Skip to main content
Download PDF

Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in chronic neck pain patients (TSK-neck): structural and construct validity and reliability in a Brazilian population

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 151 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To date, there are no studies in the literature that define the internal structure of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) in patients with chronic neck pain based on factorial analysis. As such, we aimed to verify and identify the best structure of the Brazilian version of the TSK in patients with chronic neck pain.

Methods

We included Brazilian participants aged ≥18 years, both sexes, with self-reported neck pain for more than 3 months and pain intensity ≥3 on the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Dimensionality and number of TSK items were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We tested the following internal structures: structure 1 (1 domain and 17 items), structure 2 (1 domain and 11 items), structure 3 (2 domains and 11 items), and structure 4 (2 domains and 9 items). We used the Pain-Related Catastrophizing Thoughts Scale (PCTS) and the NPRS for construct validity. In addition, we assessed test-retest reliability for the seven-day interval using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), Cronbach’s alpha to assess internal consistency, and ceiling and floor effects.

Results

The study sample included of 335 patients. Most were women (77.6%), young adults (~ 34 years), single (48.4%), with complete primary education (57.3%), physically inactive (66.6%), with a mean pain duration of 46 months and a mean pain intensity of ~ 5 points on the NPRS. Redundancy was found in the following items: item 1 with item 2 (modification indices = 21.419) and item 13 with item 15 (modification indices = 13.641). Subsequently, based on these paired analyses, the items with the lowest factor loadings (items 2 and 15) were excluded. As such, TSK structure 4 was composed of two domains (“somatic focus” and “activity avoidance”) and 9 items, which showed adequate fit indices and lower AIC and SABIC values. We observed significant values (p < 0.05) with a correlation magnitude greater than 0.142 to 0.657 between the two domains of the TSK-neck and the other instruments (PCTS and NPRS). We found excellent reliability (ICC2,1 ≥ 0.96) and adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.98) of the TSK-neck. Finally, ceiling and floor effects were not observed.

Conclusion

The TSK-neck structure with two domains (somatic focus and activity avoidance) and nine items is the most appropriate for patients with chronic neck pain.

Peer Review reports

Background

Neck pain, a common musculoskeletal disorder, is associated with several physical, psychosocial, and individual risk factors [1]. Regarding psychosocial factors, an important tool to assess fear of movement is the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). It is a self-report measure consisting of 17 items and 1 domain, developed in English in 1990. Scores range from 17 to 68 points. The higher the score, the greater the degree of kinesiophobia, indicating that the individual is afraid of movement [2].

The TSK has already been translated, adapted, and validated for several languages, such as Dutch [3], French [4], Norwegian [5], Spanish [6], and Swedish [7]. In Brazil, the validation study was developed by Siqueira et al. [8] in low back pain patients and showed good potential for clinical application, but did not meet the suggestions of the Rasch model. To the best of our knowledge, the use of the TSK in neck pain showed acceptable reliability and construct validity in the Persian [9] and Japanese versions [10].

A study [11] evaluated the measurement properties of the TSK in people with neck pain and, using Rasch analysis, identified a structure with 1 domain and 11 items as adequate, concluding that an instrument is a good option for assessing fear of movement. Recently, a study in Brazil performed confirmatory factor analysis and found a valid internal structure of the TSK with 9 items and 2 domains (activity avoidance and somatic focus). However, it was applied only to patients with chronic low back pain [12].

To date, there are no studies in the literature that define the internal structure of the TSK in patients with chronic neck pain based on factorial analysis. Therefore, due to the importance of the correct use of this instrument, the present study aimed to verify and identify the best structure of the Brazilian version of the TSK in patients with chronic neck pain.

Methods

Study design and ethical aspects

A cross-sectional study of the structural validity of the TSK. Data collection took place in physiotherapy clinics in the city of São Luís (Maranhão, northeast of Brazil). In addition, an online platform was used to collect data from patients with neck pain throughout the country (Brazil). This study was previously approved by the research ethics committee of each institution (report number 3.182.525).

Sample size and eligibility criteria

The sample size followed the recommendations according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) [13]. Namely, seven times the number of items in the questionnaire. Therefore, we set a minimum of 119 participants to conduct the present study based on the 17-item TSK. In addition, we recruited a sub-sample to check the test and retest reliability of the TSK-neck, with a sample size based on the COSMIN recommendations (n = 50) [14].

