Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Athlete Fear-Avoidance Questionnaire in Arabic: Preliminary Analysis of Fear-Avoidance in ACL-Reconstructed Recreational Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Athlete Fear-Avoidance Questionnaire (AFAQ) is a validated instrument that measures athletes’ fear and avoidance behaviors after an injury, particularly regarding their sporting activities. Purpose: This study aimed to adapt and validate the AFAQ for Arabic-speaking recreational players (AFAQ-Arabic) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Study Design: Cohort study; level of evidence: 3. Methods: The AFAQ underwent translation and cross-cultural adaptation according to the Beaton guidelines. A total of 104 male recreational players who had undergone ACLR completed the AFAQ-Arabic, the Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire (FABQ), and the Numerical Pain Scale (NPS). To assess test-retest reliability, a subset of 38 recreational players were asked to complete the AFAQ-Arabic twice, 1 week apart. Statistical tests were conducted to test the internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity of the AFAQ-Arabic. Results: The AFAQ-Arabic demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, 0.854) and excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.885) (95% CI, 0.784-0.942; P < .001). Minimal floor (4.8% scoring the minimum) and ceiling effects (1% scoring the maximum) were observed. Convergent validity showed significant positive weak correlations between the AFAQ-Arabic and (1) the FABQ-Physical Activity ( r = 0.340; P < .01), (2) the FABQ-Work ( r = 0.272; P < .01), and (3) the NPS ( r = 0.383; P < .01). Cross-cultural adaptation of the AFAQ-Arabic revealed linguistic and cultural relevance. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the AFAQ-Arabic was a reliable and valid tool for assessing fear avoidance in Arabic-speaking recreational players after ACLR. Future studies are needed to measure athlete fear-avoidance in injured Arabic-speaking athletes to understand its psychological aspects in rehabilitation and potentially aid in tailored interventions for improving outcomes.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".