Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) commonly report a fear of movement that can worsen symptoms and increase disability. The Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) is used to evaluate fear of movement and (re)injury, but findings have been inconsistent in different populations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Persian version of TSK-11 in individuals with upper limb CRPS. Specifically, to determine whether the factor structure aligns with the original 2-factor model, consisting of "activity avoidance" and "somatic focus." MATERIALS AND METHODS: People with CRPS (n=142, mean age=42, 54% female) completed the TSK. The psychometric testing included internal consistency, test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), and convergent construct validity. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were performed to evaluate the structural validity. RESULTS: The TSK-11 showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.93) and excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.93, 95% CI: 0.92-0.94). The Standard Error of Measurement and Minimal Detectable Change were 4.3 and 11.7, respectively. The results also demonstrated excellent criterion validity ( r =0.81). Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the original 2-factor model did not fit. Exploratory factor analysis derived a 2-factor solution with different items. The factor structure accounted for 64.91% of the variance, and the internal consistency of the factors was acceptable (>0.90). Expert consensus suggested naming these 2 factors as fear avoidance and magnification and helplessness. DISCUSSION: The TSK-11 demonstrates excellent retest reliability in people with CRPS. The original 2-factor structure was not confirmed, and a new 2-factor structure of the TSK-11 was proposed consisting of subscales for Fear Avoidance Beliefs and Magnification/Helplessness. Given the overlap between these constructs and the construct of pain catastrophizing, further study is needed to clarify both measures' content validity and relative uniqueness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".