparison between the two methods of feeding showed that a shorter length of time was Spent at meals during the monotonous diet, from the point of view of the average length of time taken for meals, and -35- the percentage of meals completed in 15 minutes. The average length of time spent by Don at the table on the varied diet was 17 minutes and on the monotonous diet 13 minutes. He likewise completed 77.3 percent of his meals in 15 minutes on the monotonous diet as against 33.3 per- cent on the varied diet. TABLE XVII COMPARISON OF LENGTHS OF TDAE TAI'TEN FOR TEALS ON VARIED DIET AND ON MONOTONOUS DIET Wflkfi M ” ' ‘ of Minutes Meals completed Meals Completed for Meals Within 15 Within 30 Name Minutes Minutes WhriedXMonot- 1 Varied Monot- Varied7Monot- iet onous Diet {onous Diet onous piet TADiet Diet 1 Bill 18_, 116, 33.3. A51.3 9717 198.7 __pon 17 15 . 55.5 177.5 _ 97.7 100.0 I I i ‘ From.the point of view of total time spent at table, the eating habits of the two subjects in the present study compared favorably with the findings in the studies reported from the University of Chicago. Since with the exceptions of three meals all were completed within 30 minutes. Don was a more rapid eater than Bill, complet- ing practically two-thirds of his Heals in 15 minutes while Bill completed approximately half of his in that same length of time. moreover if the length of time spent at 1 ,r «1 fifiAiw 1 ~36- the table be used as a measure of the children's interest in their food it would not appear that either of them tired of the monotonous diet. Percentage Concentration. While it was considered valuable to make comparisons on the lengths of time spent at the table during the dif- ferent procedures, it was thought even more significant to know what portion of that time the children spent at the business of eating. Percentage Concentration was defined in Chapter II as the portion of time a child spent in set- ing plus serving of the food. This factor tells how much of the total time was productively used, as against the time wasted. As stated in the preceding chapter that a child who spent 85 percent of the time or over at the business of eating was considered an "excellent" eater, and that anything between 65 and 85 percent represented a "good” eater. Table XVIII shows that with one exception the childrens meals were within the range from 65-100 percent or in other words practically all of their eating could be clas- sified as either "excellent" or "good". The generaliza- tion expressed above is based upon the fact that Bill's average percentage concentration for the whole study was 83.6 and for Don 90.6 percent. (Table XIX) This same table shows that Bill's distribution of meals in the ranges - vigfl31a41... Iii -...( . 1v 1' .IA -IH.» I -...__:.'.::..'.43nmx ,4". —._“—- .m v.2 --. —. I , .4? -37- TABLE XVIII PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR ENTIRE STUDY Day Bill Don l 78 90 2 85 90 3 89 98 4 93 97 5 94 90 6 95 100 7 93 99 8 80 93 9 94 95 10 88 93 11 90 93 12 85 100 13 83 94 14 68 87 15 71 84 16 78 92 17 75 89 18 77 92 19 75 82 20 67 88 21 80 87 22 80 94 -38- TABLE XVIII EN T A GE “RC P" CONCENTRATION FOR ENTIRE STUDY r e D. p u S 1 1.. .1 B t S a f K 8 e r B 1 l i B a D Don 81 88 87 93 100 100 98 100 95 96 88 92 96 98 98 82 91 93 92 8'7 Don Don 8O 79 81 8'7 85 88 85 8'7 80 82 84 82 85 84 84 92 85 100 83 100 100 80 '73 93 89 95 87 80 85 100 100 100 10 100 10 O 76 88 '73 86 65 75 75 87 96 90 85 92 93 80 86 96 95 89 89 88 8'7 23 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 131...... V ‘I. {A «x1 H g 1 . I. M‘ . -39- classified as "excellent" and "good" were abovt eoual, namely 49.0 and 50.0 percent respectively. In the case of Don it can be seen that he had 78 percent in the interval of 85-100, while the other 22 percent were in the range designated as "good". This difference in percentage con- centration which shows up between the two boys in terms of averages as well as in the percentages of ”excellent" and "good” meals for the whole study would indicate a signifi- cant difference between the two subjects in their ability to attend to the business of eating. TABLE XIX GROUPING OF‘ALL MEALS ACCORDING-TO PERCENTAGE CON* CENTRATION iToTaI (Average Grouping of Meals‘hy‘PércenEEEE .Number Percentage ‘Nane {Meals Concentration Excellent 85-100 Good 65-85 1 for all Meals — Number Percent Number Percent Meals 'Meals Meals Meals B111 127 83.6 62 49.0 64 50.0 Don 1 129 90.6 100 78.0 29 22.0 When a statistical calculation of the significance of the difference between.the means of percentage concentration for the two boys (90.6-83.6:z7)* was made the standard error of the difference was found to be 7:2.93*. * 90.6 1- .44 83.6 g. .45 f“ . 7 t [.442 452:.