Cited by 475Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchPain Management and Treatment

The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia: further examination of psychometric properties in patients with chronic low back pain and fibromyalgia

Roelofs, Jeffrey, Goubert, Liesbet, Peters, Madelon L., Vlaeyen, Johan W.S., Crombez, Geert·2004·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

The present study attempted to replicate the robustness of a two‐factor model of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) in chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients and fibromyalgia patients, by means of confirmatory factor analysis. Construct and predictive validity of the TSK subscales were also examined. Results clearly indicated that a two‐factor model fitted best in both pain samples. These two factors were labelled somatic focus, which reflects the belief in underlying and serious medical problems, and activity avoidance, which reflects the belief that activity may result in (re)injury or increased pain. Construct validity of the TSK and its subscales was supported by moderate correlation coefficients with self‐report measures of pain‐related fear, pain catastrophising, and disability, predominantly in patients with CLBP. Predictive validity was supported by moderate correlation coefficients with performance on physical performance tests (i.e., lifting tasks, bicycle task) mainly in CLBP patients. Implications of the results are discussed and directions for future research are provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.11.016

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roelofs, J., Goubert, L., Peters, M. L., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., & Crombez, G.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Roelofs, Jeffrey
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-10
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
495-502
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W2102230060
Cited by
472
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 21
FWCI
5.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, kinesiophobia, chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, psychometric properties, two-factor model, somatic focus, activity avoidance, pain catastrophizing, disability, physical performance, fear-avoidance beliefs
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Chronic Disease, Disability Evaluation, Fear, Female, Fibromyalgia, Humans, Kinesthesis, Male, Middle Aged, Movement, Neuropsychological Tests, Pain Measurement, Phobic Disorders, Physical Fitness, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Low Back Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review