Cross-cultural translation and psychometric validation of the French version of the Fear-Avoidance Components Scale (FACS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Fear-Avoidance Components Scale (FACS) is a reliable and valid instrument widely used to assess fear-avoidance beliefs related to pain and disability. However, there is a scarcity of validated translations of the FACS in different cultural and linguistic contexts, including the French population. This study aimed to translate and validate the French version of the FACS (FACS-Fr/CF), examining its psychometric properties among French-speaking individuals. METHODS: A cross-cultural translation process-including forward translation, backward translation, expert committee review, and pre-testing-was conducted to develop the FACS-Fr/CF. The translated version was administered to a sample of French-speaking adults (n = 55) with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Internal consistency (including confirmatory analyses of the 2 factors identified in the Serbian version), test-retest reliability and convergent validity were then assessed. RESULTS: The FACS-Fr/CF demonstrated high global internal consistency (α = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.96) as well as high internal consistency of the 2 factors identified in the Serbian version (α = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.86-0.94 and α = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.94, respectively). Test-retest analysis revealed a moderate (close to high) reliability (ICC = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.82-0.94 and r = 0.89; p<0.005). Convergent validity was supported by significant correlations between the FACS-Fr/CF scores and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (r = 0.82; p < 0.005), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (r = 0.72; p < 0.005) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (r = 0.66; p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: The present study provides evidence for the cross-cultural translation and psychometric validation of the FACS-Fr/CF. The FACS-Fr/CF exhibits a high internal consistency, a moderate (close to high) test-retest reliability, and good construct validity, suggesting its utility in assessing fear-avoidance beliefs in the French-speaking population. This validated tool can enhance the assessment and understanding of fear-avoidance behaviors and facilitate cross-cultural research in pain-related studies.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".