Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Athlete Fear Avoidance Questionnaire in Italian university athletes with musculoskeletal injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to translate, culturally adapt and validate an Italian version of the Athlete Fear Avoidance Questionnaire (AFAQ-I). We conducted a cross-sectional evaluation of the psychometric properties of the AFAQ-I in university athletes with musculoskeletal injuries, culturally adapting it in accordance with international standards. Psychometric evaluation included the assessment of structural validity (exploratory factor analysis), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha and inter-item correlation), test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient, (ICC) (2,1)], measurement error and minimum detectable change (MDC). To examine construct validity, we compared (Spearman ρ) the AFAQ-I with a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) subscales [FABQ-Physical Activity (FABQ-PA) and FABQ-Work (FABQ-W)]. The AFAQ-I was administered to 133 university athletes with musculoskeletal injuries (95 males and 38 females; mean age 25 years, SD 5; mean average pain duration 5.6 months, SD 8.7). Factor analysis revealed an acceptable 1-factor 10-item solution (explained common variance at minimum rank factor analysis: 0.74) although a couple of items (#6 and 9) presented low factor loadings, suggesting the presence of a small secondary dimension. Cronbach's alpha was 0.78 and the average inter-item correlation was 0.27. ICC (2,1) was 0.95 and the MDC was 4.4 points. As hypothesized a priori, the AFAQ-I moderately correlated with NPRS (ρ = 0.42), PCS (ρ = 0.59), FABQ-PA (ρ = 0.40) and FABQ-W (ρ = 0.34). In conclusion, the AFAQ-I is a valid Italian translation of AFAQ that demonstrates acceptable psychometric properties. However, we recommend further analysis of the construct definition of the AFAQ and additional examination of its structural validity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".