- 72: .95 -40- Since the difference between the two means is consider- ably more than twice the standard error this variation be- tween the average percentage concentrations of Don and Bill is greater than.can.be accounted for solely on the basis of chance. Table XX would indicate that this significant difference between.the 2 boys in percentage concentration during the entire study was due to their differences in behavior during the monotonous period. On the varied diet (Table XX) the percentage concentration for Bill was 87.1 and for Don 89.2 and the slight difference between these two means was not greater than could be expected by chance since the standard error of the two means was found to be 2.15:2.88*. However Don's percentage concentration for the monotonous diet was 91.5 as against 81.6 for Bill, making a difference of 9. 5 percent, which does account for the significant difference between the two boys (7:t.93) reported above since the standard error of the difference of the means was 9.9:t0.92*. It is of further interest to note (Table XXI) that in the case of Don there was no significant difference between his mean for percen- tage concentration on the varied diet versus the monotonous * varied Diet Monotonous Diet Don 89.2 I 1.13 Don 91.5 t 0.619 Bill 87.1 t 2.65 Bill 81.6 I 0.780 2.1 I’I.l3‘+2.65" 9.9 315619340320“ 2.1:t 2.88 9.9 t 0.92 --41- TABLE XX AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION ON TEE TWO DIETS AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO RANGE. FOR "EX- CELLENT" AND "GOOD" EATING Average Pe—rcent of l'PEe-rc61.115737? Number Percentage Excel lent Good Meals Meals Concen- Meals 65-85 Name fl - .1. trat ion 85-100 _ Varied Monot- Varied Monot- Varied Monot- Varied Monot- Diet onous Diet onous Diet onous Diet- onous Diet Diet Diet Diet Bill 45 82 87.1 81.9 67.0 39.0 33.0 61.0 4.1. - -. ,_-_-_-.___,—_ Don 45 64 1 89.2 91.4 67.0 1 65.0 55.0 t 17.0 ——.:-:_‘— -—-— - M-flm—Wl . TABLE XXI SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES FDR DON AND BILL ON PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VARIOUS INTERVALS DURING-THE STUDY i 1 l -p .p +2 'p 1p in (D (D (D (D Q) _ 0) (1) V4 «p H H H H 01-1-1 ‘H - C: m C) -P C: 'o C: 1%CLP Cl 43“ m ¥’$ a) ‘”33 m E§mcp m H (D G) U) 4H :1 3a. :3 3.4 :3 «4:3 5 5.4 :3 Name 19 o c: 0 Q o a o «o o +=Q +=ain w>mx3 4=aic riG4301G demo vomxzo ~5th wit/3.540 051.550 lmcip 023042 0:384: 0;:®+J 4a¥>macp H-HO H. (DO w-lHQO ‘w—i-HCDO UJO°HQO Said w.82:cz ecu a uqmszc: 14o15 a 600 0560 0 85.0410 H650 o HOhDd‘O #42 bema >4H2 bema maeaa Bill 15.21? 1.80 8.3_2.79 2.311.93 4.511.87 6.01 1.26 Don 11.2 :1.7 .6:1.25 6.01’1.35 2.53: 1.56 5.2 21.55 A fax-“ll. . a! .4! .: ji.tu.‘ -42- diet (2.2;: 1.7).' But he did show a significant improve- ment during the last two weeks when compared with the first two weeks of the monotonous diet (5.2 1 1.35), as well as with the varied regime (6.0 t 1.35). In Bills case the difference between the means for percentage concentration under the two regimes (5.2 1 1.80) was significant and in favor of the varied diet (Table XXI). This might be in- terpreted to imply that Bill had tired of the monotonous diet. But such an interpretation of his lowered average for percentage concentration is not born out, by the length of time he spent at meals since his average for the varied diet was 18 minutes and for the monotonous diet 16 minutes. A universal tendency among pre-school children, when presented with foods they are reluctant to consume is to slow up their eating, which tendency is directly re- flected in the length of time spent at the table. Further indication of the fact that Bill did not tire of the monotonous diet was brought out by the significant difference between the first 14, and the last 14 days of that period, namely, 6:? l.26,(Table XXI)in favor of the last two weeks. If he had tired of the monotonous diet one would not expect a significant increase in the mean for percentage concentration during the last two weeks of the period. There is no objective evidence in the records taken on Bill to account for his lowered percentage con- centration during the first two weeks of the monotonous diet. ‘ A gflpflni .- -14.. . .1 lawlflxllwnhnh - .. . w. . [all-‘1. .._l. -43- It is apparent from.the preceding discussion of the significant differences for various intervals during the study that both subjects increased their percentage con- centration during the last two weeks of the experiment which gives evidence for the fact that they did not tire of the monotonous diet. It is evident further that, in terms of percentage concentration as well as total time, Don's performances was somewhat better than Bill's. Stimulation During Mealtimes. A third measure of a child's reaction toward meal- time procedures may be derived from studying the fre- quency with which he must be stimulated in order to in- sure his completion of the meal. The value of this fac- tor as a measure of the subjects eating habits was en- hanced by the fact that during the 27 