We included individuals of both sexes, age ≥ 18 years, self-reported neck pain ≥3 points on the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and pain duration ≥3 months. We excluded individuals with a history of tumors, cervical fractures, infectious diseases, physiotherapeutic treatment of the cervical region in the past 3 months, the presence of neurological disorders involving the central nervous system, and psychiatric changes that would make it impossible to complete the questionnaire.

Assessments

We performed an initial assessment that included personal, sociodemographic, anthropometric and clinical aspects. We used the Brazilian version of the NPRS [15] to characterize participants’ pain intensity on a one-dimensional scale from 0 to 10 points, where 0 represents “no pain” and 10 represents “worst pain imaginable”.

The TSK is a self-administered scale consisting of 17 questions about pain and symptom intensity. The score varies from one to four points, with a score of 1 indicating “strongly disagree”, 2 indicating “somewhat disagree”, 3 indicating “somewhat agree”, and 4 indicating “strongly agree”. To obtain the final total score, it is necessary to invert the scores of questions 4, 8, 12, and 16. The final score can be a minimum of 17 points and a maximum of 68 points. Higher scores indicate a greater degree of kinesiophobia [8]. In the present study, we used the version of the TSK translated and adapted in Brazil by Siqueira et al. [8].

Statistical analysis

Regarding the descriptive statistical analysis (quantitative and categorical), we present the values as mean, standard deviation, absolute number, and percentage. We then performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to identify the best TSK structure using R Studio software (Boston, MA, USA), using the packages lavaan and semPlot, as well as the implementation of a polychoric matrix and the robust diagonally weighted least squares (RDWLS) extraction method [16, 17]. We considered adequate values in the fit indices for the following cutoff points: chi-square/degrees of freedom (DF) < 3, comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) > 0.90, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08 [17, 18].

When comparing the different models, lower values of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criterion (SABIC) indicated the most appropriate structure [19]. Factor loadings were considered adequate with values greater than 0.40 [20]. We tested 4 TSK structures: 1) the original 17-item unidimensional structure proposed for the Brazilian version of the TKS [21]; 2) the reduced 11-item unidimensional structures [11, 22]; 3) the 11-item two-dimensional structure [23]; and 4) the 9-item two-dimensional structure generated here using Modification Indices (MI), a questionnaire refinement resource within CFA.

We used the Pain-Related Catastrophizing Thoughts Scale (PCTS) [24] and the NPRS [15] for construct validity, with the hypothesis that there would be a positive Spearman correlation (from 0.30 to 0.50) between the two domains of the TSK-neck (activity avoidance and somatic focus) and the other instruments (PCTS [24] and NPRS [15]). In addition, we assessed test-retest reliability for the seven-day interval using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC) [25]. For interpretation of ICC2,1 values: less than 0.40 = poor; between 0.40 and 0.75 = moderate; between 0.75 and 0.90 = substantial; and greater than 0.90 = excellent [26]. Cronbach’s alpha was also used to assess internal consistency, with values between 0.70 and 0.95 indicating good internal consistency [27].

Finally, we also assessed ceiling and floor effects. By definition, these effects occur when a number of study participants (more than 15%) reach the minimum or maximum value of the questionnaire, indicating a problem in assessing the responsiveness of the instrument [28].

Results

The study sample included of 335 patients. Most were women (77.6%), young adults (~ 34 years), single (48.4%), with complete primary education (57.3%), physically inactive (66.6%), with a mean pain duration of 46 months and a mean pain intensity of ~ 5 points on the NPRS (Table 1).

Table 1 Clinical characteristics of participants with neck pain (n = 335)
Full size table

Table 2 shows the structures tested. First, we tested the 1-domain, 17-item version of the TSK (structure 1) and the 1-domain, 11-item version of the TSK (structure 2), but all fit indices showed inadequate values (chi-square/DF > 3, TLI and CFI < 0.90, and RMSEA > 0.08). Subsequently, we obtained the version with two domains (“somatic focus” and “activity avoidance”) and 11 items as Structure 3, and all fit indices were also inadequate.

