Development and Validation of the Athlete Fear Avoidance Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The fear-avoidance model was developed in an attempt to explain the process by which "pain experience" and "pain behavior" become dissociated from the actual pain sensation in individuals who manifest the phenomenon of exaggerated pain perception. High levels of fear avoidance can lead to chronic pain and disability and have successfully predicted rehabilitation time in the work-related-injury population. Existing fear-avoidance questionnaires have all been developed for the general population, but these questionnaires may not be specific enough to fully assess fear avoidance in an athletic population that copes with pain differently than the general population. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Athlete Fear Avoidance Questionnaire (AFAQ). DESIGN: Qualitative research to develop the AFAQ and a cross-sectional study to validate the scale. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: For questionnaire development, a total of 8 experts in the fields of athletic therapy, sport psychology, and fear avoidance were called upon to generate and rate items for the AFAQ. For determining concurrent validity, 99 varsity athletes from various sports participated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A total of 99 varsity athletes completed the AFAQ, the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. We used Pearson correlations to establish concurrent validity. RESULTS: Concurrent validity was established with significant correlations between the AFAQ and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-Physical Activity (r = 0.352, P > .001) as well as with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (r = 0.587, P > .001). High internal consistency of our questionnaire was established with a Cronbach α coefficient of 0.805. The final version of the questionnaire includes 10 items with good internal validity (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a questionnaire with good internal and external validity. The AFAQ is a scale that measures sport-injury-related fear avoidance in athletes and could be used to identify potential psychological barriers to rehabilitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".