days of the monot- onous diet the calories and volumes of food consumed were constant; even on the varied diet the range in calories and volume from day to day was not great. In the present study the number and type of stimulations, were studied in relation to the experimental procedure, namely, stimula- tions for the entire study, and for the varied versus the monotonous period. The stimulations were classified according to whether they pertained to the subjects' eating, or their general behavior at the table and will be discussed under these two classifications. .u’l . III» 1 4|: .rl 4.1).:wluV -44- Table XXII shows that Don had fewer stimulations dur- ing the experiment than the other subject; his total being 151 as against 191 for Bill. During the varied diet the two boys received about the sane number of stimulations, namely, 60 for Don and 65 for Bill, but during the monot- onous diet Don's total for the four weeks was only 95 as against 126 for Bill. Since the monotonous period was twice the length of the varied diet these figures show that perunit of time the number of stimulations given Don during the monotonous period was decreased, while Bill's remained practically the same. During the varied diet there was an equal distribution of stimuli between those related to eating and those related to their behavior at the table. On the monotonous diet relatively fewer stimuli related to behavior were employed. tThis reduc- tion is logical, since the children had learned during the first two weeks to be cautious about spilling, about taking too large bites, and also how to sit reasonably quiet at the table. In the preceding paragraph the total number of stimu- lations for both subjects during the two periods of diet were discussed. However, it was thought interesting to de- termine the average number of stimulations per meal on the varied as against the monotonous diet for the two subjects in order to show whether their average per meal decreased or increased during these two regimes. . widtl Abnllanle!‘ ...i(.‘.- j-.. .. ..T. .o' It}. .— . —l -45- TABLE XXII TOTAL NUMBER OF STIMULATIONS ON VLRIED AND NONOT- ONOUS DIET CLASSIFIED ACCORDING'TO WHETHER THEY PERTAINEDiro SUBJECTB' EATING OR GENERAL BEHAVIOR -u—q-fi-«c' " To “ ‘ Nn-er .f Stimulations Stimulations on Stimulaticns on or Entire Period Varied Diet Monotonous Diet Name 3 1 atf Be All Eat Be All Eat *Be ing_i havior ing havior ing, havior 3111 191 102 ' as 65 as 32 126 69 57 Don 153 aa 65 60) 31 29 93 57 36 W4“ Table XXIII shows that Bill had an average number of stimulations per meal of 1.5, against 1.18 for Don during the entire experiment. The average number of stimulations on the varied diet for both boys was approximately the sane being 1.44 for Bill and 1.55 for Don. The distri- bution of the stimulation in terms of those related to eating and those related to behavior was approximately equal during this period. On the monotonous diet Bill's average number of stimuli per meal, (1.55), 'was slightly greater than for Don, (1.10). During this period, the average of stimuli for each child related to eating, re- mained approximately the same as during the varied diet. However, in the case of Don the average number of stimuli per meal, related to behavior, was decidely decreased since it was .644 on the varied diet and .428 on the monotonous diet. There was no appreciable change in Bill's two xi: 9...: (quiPJJflAWJWI-w averages, monotonous . 695. TA -45- ET? Lia-.13.; since on the varied diet it XXIII was .711 and on the AVRRACE NUNRER OF STIVULATION PER WEPL ON VARIED AND M ON OT OI 0 US D I ET -_- Average-fiumber Average Number Average Number of Stimulations Stimulations on of Stimulations on Ngmfl for Entire Period Varied Diet Monotonous Diet All Eat- Be- All s‘é‘tTB‘54”“ ”‘1' net. Be- ing havior ing havior ing havior Bill 1.50 0.80 0.70 1.44 0.733 0.711 1.53 0.841 0.695 Don.t1.18 0.68 0.50 1.53 0.688 0.644 1.10 0.678 0.428 f i __- Correlations Between Factors Related to Time, Percentage Concentration and Stimulations. The cuestion arose as to whether there were any re- lationships between such factors as total time taken at meals and its apportionment in terms of concentration and distraction time; or between the number of stimula- tions given the children and their percentage concentra- tion. The presence or absence of such relationships be- tween two factors can be measured by means of linear cor- relations. The possible range for correlation coeffi- cients is from 0 to 1; the closer the factors to 1 the more significant the relationships. One of the interesting problems presented by the pre- sent study was to determine what happened to the distri- ‘Jnghlll (I‘ll 1"»0JIAf-IIWH‘.