Table 2 Comparison among the internal structures of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (n = 335)
Full size table

Starting from structure 3, we use the MI to identify the problems of this structure. Redundancy was found in the following items: item 1 with item 2 (MI = 21.419) and item 13 with item 15 (MI = 13.641). Subsequently, based on these paired analyses, the items with the lowest factor loadings (items 2 and 15) were excluded. As such, TSK structure 4 was composed of two domains (“somatic focus” and “activity avoidance”) and 9 items, which showed adequate fit indices and lower AIC and SABIC values (Table 2). Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 1, the factor loadings between domains and items were adequate (> 0.40). This correct TSK structure (called TSK-neck) is available in Additional file.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Path diagram of the nine-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia with values representing factor loadings between domains and their items. AA: Activity avoidance domain; SF: Somatic focus domain. The dotted line indicates the first item in the domain

Full size image

Regarding the construct validity, we observed significant values (p < 0.05) with a correlation magnitude greater than 0.142 to 0.657 between the two domains of the TSK-neck (activity avoidance and somatic focus) and the other instruments (PCTS and NPRS) (Table 3). Table 4 shows the characteristics of the neck pain sub-sample used for test and retest reliability.

Table 3 Correlation between Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-neck) domains and other instruments for construct validity (n = 335)
Full size table
Table 4 Neck pain sub-sample used for test-retest reliability (n = 50)
Full size table

Table 5 shows the excellent reliability (ICC2,1 ≥ 0.96) and adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.98) of the TSK-neck. For the activity avoidance domain, we observed that 2.1 and 2.4% of participants achieved the minimum (4) and maximum (16) scores, respectively. For the somatic focus domain, 3.9 and 1.5% of participants achieved the minimum (5) and maximum (20) scores, respectively. Thus, ceiling and floor effects (< 15%) were not observed.

Table 5 Reliability of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-neck) sub-sample (n = 50)
Full size table

Discussion

Our study found that the most appropriate internal structure for the TSK-neck has two domains (“somatic focus” and “activity avoidance”) and 9 items. The other structures tested (17-item unidimensional, 11-item unidimensional, and 11-item bidimensional) showed inadequate fit indices in the factor analysis.

In general, proposed patient-reported outcome measures should be evaluated and adapted for different populations and specific diseases [29]. Due to this scientific path, several versions of the same instrument are published each year until the best version is found for a specific sample. For example, the structure of the TSK has been shown to be unstable in several studies: in patients with low back pain, Rosenbloom et al. [30] state that the 13-item TSK is reliable and probably the most appropriate; Woby et al. [22] describe an 11-item unidimensional TSK; Tkachuk et al. [31], Al-Shudifat et al. [32], and Roelofs et al. [23] identified an 11-item, two-domain TSK; and finally, Pontes-Silva et al. [12] suggest that a two-domain (activity avoidance and somatic focus), nine-item structure is most appropriate.

In contrast, only one study has evaluated the internal structure of the TSK in patients with neck pain of primarily traumatic origin, identifying the unidimensional internal structure with 11 items as adequate by Rasch analysis, but proposing a new calculation of the scale score based on a transformation matrix [11]. In our study of patients with chronic neck pain, we tested this internal structure (structure 2) previously proposed in the literature [11], but all the fit indices were inadequate, so this internal structure was rejected. Due to this new proposal, as well as the lack of studies similar to ours, new studies must focus their efforts on confirming a valid internal structure for the TSK neck that remains stable regardless of the culture and language of the population.

In terms of clinical applicability, it is essential that the constructs assessed by a scale are clear and well defined. In addition, the items of a scale must not be redundant or discrepant. Thus, factor analysis via structural equation modeling identifies the best relationships between latent variables and their items [16]. Therefore, the 9-item two-dimensional version has clear constructs and is short enough to be completed quickly, in addition to having enough items to adequately assess the domains. In addition, the TSK-neck structure has substantial reliability and internal consistency, with established standard errors of measurement and minimal detectable change, which strengthens the recommendation for its use in the clinical context [26].

Finally, regarding the limitations of the study, we conducted the analysis on a sample of Brazilian participants. In fact, it is crucial that new studies with samples from other countries test the nine-item TSK-neck with two domains. In addition, other measurement properties such as reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness should also be considered.

