Reliability, responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the two Fear Avoidance and Beliefs Questionnaire scales in Italian subjects with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) is a widely used outcome measure. There is still a lack of information concerning responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), limiting its use for clinical and research purposes. AIM: The aim of this study was to examine reliability, responsiveness and MCID of the two FABQ scales in subjects with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Methodological research based on a prospective single-group observational study. SETTING: Outpatient, Unit of rehabilitation. POPULATION: Chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: At the beginning and the end of a multidisciplinary program (8-week), 129 subjects completed the FABQ scales. Reliability was determined as internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (96-hour interval; N.=64; Interclass correlation coefficient [ICC 2.1]). Responsiveness was calculated both by distribution-based and anchor-based methods, using as external criterion the Global Perceived Effect Scale (GPE: 7 levels), rated by each individual. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha and ICC(<inf>2,1</inf>) were respectively: 0.75 and 0.90 for FABQ-Physical Activity Scale (FABQ-PA), and 0.85 and 0.95 for FABQ-Work Scale (FABQ-W). Minimum detectable change (MDC<inf>95</inf>) values were 3.69 points for FABQ-PA, and 5.95 points for FABQ-W. In receiver-operating characteristic curves, splitting GPE data into null/minimal/moderate improvement vs. large improvement (GPE 0-2 vs. GPE 3): 1) for FABQ-PA, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97 and the best cutoff score identifying meaningful change in fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity was a change of 4 points; 2) for FABQ-W, the AUC was 0.97 and the best cutoff score for meaningful change in fear-avoidance beliefs about work activities was a change of 7 points. CONCLUSIONS: After triangulation of the above results, a change of 4 points for FABQ-PA and 7 points for FABQ-W were selected as MCID. These two values represent cutoffs that seem to accurately identify meaningful change in fear-avoidance beliefs, according to subject's judgement. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The present study calculated - in a sample of people with chronic low back pain - the minimal clinically important change of the two FABQ scales (FABQ-Physical Activity Scale and FABQ-Work Scale). These values increase confidence in interpreting score changes, thus enhancing their meaningful use in both research and clinical contexts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".