‘ \ -47- bution of concentration.and distraction time when the total time at meals varied. The high correlation coeffi- cient in Table XXIV indicates that when total time at meals was increased it was due to the fact that the children spent not only more time at the business of eating, but in playing as well. The correlation coefficients on total time against concentration time for Bill and Don were -+.917 and -+.915 respectively as against —b.762 and -+.746 for total against distraction time. These coefficients in- dicate that there was a slightly greater tendency on the part of the boys to extend the meal time because of in- creased concentration time, than because of distraction time. TABLE XXIV CORRELATIOHS RELATED TO TIME, PFRCEETAGE CONCENTRA- TION mo STmULATIONs __--—__ n...— _ _——— ”,....._ - . _—_._—__—_. _.._—.-—- Taotl Time ' ‘ Total Time Name Against Con- Against Dis- tration Against Num- centration Time traction Time ber of Stimulations Bill .917 t .014 .762 I .015 .376 1 .077 Don .915't.014 .747 t.039 .471 1.071 __J_____.l_.__—»___._—_ In stimulating children.during meal times the question always arises as to whether the freouency with which they are "poked" bears any relationship to their application to the business of eating. In the case of Bill and Don -48- (Table XXIV) it would appear that there was only a fair positive correlation between these two factors, since the coefficient for Bill was -+.576 and for Don +—.471. In other words there was a slight tendency for the percen- tage concentration and number of stimuli to increase sim- ultaneously. Therefore, in these two cases an increase in the number of stimulations had a slight tendency to in- crease the percentage concentration. Bewever, the relation- ship between percentage concentration and tie number of stimt- lations bears further investigation since in the present study there was no attempt to control either’tle number or type of stimulations. Summary and Conclusion. This problem was undertaken in order to study the eat- ing habits of pre-school children,and to determine the ef- fect of a monotonous diet on their behavior at meal times. The profile method was the technique adopted for study- ing the children's eating habits, and the ten-second inter- val was used to record the concentration during meal times. This method was identical with the one used by Lewis and, Ball, with the exception that the writer has attempted to improve the method in regard to training of the recorders, determination of degree of objectivity of the method, and the reliability of the sample. In the present study a pre- liminary training period was carried on in the nursery school for three weeks preceding the experiment, during -49- which time three recorders were trained by a person who had previously used this method in an experiment. The degree of objectivity of the records was checked by a new method, namely, the placement method which is more highly objective since it checked one against the other for agreement on each ten-second period during the meal. This method was used for checking the recorders through-out the entire ex- periment, since a third person checked the two recorders on alternate days during the entire study. By this more ob- jective method it was found that out of 118 records half showed a percentage agreement of above 95 percent and over three-fourths were above 90 percent. Thus it was demon- strated that the recorders could maintain a fairly high de- gree of objectivity over the six weeks period. The relia- bility of the sample was determined by statistical cal- culation in order to denote whether an increased number would have caused the mean to vary to any great extent. By this method it was found that of the 129 profile studies made on Don and 127 on Bill, an increased number of records up to and including three times would not have caused the mean of percentage concentration to vary more than two percent on either side of the present mean. It was thought interesting to determine to what extent a subjective rat- ing of a person accustomed to eating with groups of pre- school children, would agree with the profile method of classifying the childrens eating. In order to accomplish this, the writer sat at the table during the entire study I I. I1 I‘- m I. .r 1 L. . L71 v: ‘j .illv . .I . u ; I!» . -50- and made a subjective rating of each meal on a four point scale, namely, excellent, good, fair, and poor. This four point scale was set equal to the numerical intervals used for percentage concentration, namely, excellent had a range of percentage concentration of 85—100, good 65-85, fair 50-65 and poor below 50. When a comparison was made it was found that they agreed somewhere between 70 and 75 percent of the time. In the cases where they did not agree it was found that the subjective judgment was lower on the four point scale than the percentage concentration rating, which indicated that there was some factor other than the child's application to the business of eating which entered into the writer's evaluation