Conclusion

The TSK-neck structure with two domains (somatic focus and activity avoidance) and nine items is the most appropriate for patients with chronic neck pain.

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials in this paper are available from the corresponding author on request.

Abbreviations

AIC:

Akaike Information Criterion

BIC:

Bayesian Information Criterion

CI:

Confidence interval

CFA:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFI:

comparative fit index

COSMIN:

COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments)

DF:

degree of freedom

LEFS:

Lower Extremity Functional Scale

NPRS:

11-item Numeric Pain Rating Scale

RDWLS:

Robust Diagonally Weighted Least Squares

rho:

Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient

RMSEA:

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

SRMR:

Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual

TLI:

Tucker Lewis index

TSK:

Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia

References

  1. Kazeminasab S, Nejadghaderi SA, Amiri P, Pourfathi H, Araj-Khodaei M, Sullman MJM, et al. Neck pain: global epidemiology, trends and risk factors. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23:26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kori SH. Kinesiophobia: a new view of chronic pain behavior. Pain Manag. 1990;3:1990.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vlaeyen JWS, Crombez G. Fear of movement/(re) injury, avoidance and pain disability in chronic low back pain patients. Man Ther. 1999;4:187–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. French DJ, Roach PJ, Mayes S. Peur du mouvement chez des accidentés du travail: l’Échelle de Kinésiophobie de Tampa (EKT). Can J Behav Sci. 2002;34:28–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Damsgård E, Fors T, Anke A, Røe C. The Tampa scale of Kinesiophobia: A Rasch analysis of its properties in subjects with low back and more widespread pain. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:672–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gómez-Pérez L, López-Martínez AE, Ruiz-Párraga GT. Psychometric properties of the spanish version of the Tampa scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). J Pain. 2011;12:425–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bunketorp L, Carlsson J, Kowalski J, Stener-Victorin E. Evaluating the reliability of multi-item scales: a non-parametric approach to the ordered categorical structure of data collected with the Swedish version of the Tampa scale for Kinesiophobia and the self-efficacy scale. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:330–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Siqueira FB, Salmela LFT, de Magalhães LC. Análise das propriedades psicométricas da versão brasileira da escala tampa de cinesiofobia. Acta ortop bras. 2007;15:19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Askary-Ashtiani A, Ebrahimi-Takamejani I, Torkaman G, Amiri M, Mousavi SJ. Reliability and validity of the Persian versions of the fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire and Tampa scale of Kinesiophobia in patients with neck pain. Spine Phila Pa. 2014;39:E1095–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kikuchi N, Matsudaira K, Sawada T, Oka H. Psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the Tampa scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-J) in patients with whiplash neck injury pain and/or low back pain. J Orthop Sci. 2015;20:985–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Walton D, Elliott JM. A higher-order analysis supports use of the 11-item version of the Tampa scale for kinesiophobia in people with neck pain. Phys Ther. 2013;93:60–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pontes-Silva A, Dibai-Filho AV, Costa de Jesus SF, Santos de Oliveira LA, Bassi-Dibai D, de Paula F, et al. The best structure of the Tampa scale for Kinesiophobia for patients with chronic low back pain has two domains and nine items. Clin Rehabil. 2023;37:407–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1147–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick D, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN study design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. COSMIN. 2019:1–32.

  15. Ferreira-Valente MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain. 2011;152:2399–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ullman JB. Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving forward. J Pers Assess. 2006;87:35–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. The Guilford Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. MPR-online. 2003;8 May:23–74.

  19. Araujo GGC, Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes CA, Pontes-Silva A, Pinheiro JS, Mendes LP, Gonçalves MC, et al. Brazilian version of the neck Bournemouth questionnaire does not have a well-defined internal structure in patients with chronic neck pain. Clin Rehabil. 2021;35:1773–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barreto FS, Avila MA, Pinheiro JS, Almeida MQG, Ferreira C de SB, Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes CA, et al. Less is More: Five-item Neck Disability Index to Assess Chronic Neck Pain Patients in Brazil. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021;46:E688–93.

