MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979291024 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.75

Development and Validation of the Athlete Fear Avoidance Questionnaire

2015· article· en· W1979291024 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)AthletesClinical psychologyApplied psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it