of the meal. By determining the average number of stimulations it was found that when the subjec- tive rating disagreed with the profile rating by one point, the average number of stimulations given the child were from two to three times as many as when they agreed. There- fore in the use of the profile method as a measure for judg- ing the success of a meal it would be necessary to evaluate it not only in terms of concentration but also in terms of the number of stimulations given the child. Two boys, Don and Bill between four and five years of age, were the subjects used for this experiment. Preceding the eXperiment the eating habits and health of the children were ascertained. The exper’ment covered a period of 43 days during which time 256 profile studies were made. During the first 15 days of the experiment the subjects received -51- the usual varied diet for pre-school children, but during the following 28 days they were fed a monotonous diet. During these two periods such factors as total time spent at meals, percentage concentration, number of stimulations, and possible correlation between these factors were studied in relation to the experimental procedure. Total Time at Meals. From the point of view of total time spent at the table, the eating habits of the two children compared favorably with the findings in the studies reported from the University of Chicago, since with three exceptions all meals were com- pleted within 50 minutes. The findings also were in favor of the monotonous diet since both subjects increased the number of meals completed in 15 minutes from 35.3 percent on the varied diet to 57.3 on the monotonous diet for Bill and to 77.3 percent for Don. Percentage Concentration. Using percentage concentration as a measure of the child's application to the business of eating it was found that practically all of the children's meals could be classi- fied as either "excellent" or "good". In other words their percentage concentration ranged from 65-100 percent. How- ever, it was found that for the whole study there was a difference of 7 percent between the two subjects for average percentage concentration. When a statistical calculation of in it}; -- vain“ -52- the significant differences between the two means for per- centage concentration was made the standard error of the difference was found to be 7:t.95, which was greater than could be accounted for solely on the basis of chance. It was found that this difference in their behavior was de- monstrated during the monotonous period since the standard error of the two means on the varied diet was 2.12 2.88 while for the monotonous diet was 9.92:0.92, which would indicate that the significant difference found between the two subjects (7 5.95) was during the monotonous diet. In the case of Don it was found that there was no significant difference between the varied diet versus the monotonous diet, but that there was a significant improvement during the last two weeks when compared with the first two weeks of the monotonous diet, as well as with the varied regime. There was a significant difference between the varied versus the monotonous diet for Bill in favor of the varied, which might indicate that he tired of the monotonous regime. This was not born out by the average length of time spent at the table since for the varied diet it was 18 minutes against 16 minutes on the monotonous diet. Further evidence for the fact that he did not tire of the monotonous diet was indi- cated by the significant difference between the first four- teen and the last fourteen days of the monotonous period, (61:1.26) in favor of the last two weeks. Had he tired of the diet it is not likely that he would have shown improve- ment in application ot the business of eating. -53- Stimulation During Heal Times. The number and type of stimulations were studied in re- lation to the experimental procedures, namely, stimulation for the entire study, and for the varied versus the monot- onous period. The stimulations were classified as to whether they pertained to the subject's eating or general behavior. The findings showed that the average number of stimulations on the varied diet for both boys were approximately the same being 1.44 for Bill and 1.35 for Don, and that the distri- bution of the stimulations in terms of those related to eat- ing and those related to behavior was approximately equal. During the monotonous period the average number of stimuli for each child related to eating remained approximately the same as during the varied diet. Hovever, the aVerage number of stimuli per meal, related to behavior for Don decreased and for Bill remained practically the same. Correlations Between Factors Related to Time, Percentage Concentration and Stimulations. The relationship between such factors as total time versus concentration and distraction times as well as per- centage