  21. Siqueira FB, Teixeira-Salmela LF, Magalhães LD. Analysis of the psychometric properties of the Brazilian version the Tampa scale for kinesiophobia. Acta Ortopédica Bras. 2007;15:19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Woby SR, Roach NK, Urmston M, Watson PJ. Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: A shortened version of the Tampa scale for Kinesiophobia. Pain. 2005;117:137–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roelofs J, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW, Goossens M, Thibault P, Boersma K, et al. Fear of movement and (re) injury in chronic musculoskeletal pain: evidence for an invariant two-factor model of the Tampa scale for Kinesiophobia across pain diagnoses and Dutch, Swedish, and Canadian samples. Pain. 2007;131:181–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sardá Junior J, Nicholas MK, Pereira IA, Pimenta CD, Asghari A, Cruz RM. Validation of the pain-related catastrophizing thoughts scale. Acta Fisiátrica. 2008:15.

  25. De Jesus SFC, Bassi-Dibai D, Pontes-Silva A, da Silva de Araujo A, de Freitas Faria Silva S, Veneroso CE, et al. Construct validity and reliability of the 2-minute step test (2MST) in individuals with low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23:1062.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Pontes-Silva A, Avila MA, de Araujo A Penha TF, Takahasi HY, Bassi-Dibai D, Dibai-Filho AV, et al. Assessment of the reliability of the leg lateral reach test to measure Thoraco-Lumbo-pelvic rotation in individuals with chronic low Back pain. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2021;44:566–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual life Res. 2012;21:651–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pontes-Silva A, Avila MA, Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes CA, Dibai-Filho AV. The short-form neck disability index has adequate measurement properties in chronic neck pain patients. Eur Spine J. 2021;30:3593–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA, Long JC, Henderson SB, Murphy LED, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Heal Expect. 2021;24:1015–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rosenbloom BN, Pagé MG, Isaac L, Campbell F, Stinson JN, Cribbie R, et al. Fear of movement in children and adolescents undergoing major surgery: A psychometric evaluation of the Tampa scale for Kinesiophobia. Eur J Pain (United Kingdom). 2020;24:1999–2014.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tkachuk GA, Harris CA. Psychometric properties of the Tampa scale for kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11). J Pain. 2012;13:970–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Al-Shudifat A, Farah K, Hawamdeh ZM, Alqudah A, Juweid ME. Psychometric testing of a short form, 11-item Tampa scale of Kinesiophobia-Arabic version: TSK-AV-11. Med (Baltimore). 2020;99:e20292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the participants who kindly volunteered for this research.

Funding

This study was partially supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES, BR – code 001). Role funding source had no involvement in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, nor in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Education, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, São Luís, Brazil

    Letícia Padilha Mendes, Flávio de Oliveira Pires & Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho

  2. Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil

    Cid André Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes & Aron Charles Barbosa da Silva

  3. Postgraduate Program in Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil

    André Pontes-Silva & Mariana Arias Avila

  4. Postgraduate Program in Physical Education, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, São Luís, Brazil

    Felipe Souza Barreto, Flávio de Oliveira Pires, Plinio da Cunha Leal & Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho

  5. Sarah Network of Rehabilitation Hospitals, São Luís, Brazil

    Felipe Souza Barreto

  6. Postgraduate in Rehabilitation and Functional Performance, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

    Jocassia Silva Pinheiro

Authors
  1. Letícia Padilha Mendes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cid André Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. André Pontes-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Felipe Souza Barreto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jocassia Silva Pinheiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aron Charles Barbosa da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Flávio de Oliveira Pires
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Plinio da Cunha Leal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mariana Arias Avila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AVDF designed the study; LPM, and AP-S collected the data; LPM, CAFPG, AP-S, FSB, JSP, ACBS, FOP, PCL, MAA, AVDF analyzed and interpreted of the data; All authors wrote the initial draft; All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André Pontes-Silva.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants. All respondents participated in this study freely and with consent. All experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidade Federal do Maranhão (Report number: 3.182.525).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

AVDF, CAFPG, and AP-S are Associate Editors of the BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mendes, L.P., Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes, C.A., Pontes-Silva, A. et al. Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in chronic neck pain patients (TSK-neck): structural and construct validity and reliability in a Brazilian population. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 151 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07268-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07268-6

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us