Measurement Properties of Two Questionnaires Assessing Fear-Avoidance in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

IF 2.2 3区医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1177/01632787241264588

Gabriela Zuelli Martins Silva, Mariana Romano de Lira, Luiz Ricardo Garcêz, Steven Z George, Randy Neblett, Adriano Pezolato, Thamiris Costa Lima, Thais Cristina Chaves

{"title":"Measurement Properties of Two Questionnaires Assessing Fear-Avoidance in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.","authors":"Gabriela Zuelli Martins Silva, Mariana Romano de Lira, Luiz Ricardo Garcêz, Steven Z George, Randy Neblett, Adriano Pezolato, Thamiris Costa Lima, Thais Cristina Chaves","doi":"10.1177/01632787241264588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Fear-Avoidance Components Scale (FACS) and the Fear of Daily Activities Questionnaire (FDAQ) assess fear-avoidance model components. However, the questionnaires are not available in Brazilian Portuguese. This study aimed to translate the original English FACS and FDAQ into Brazilian (Br) Portuguese and assess their measurement properties in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP). One hundred thirty volunteers with CLBP participated in this study. Structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and hypothesis testing for construct validity were analyzed. Results indicated a 2-factor solution for the FACS-Br, while the FDAQ-Br had a one-factor solution. Internal consistency showed acceptable Cronbach's alpha (alpha >.8). Suitable reliability was found for the FDAQ-Br (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] = .98). For both FACS-Br factors, suitable reliability was found as well (ICC = .95 and .94). Hypothesis testing for construct validity confirmed more than 75% of the hypotheses proposed a priori for the FACS maladaptive pain/movement-related beliefs domain and the FDAQ-Br. In conclusion, the FACS-Br and FDAQ-Br demonstrated acceptable reliability, internal consistency, and structural validity measurement properties and their correlation (r < .50) suggests that the tools are not interchangeable measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"1632787241264588"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241264588","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Fear-Avoidance Components Scale (FACS) and the Fear of Daily Activities Questionnaire (FDAQ) assess fear-avoidance model components. However, the questionnaires are not available in Brazilian Portuguese. This study aimed to translate the original English FACS and FDAQ into Brazilian (Br) Portuguese and assess their measurement properties in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP). One hundred thirty volunteers with CLBP participated in this study. Structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and hypothesis testing for construct validity were analyzed. Results indicated a 2-factor solution for the FACS-Br, while the FDAQ-Br had a one-factor solution. Internal consistency showed acceptable Cronbach's alpha (alpha >.8). Suitable reliability was found for the FDAQ-Br (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] = .98). For both FACS-Br factors, suitable reliability was found as well (ICC = .95 and .94). Hypothesis testing for construct validity confirmed more than 75% of the hypotheses proposed a priori for the FACS maladaptive pain/movement-related beliefs domain and the FDAQ-Br. In conclusion, the FACS-Br and FDAQ-Br demonstrated acceptable reliability, internal consistency, and structural validity measurement properties and their correlation (r < .50) suggests that the tools are not interchangeable measures.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估慢性腰痛患者恐惧规避心理的两种问卷的测量特性

恐惧-回避成分量表（FACS）和日常活动恐惧问卷（FDAQ）评估恐惧-回避模型的成分。然而，这些问卷并没有巴西葡萄牙语版本。本研究旨在将英文原版的 FACS 和 FDAQ 翻译成巴西葡萄牙语，并评估它们在慢性腰痛（CLBP）患者中的测量特性。130 名患有慢性腰背痛的志愿者参与了这项研究。研究分析了结构效度、内部一致性、重测信度和假设检验。结果表明，FACS-Br 具有双因素解，而 FDAQ-Br 具有单因素解。内部一致性显示了可接受的 Cronbach's alpha（alpha >.8）。FDAQ-Br 的信度合适（类内相关系数 [ICC] = 0.98）。对于 FACS-Br 的两个因子，也发现了合适的信度（ICC = 0.95 和 0.94）。总之，FACS-Br 和 FDAQ-Br 显示出了可接受的可靠性、内部一致性和结构效度测量特性，它们之间的相关性（r < .50）表明这两种工具并不是可以互换的测量工具。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Evaluation & the Health Professions 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days