concentration against number of stimulations was de- termined by means of linear correlations. It was found that when total time increased it was due to the fact that the children Spent not only more time at the business of eating but in playing as well. Since the correlation coefficients -54- on total time against concentration time for Bill and Don were -+.917 and +3915 respectively as against -+.762 for total time against distraction time. However, the coeffi- cients indicated that there was a slightly greater tendency on the part of the subjects to increase the meal time, be- cause of concentration time than because of distraction time. There was a slight tendency for percentage concentration and number of stimulations to increase simultaneously, since the coefficient for Bill was 4-.376 and for Don +3471. However, this relationship bears further investigation since there was no attempt to control either the number or type of stimulations. Conclusions: 1. If the length of time Spent at the table be used as a measure of the childrens interest in their food, it would not appear that the children tired of the monotonous diet. 2. The significant differences for various intervals during the study for both subjects showed that their per- centage concentration increased during the last two weeks of the experiment which provides further evidence for the fact that they did not tire of'the monotonnus menu. 3. By a statistical calculation on percentage concenp tration for the two subjects it was found that there was a significant difference in favor of Don, that is, Don's ap- plication to the business of eating was significantly better . ..w.IA . i 357! .IJHI‘I." than Bills. 4. When total time at meals was increased, the sub- jects tended to increase not only their time at the business of eating but in playing as well, a fair positive correla- tion between percentage concentration and number of stimu- lations was demonstrated, -55- BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Tupper, Helen Beatrice. " The Effect of Systematic Train- ing upon Food Intake and Concentration During Feeding of Pre-school Children," Master's Thesis, Department of Education, University of Chicago, 1929. 2. Ball, Mary Alice. "Eating Habits of Pre-school Children 3. Lewis, Mary. Under Home and Nursery School Conditions," Master's Thesis, Department of Home Economics, University of Chicago, 1930. "Variation in Caloric Intake and.Eating Habits of Pre-school Children,” master's Thesis, De- partment of Home Economics, University of Chicago, 1931. APPENDIX w—fl—w-fl— -57- TABLE m PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION FOR BILL wHEN OBSERVED BY B AND C Breakfast Lunch ; Supper Day B C B C i B C 4 93.3 95.5 98.7 98.7 § 94.7 94.7 g 95.0 95.0 89.5 92.7 g 98.7 97.8 8 80.2 77.7 89.8 88.5 91.4 90.3 10 88.2 87.0 88.9 83.0 80.2 78.3 12 84.8 88.8 88.2 85.1 ‘ 82.9 83.8 14 87.8 88.7 78.1 77.8 E 75.4 74.8 18 74.7 74.7 1 18 78.8 72.3 66.9 87.9 I 88.1 70.9 20 88.7 85.8 83.0 82.0 1 79.3 78.4 22 79.9 79.7 82.0 82.0 i 87.4, 88.4 24 85.1 88.0 80.9 81.8 I 81.1 81.1 26 85.5 85.5 70.5 89.8 i 84.9 84.9 28 75.3 79.0 83.3 83.3 l 83.5 83.5 30 87.1 88.8 82.7 81.3 - 84.2 84.2 32 90.5 92.0 91.7 93.0 3 82.0 83.0 34_ 91.7 91.7 80.2 80.2 i 84.2 83.2 38 79.8 179.8 87.8 87.8 79.8 78.8 38 95.5 i95.5 82.2 80.8 70.1 72.7 40 88.9 £88.1 81.8 81.8 91.4 88.2 42 87.5[82.1 73.0 71.8 84.8 81.5 AVg. 84.2 ‘83.8 82.5 82.1 83.3 83.1 -58- TABLE XXVI PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION FOR DON WHEN ORsTRVED BY A AND C Breakfast 9 Lunch Supper Day A C A C A c 3 98.4 “100.0 g 73.3 72.8 100.0 98.9 5 1 90.4 90.4 3' 95.7 98.8 91.0 98.0 7 ' 98.8 £1OO.O > 83.2 80.0 84.4 84.4 9 95.2 3 93.8 i 89.9 90.9 98.5 92.8 11 93.2 91.9 g 93.7 92.9 94.4 89.7 13 94.2 92.8 ' 83.8 85.7 84.0 84.0 15 84.0 85.0 . 77.8 74.4 72.3 74.4 17 E 89.3 82.8 I 95.9 94.9 1 72.8 74.7 19 81.7 92.7 95.8 95.8 84.3 88.8 21 88.5 87.5 h! 88.9 88.9 . 88.3 88.8 23 } 73.2 ‘ 73.2 ‘ 79.3 78.5 80.7 81.3 25 88.9 72.5 87.7 88.7 87.5 87.5 27 88.9 85.2 L 81.7 78.9 92.5 90.7 29 85.5 85.5 gg 83.8 82.5 100.0 97.9 31 100.0 100.0 {* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 33 92.9 92.9 1! 100.0 300.0 M 98.0 9810 35 93.0 93.0 “ 100.0 94.9 92.3 93.8 37 100.0 97.3 i 97.7 93.2 98.0 98.0 39 100.0 97.8 100.0 98.1 82.3 83.9 43 98.0 89.5 , 98.0 98.0 98.0 88.8 AVg. 91.2 91.1 90.3 89.3 89.1 89.5 41!! . .1 o s I I I 1 . O I l I a a O . O O .12“ t . I! E‘.H.|-ix' . 5.3.:- . "31-1. . 4.. .-L-.n:..10_”r. ._ :.123 h-.- 355.3 a I f aohqmnqauoaao aw . m ff -.1 f AVG O .. 52$&33- m1. . 1 ., 5 .. If.» .u .0 . (5.: I I 1.1 r.- ¢f|.2n§32§ 9¢389888$3§33W53352033289£393? 851.34 1 i - - £31303238008n5r5005h383n08133£ . 1|II1--1 .- 11 J 1 131.1111- 11111-191 . 1.1..1-|-1 Iltllri ...! ..- 3.300 . s _ thaw-ma. 85.. tiniooafifls "ADD-€818.93? 5.30033: .... 5 .14.. . - .