Psychometric testing of a short form, 11-item Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia–Arabic version

Abstract

To examine the psychometric properties of a short form TSK-AV in Arabic-speaking patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). One hundred one CLBP patients recruited from Jordan University Hospital provided demographic information and completed the TSK-AV full version and measures of pain severity and disability. Explorative factor analysis was used to determine whether a generally accepted 2-factor model consisting of fewer TSK items applies to the TSK-AV and exhibits acceptable psychometric properties. A 2-factor model provided an adequate-to-good fit to our data, explaining 46.54% of the variance. Factor 1 (labeled as “activity avoidance”) comprised items 1, 2, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 17. Factor 2 was labeled as “somatic focus” and comprised items 3, 6, 11, and 13. The 11-item TSK-AV comprised of the 2 factors (TSK-AV-11) as well as its subscales all remained independent significant (P < .001) predictors of pain disability in Jordanian patients with CLBP after accounting for factors such as age, gender, pain duration, and pain severity. The short, 11-item TSK-AV (TSK-AV-11) appears to be an ideal clinical and research tool for measuring fear of movement/re (injury) in Arabic-speaking patients.

The best structure of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for patients with chronic low back pain has two domains and nine items

“…The present study compared different Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia structures: model 1the 17-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia with one domain, based on the original Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia version 12 ; model 2the 11-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia with one domain, based on the version proposed by Woby et al 14 (items 1-3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 17); model 3the 11-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia with two domains based on Al-Shudifat et al 16 (domain 1: items 1, 2, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 17; domain 2: items 3, 6, 11 and 13); model 4the 11-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia with two domains based on Roelofs et al 17 (domain 1: items 1, 2, 10, 13, 15 and 17; domain 2: 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11) and model 5the 9-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia with two domains after excluding items with factor loadings below 0.40 (items 5 and 10) in the structure proposed by Roelofs et al 17 Descriptive data are presented as mean and standard deviation, median and interquartile range and raw numbers and percentage. For criterion validity, initially, the data normality was checked with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test; the correlation between the different Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia models was assessed with the Spearman correlation coefficient (rho).…”

“…The present study compared the four Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia versions that were previously published assessing people with chronic low back pain: Based on the structural equations modelling, our model adapted to the study conducted by Roelofs et al 17 is the most adequate compared with the versions by Siqueira et al, 12 Woby et al, 14 Al-Shudifat et al 16 and Roelofs et al 17 Structural validity is the measurement property that assesses 'the degree to which the scores of a patient-reported outcome measure are an adequate reflection of the dimensionality of the construct to be measured'. 28 This means that an instrument with adequate structural validity adequately shows the number of dimensions that construct refers to, which is crucial, especially regarding rehabilitation.…”

“…16 The original Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia version comprises 17 items that would be explained by the same latent variable (kinesiophobia). On the other hand, Al-Shudifat et al 16 and Roelofs et al 17 identified two domains: 'activity avoidance', which relates to the latent variable of the original Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, and 'somatic focus', which refers to the tendency to notice and report physical symptoms which are not correlated with objective measures of health status, influencing on the increased reports of pain intensity and negative emotions. 34 In summary, based on the available literature, we observed that there are robust studies contrary to the original structure of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia with one domain and 17 items.…”

“…Besides, other studies contest the instrument's dimensions and items. [13][14][15][16][17] Rosenbloom et al 13 state that the 13-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia is reliable and likely the most adequate; Woby et al 14 describe an 11-item unidimensional Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, while Tkachuk et al, 15 Al-Shudifat et al 16 and Roelofs et al 17 identified an 11-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia with two domains. In the clinical context, the option of different versions of the same instrument to assess Kinesiophobia raises doubts among professionals/therapists about which is the best instrument for this population (with more or less items?).…”

Measurement properties of the Brazilian versions of Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in individuals with shoulder pain

“…The literature recommends that the psychometric properties should be tested when an outcome measure is used in a different population or language [ 22 , 23 ]. The psychometric properties of those questionnaires were verified in individuals with different disorders, such as low back pain [ 16 , 21 , 24 , 25 ], neck pain [ 26 , 27 ], fibromyalgia syndrome [ 28 ], and temporomandibular disorders [ 14 , 29 ]. Although the FABQ and TSK were already translated into Brazilian Portuguese [ 21 , 29 – 31 ], their psychometric properties have not been established in individuals with shoulder pain yet.…”