Table 2 Advantages and challenges of different settings for the observation of behavioral eating and feeding
Setting | Examples | Advantages | Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|
Naturalistic | Home mealtimes, restaurants | • Hawthorne effect may be somewhat lessened in a more familiar naturalistic environment • Repeated measures more easily obtained • Provides glimpse into participants’ “real world” behaviors and environment • Many participants can collect data at the same time (can send out multiple video cameras to multiple families) | • Greater potential for lost data • Video and audio quality not assured • Protocol or meals are not standardized and therefore are more variable • Additional participants need to have informed consent completed • Resource intensive • Cannot measure amount of food eaten by each individual |
Laboratory | Structured laboratory settings | • Controlled laboratory environment • Environment can be standardized or manipulated to answer specific questions • Video and audio files in control of the research team • Able to measure amount of food consumed • If multiple laboratory settings exist, can run several participants at once | • Hawthorne effect heightened • May be difficult for participants to travel to the location • Technical issues (video camera, equipment failure) • Difficult to obtain repeated measures |
Semi-naturalistic | Laboratories set up as restaurants, or dining room/kitchen spaces | • Hawthorne effect theoretically lessened • Controlled laboratory environment • Environment can be standardized or manipulated to answer specific questions • Video and audio files in control of the research team • Able to measure amount of food consumed | • Resource intensive – few facilities exist • Technical challenges with regard to hidden cameras, microphones • May be difficult for participants to travel to the location • Scheduling of facilities (only one family/individual can use the facility at a time) • Difficult to obtain repeated measures |