- - - 4L JTIII-IY 21-11-1111 11-34%;- A .Qfifiggéu 9 geenfinafl..18.e 95:32:15 33925 35-45.3385? a ..- 0“ ...”. 6r. 8 a .-. Asa-.... E..- . . . . 1H.- ”aura-...»... .11. I 15. - .1 r.- ..1. 111l --l 111-31- .- ..1mc-m.-m-- 5.8.5.588 Be...€..f-hao.§ 31.515.163 5058680518 3 1¥0w.00‘\fl.1 l-J-I11-1 ..II... . 41 1" V1 ' ...- 0.5 (bah-HMMMw-l run-910 “ohm ulcw-u»). ...-h... OWWU nu V4 nun-19.4 01.. .-.U 0... n.. n...- nu T1» an. Oe- H.909?! 450.5. - 11| _ . _..-m“ G51 «.5.- -..: 5. n..- W- 1.. v: 05. ...0 .5- 335 n..- w. p.19... A.» «8.. F. n... a D «1.3 E C --.]IOIFI' .‘l‘-3§"1'l 9 3 .K 1 . 1 . ’Illl - smegma onq VGCQEQGJ3359f0383958888m9358883 Reagan‘s-mono 8.0.9.4....- . .503 ...,PSIC..2?C£P .55....05... S v0000.0..000»0.-0010 0000000000000000 nan-33...... Q .15 Carp-5 bur-7.130330393398600. -.riazl ....- ..c or a 1 13111101 LIT-11.1. P 1‘ .J l.f£ . I I "mafieflanaofiaa -}OY69?OV9C38?§§IC .335 3:3 33 --300033900200083.38 030 ganfoooxoeeoeaobaloe 0.1 11" _m.amwm.umv -59- TABLEIXXVII COMPARISON OF PROFILE RATING WITH NUMBER OF STIMULI AND SUBJECTIVE RATING OF BILL'S MEALS - _..-_...wg-h—Llfi—fi‘n- . a... Breakfast Lunch Supper 8 8 8 H *4 H .9 .p .9 0w 0 goal 0 out 0 $33 5 I: .3 5 5’. 9°13 5 5 ¥>n F'O #>NJ -933 rd og¥¢'gL 4=§§ :go «'3! n0 Mar-130:! no FISH 0 g 8 0 D3 00 OEHHOH 00 marine-r1 o a 004 y10c: 9041—.pr cg .D-H'H hp 0:: .0 43"? ~° 62.30.2262 a... 56 0.993: “a 55°“; 33C, 9: E a) a. 2: 51 to E: :z 5: 18 93.3 0 E E 96.7 8 E G 94.7 13 E G 94.0 9 E G 93.0 14 E F 97. 6 E G 95.0 6 E E 92.7 11 E G 97.8 5 E G 95.5 2 E_E 92.5 4 E E 93.2 9 E o 80.2 9 G G 89.9 8 E G 91.5 6 E G 93.7 5 E E 89.3 5 E G 93.2 6 E G 10 88.1 5 E G 88.9 19 E P 80.1 6 G G 11 90.2 6 E G 91.9 8 E G 87.6 3 E I 12 84.8 4 G G 86.1 4 E E 82.9 5 G G 13 83.3 6 G G 90.4 5 E G 89.0 6 E G 14 67.6 8 G G 78.1 8 G G 75.4 8 G G 15 70.8 13 G G 80.9 9 G G 73.0 12 G G 16 78.2 3 G G 74.7 11 G G *2 F 18 76.6 6 G G 66.9 9 c- G 68.1 10 G a . 19 75.4 6 G G 87.0 4 E E 81.1 7 G G 20 66.7 8 G G *1 79.3 6 G G 21 80.4 13 G F 78.9 15 G F 89.0 5 E I 22 79.7 4 G G 82.0 6 G G 87.4 7 E G 23 76.0 10 G G 78.4 8 G G 80.0 10 G G 24 88.0 4 E E 60.9 6 G G 61.0 7 G o u 25 73.0 12 G G 80. 6 G G 85.6 9 G G ‘ 26 85.5 4 E E '70. 10 G G 84.9 5 o a 27 64.9 12 F F 79. 3 G G 79.6 5 G G1 28 75.3 9 G G 83. 6 G G 83.6 12 G G 5 29 75.0 4 G G 81. 8 G G 84.9 7 G G " ~ ‘ 50 87.1 5 E G 82. 7 G G 64.5 4 o a ‘ r‘ :51 95.7 2 E E 91. 1 E E 65.5 4 l 3 * 32 90.4 2 E E 91. 2 E E 83.0 1 G 6 F 55 84.6 7 lG G k 80. 6 G G 82.0 101 a a 1 z *1 Lunch not finished. -50- TABLE XXVII continued COMPARISON OF PROFILE RATING WITH NUMBER OF STIMULI AND SUBJECTIVE RATING 0F BILL'S MEALS mqapmm 33mm GGGEGGEFGE r oafiMOHm e adggm 1936313453 . w” nmnasz .o & 2082123081 6 3323380 LLonoumer/MLQH a owwpnoonom 8878789688 8 mnfipam GPHPowhDSm GGEGGGGGGE wwflmm Gnu GGGG GE 380.8 E E A: “figgm 4637241573 . Honazz .o .m m Jpwaufipmfififlnwpw aw L aoprHpn—ooaoo 0774231610 3 mnflpam Magnum . E G EEE M. OHHkOHLH E EEEE 6L 8 Hasafipm 5566223333 . Wm 909852 .5 a m 7280629457 9 B doHpmenooGoo 1396558976 3 ommpqwonmm 9978998888 8 O Y 4567890123 8 M 3333334444 H .... .-llhu .. VP . .3 Y . '§ I? pt... 5 I . . . I. C I o I V . . .- . I v ‘. 0,05- I A ‘ C .I‘ 2“... . ”‘1‘!“‘A‘ .'-{p.: O -61- TABLE XXVIII COMPARISON OF HROFIIE RATING WITH NUMBER OF STIMULI AND SUBJECTIVE RATING 0F mN'S MEALS Breakfast Lunch Supper 8' 8 8 H H «H +2 +9 +2 003 O 06 0 GI! can b MH4 b can Day 33 :10 3 32 So 33' 3‘5 no 8:3 $03 no gar-4303 no mo EEHOH oo BHHOH 08 on .c 4375+: on Hit-449*”: 0 8'8 965262 68 585272 38 a. z m a. z k?) 4 97.2 o E E 92.6 6 E G 90.8 6 E G, 5 90.4 6 E G 95.6 12 E G 91.0 4 E x 5 100.0 3 E E 83. 9 16 G G 91.0 G I G: 7 98.6 o E E 86.2 7 G G 84.4 6 G G“ 8 93.0 4EE 65.8 6GF 90.7 21m 9 95.1 6 E G 89.8 6 E G 96.5 4 E t» 10 93.3 4 E E 81.0 11 G F 95.9 5 E G .11- 96.2.5-5 E G 96.7 13 E F 94.4 6 I 9' 12 100.0 5 E G 83.7 16 G G- 96.5 7 l G. 16 94.2 7 E G 86.8 10 G G 84.0 4 G G. 14 87.0 4 E E 81.9 7 E G 82.5 ,4 G :1 15 84.0 6 G G 77.8 11 G F 72.6 5 G a 16 91.8 4 E E 76.4 15 G F 88.9 10 I M 17 89.6 6 E G 95.9 6 E G 72.8 6 G G) 18 92.0 6 E E 76.6 11 G E 79.4 7 G G. 19 81.7 6 G G 95.8 7 E G 84.6 4 G I' 20 87.8 2 E E 95.9 2 E E 96.6 1 I r 21 86.5 6 E G 88.9 7 E G 86.6 6 I G 22 96.9 5 E E 85.6 5 E G 100.0 4 I 3 26 76.2 6 G G 79.6 7 G G 80.7 e G G~ 24 96.2 2 E E 86.5 7 E G 90.6 9 E G 25 89.0 4 E E 87.7 2 E G 87.5 9 I G 26 94.7 5 E E 87.1 8 E G 86.7 8 IO 27 86. 9 4 E E 81.7 7 G G 92.5 6 I G. 28 79.7 2 G G 81.8 8 G G 100.0 0 I 3- 29 85.4 4 E E 86.8 7 G 1" 100.0 0 I :1. 30 94.4 2 E E 92.0 4 E E 98.0 o I, I; 61 100.0 0 E E 100.0 4 E E 100.0 0 I l.- 62 100.0 0 E E 100.0 0 E E 95.0 o l_l 66 92.9 2 E E 100.0 1 E E 96.0 a I 14, 64 96.0 2 E E 95.8 o E E 87.8 4 3hr, 65 93.0 2 E E 100.0 0 E E 92.5 4 I; 66 81.8 2 G G 100.0 0 E E 96.2 0-3;. -52- TABLE XINIII.Gontinued COMPARISON OF PROFILE RATING WITH NUMBER OF STIMULI AND SUBJECTIVE RATING 0F DON'S MEALS wafipwm EEGEEEG opmwoommsm nu r OHHMOE EE EEEE d e aflasm 0044205 . mu uwnapz .5 6 6666666 6 do Sauna—6080 8 8 2 0 3 2 7 0 mwcpaoohmm 9999998 9 L mnflpmm gmfigfifi EEEEEEE «Rm EEEEEEE OHHMOHW Higgm 0104340 .fl nmnapz :6 .m m flfimAannw J L noapmnpdoodoo 7605208 9 omwfiuoonmm 9 9 m 8 9 9 9 8 magmm EEEEEEE _ op oohpsw Him EEEEEEE 18.. 