header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

RELIABILITY OF TAMPA SCALE FOR KINESIOPHOBIA QUESTIONNAIRE AND COMPARABILITY OF PAPER AND COMPUTER VERSIONS IN CHRONIC PAIN PATIENTS



Abstract

Purpose of the study: There are no previous studies for psychometric properties of Finnish version of Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia questionnaire (TSK-FIN). The aim of this study was to examine test-retest reliability and comparability of two different methods (paper and computer) for the completion of the TSK-FIN among chronic pain patients.

Material and methods: Reliability was tested by 94 subjects who participated in the in-patient rehabilitation program. Mean age was 46.8 yrs(SD 7.5). The mean Oswestry index was 34.4% (SD 15.2). All subjects completed both versions at the interval of eight hours in two consecutive days. Test-retest reliability of TSK-FIN for the paper and computer sum scores were tested by Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Internal consistency was measured by Chronbach’s alfa.

Results: Mean (SD) scores of the paper version were 35.3 (7.8) and 35.6 (7.8). Mean (SD) scores of computer version were 37.1 (8.2) and 36.3 (8.5). Test-retest reliability (ICC) for the paper and computer versions were 0.887 and 0.877 respectively which are both excellent. Intertest reliability (ICC) between paper and computer versions was 0.773 which is acceptable. Both versions demonstrated good internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.797 for the paper version and 0.815 for the computer version.

Conclusion: Reliability and internal consistency found in this study were consistent with previous studies. Both versions of TSK-FIN demonstrated acceptable test-retest and intertest reliability and internal consistency suggesting suitability for clinical use. However there was tendency that subjects scored higher (t= 3.564, p=0.001) when using computer version. Further research is required to detect clinical importance of the difference.

Correspondence should be addressed to Mr J. O’Dowd, Honorary Secretary at SBPR c/o BOA, Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3PE.