3:98 8 a Higzm 1000021 . m “628:2 2 n 6666666 6 B noapanpmooqoo wwmmm%% % ommquohom 1 111 y 7890123 & m 3334444 U -53- TABLE XXIX CONCENTRATION TIME AT MEALS IN MINUTES I Breakfast Lunch } Supper pay 111 Don B111 Don A 1311]. Don 1 24 19 15 16 f 13' 15 2 18 16 20 26 1 18 16 6 16 1o 14 16 l 16 15 4 14 12 15 16 ; 12 16 5 15 11 20 26 a 17 15 6 10 10 19 26 g ' 15 16 7 9 11 12 16 g 17 15 8 11 11 14 14 1 14 16 9 12 10 18 15 | 12 9 1o 14 11 28 26 3 14 15 11 12 11 19 20 3 19 17 12 11 9 14 16 . 15 17 16 16 10 19 22 3 18 16 14 12 14 17 21 I 16 20 15 16 14 18 15 , 21 17 16 12 11 19 20 g 16 17 8 12 19 16 ‘ 34 20 18 18 11 20 15 . 20 14 - 19 15 11 16 11 1 14 16 20 10 7 11 . 15 11 21 14 16 15 17 3 12 15 22 10 8 14 16 1 14 16 26 15 10 18 18 1 21 20 24 1o 9 15 14 i 18 19 25 15 16 15 16 g 15 16 26 1o 9 16 17 e 12 17 27 12 9 14 15 : 14 16 28 10 9 16 12 g 16 9 29 8 8 16 11 1 16 8 30 1o 9 10 1o , 16 10 31 11 1o 10 12 g 11 9 62 10 10 11 9 1 14 11 66 11 9 11 10 I 15 12 64 11 8 14 11 g 14 12 65 9 9 11 10 g 14 10 66 16 9 10 8 i 14 16 67 8 6 9 7 g 14 8 68 11 7 10 8 . 9 1o 69 1o 7 10 9 l 11 9 4o 11 7 11 7 3 14 10 41 10 7 11 8 g 9 1o 42 8 8 9 11 5 16 12 46 9 9 16 8‘“ g 11 10 Avg. 12 10 15 14 15 14 1.6.”; r'4 tux-PEP“ . .- w 1.4”“. gs‘.n'vi I’M . a ... _ A . 1‘51..- 22‘61“ n.‘ 'o'=- : -54- TABLE XXX TOTAL NUMBER OF STIHULATIONS FOR BILL CLASSIFIED ACCORD- ING TO WKETHER'TTEY PERTAINED TO HIS EATING OR GENERAL BEHAVIOR a2=========W========--==-= Brepkfast Lunch Supper T03 at; *Ee- ‘TU; E66- :26; ‘TD- Eat- - Day ta1 ing havior tel ing havior tal ing havior 4 0 0 0 7 3 4 13 3 10 5 8 2 6 l4 7 7 6 2 4 6 2 O 2 11 4 7 4 2 2 7 2 0 2 I 4 2 2 8 3 5 8 9 5 4 8 ‘ 5 3 6 4 2 9 6 2 1 {5'5 0 6 2 4 10 5 5 O I 19 16 3 6 6 0 11 6 4 2 i 8 1 7 3 1 2 12 4 6 1 I4 2 2 5 4 1 13 6 5 1 5 3 2 6 2 4 14 8 4 4 7 3 4 8 2 6 15 13 10 3 9 5 4 12 9 3 l6 3 2 1 11 6 5 17 6 3 3 12 8 4 14 13 1 18 6 3 3 9 8 1 10 8 2 19 6 6 0 4 4 0 7 5 2 20 8 7 1 6 6 0 21 13 11 2 l3 7 6 3 3 0 22 14 4 0 6 3 3 8 5 3 23 8 5 3 8 2 6 10 6 4 24 4 3 1 9 6 3 7 5 2 -h. - 3.. _;—_ _... _ ._ ______ — ...... GENERAL FOR BILL CLASSIFIED ACCORD- Q BEHAVIOR -55- XXX.continued TABLE STIIULATION WHETHER THEY'PERTAINED'IO HIS EATING OR TOTAL NUNBER 0F ING TO » , u t .- l.ul|l.l|llnillln Illo'l!ll'lq.1‘nllnll . r .6 “GM 4. :3 n2 7. Au AU 2 1- nu AU 3 n3 AU 0. n. «3 n2 .4 «3 Eh r m: .38 min SE1 .1- 06- "LPN r o .1 .V emu Bh h- 0+uao nan no 4 0 l 4- 7. l 2 6 4 6 2 7 2 2 0 O 4. 0 68.. .1 Ave Tt r o .1 .V ova Aunfn s a f. .Mtoo a-u 7. n2 7. .4 4. .3 92 AU 6. .4 no 4. .0 92 “a n. no n. AU evui B_.l_ age 92 .4 92 A9 AV .3 2- n2 7. 23 -3 AV .0 92 .4 13 .3 Eu .3 Tt l 1 vv 8 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 no 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 l 2 3 h. an 2- an 92 .2 my -3 «3 .3 «u -3 «3 .3 «3 .3 A. ‘4 4. .4 sq: -55- TABLE XXXI TOTAL NUTBER OF STIUULATIJIS FOR DON CLA8SIFIED.ACCORDHK} ; TO IFETEER TIEY ILRTAIVED TO ITS EATING OR GENERAL . BEITAVI OR 4 ...- ‘ m 7 Breakfast Lunch Supper To- Eat- Be- To- Eat— Be- To- Eat- Be- , Day tal ing havior tal ing havior tal ing havior g 4 O 0 0 6 3 3 6 2 4 1 5 6 1 5 12 4 8 4 1 3 6 3 0 3 14 3 11 8 3 5 7 0 0 O 7 4 3 6 3 3 8 4 2 2 6 3 3 2 2 0 9 3 2 1 3 2 1 O 1 1 10 4 0 4 ll 8 3 5 2 3 11 5 3 2 7 3 4 5 2 3 12 4 2 2 7 l 6 3 2 1 16 5 2 6 L1 6 6 o 2 2 o 14 4 3 l 7 3 4 3 3 0 15 6 0 6 6 3 3 5 5 0 l6 4 3 1 15 10 5 10 6 4 17 6 5 1 6 I 2 4 6 4 2 18 3 2 1 11 11 O 7 6 1 19 3 1 2 7 2 5 H 4 1 3 20 2 O 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 y 21 6 5 1 7 7 0 6 5 1 22 5 0 5 5 2 3 4 0 4 23 3 3 O 7 5 2 8 3 5 24 2 o 2 l 7 5 2 6 6 o -57- TABLEIXXXI continued TOTAL NUMBER OF STIYULATIONS FOR DON CLASSIFIED ACCORD- ING T0 WEE HER THEY PERTAINED TO HIS EATING 0R GENERAL BEHAVIOR -—-—-—--: Breakfast Lunch Supper To- Eat- Be- To- Eat- Be- To- Eat- Be- Day tal ing havior tal ing havior tal ing havior 25 4 4 0 5 2 3 6 6 0 26 3 0 3 8 4 4 8 6 2 27 4 2 2 7 5 2 5 4 1 28 2 2 0 8 5 3 0 0 0 29 4 3 1 7 5 2 0 0 0 30 2 1 l 4 2 2 0 0 O 31 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 34 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 35 2 2 O O O O 4 4 0 36 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 1 1 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 38 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 O 0 39 0 O 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 40 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 41 0 0 O 3 3 0 2 2 0 42 2 2 0 4 3 l 0 0 0 43 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 .=_.__--m--m------——-—-ha---—--------- VI: (L N 5". ( rt S U M O O R MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES In; HILHIIIIII i: 93 03 69 0344 I 3 1