Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

To evaluate responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) for the Persian versions of FABQ, TSK, and PCS

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ), Tampa scale of kinesiophobia (TSK), and pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) are tools widely used to measure fear-avoidance beliefs, fear of movement, and pain-related catastrophic thinking in people with chronic spinal disorders.

Purpose

To evaluate responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) for the Persian version of FABQ, TSK, and PCS.

Method

One hundred people with chronic non-specific neck pain participated in an intervention program including routine physiotherapy plus pain neuroscience education. They fulfilled FABQ, TSK, and PCS questionnaires at baseline and 4-week follow-up. The 7-point global rating of change (GRC) as the external anchor was also completed in follow-up by patients. Responsiveness was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and correlation analysis. According to GRC, patients were classified into two groups (improved vs. unimproved). The best cutoff or MIC was estimated via the ROC curve.

Results

Acceptable responsiveness obtained for FABQ, TSK, and PCS with the area under the curve ranging from 0.84 to 0.94 and spearman coefficient > 0.6. The MIC values reflecting improvement were 9.5, 10.5, and 12.5 points, respectively, for FABQ, TSK, and PCS.

Conclusions

The results of this study demonstrated that the Persian version of FABQ, TSK, and PCS have sufficient responsiveness and good ability to measure meaningful clinical changes in people with patient CNNP. The MIC scores of the FABQ, TSK, and PCS can help clinicians and researchers to detect changes significant to the patient following a rehabilitation program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kazeminasab S, Nejadghaderi SA, Amiri P, Pourfathi H, Araj-Khodaei M, Sullman MJM, Kolahi A-A, Safiri S (2022) Neck pain: global epidemiology, trends and risk factors. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04957-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Crombez G, Vlaeyen JW, Heuts PH, Lysens R (1999) Pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself: evidence on the role of pain-related fear in chronic back pain disability. Pain 80:329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00229-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Severeijns R, Vlaeyen JW, van den Hout MA, Weber WE (2001) Pain catastrophizing predicts pain intensity, disability, and psychological distress independent of the level of physical impairment. Clin J Pain 17:165–172. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200106000-00009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Turk DC, Okifuji A (2002) Psychological factors in chronic pain: evolution and revolution. J consul Clin Psychol 70:678. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.70.3.678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Monticone M, Frigau L, Vernon H, Rocca B, Mola F (2018) Responsiveness and minimal important change of the NeckPix© in subjects with chronic neck pain undergoing rehabilitation. Eur Spine J 27:1324–1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5343-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Javdaneh N, Saeterbakken AH, Shams A, Barati AH (2021) Pain neuroscience education combined with therapeutic exercises provides added benefit in the treatment of chronic neck pain. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18:8848. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168848

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. De Souza FS, da Silva MC, Siqueira FB, Maher CG, Costa LOP (2008) Psychometric testing confirms that the Brazilian-Portuguese adaptations, the original versions of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia have similar measurement properties. Spine 33:1028–1033. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816c8329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA, Long JC, Henderson SB, Murphy LE, Leahy CJ, Braithwaite J (2021) Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expectat 24:1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rostami M, Noorian N, Mansournia MA, Sharafi E, Babaki AES, Kordi R (2014) Validation of the Persian version of the fear avoidance belief questionnaire in patients with low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 27:213–221. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-130439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jafari H, Ebrahimi I, Salavati M, Kamali M, Fata L (2010) Psychometric properties of Iranian version of Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in low back pain patients. Archives Rehabil 11:0–0

    Google Scholar 

  12. Raeissadat SA, Sadeghi S, Montazeri A (2013) Validation of the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) in Iran. J Basic Appl Sci Res 3:376–380

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mokkink LB (2021) key concepts in epidemiology: Responsiveness, the longitudinal aspect of validity. J Clin Epidemiol 140:159–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Terwee CB, Peipert JD, Chapman R, Lai J-S, Terluin B, Cella D, Griffith P, Mokkink LB (2021) Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures. Qual Life Res 30:2729–2754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02925-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Soleiman F, Mohamadi HK, Saadat M, Derisfard F, Nassadj G (2022) A protocol for a randomized trial on pain neuroscience education vs. routine physical therapy in people with chronic neck pain. Eur J Transl Myol 32(3):10674. https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2022.10674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Burwinkle T, Robinson JP, Turk DC (2005) Fear of movement: factor structure of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome. J Pain 6:384–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2005.01.355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pulles AN, Köke AJ, Strackke RP, Smeets RJ (2020) The responsiveness and interpretability of psychosocial patient-reported outcome measures in chronic musculoskeletal pain rehabilitation. Eur J Pain 24:134–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Monticone M, Frigau L, Vernon H, Rocca B, Giordano A, Vullo SS, Mola F, Franchignoni F (2020) Reliability, responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the two Fear Avoidance and Beliefs Questionnaire scales in Italian subjects with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 56(5):600–606. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.20.06158-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mostafaee N, Negahban H, Shaterzadeh Yazdi MJ, Goharpey S, Mehravar M, Pirayeh N (2020) Responsiveness of a Persian version of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Tegner activity scale in athletes with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction following physiotherapy treatment. Physiother Theory Pract 36:1019–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2018.1548672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Rocca B, Foti C, Ferrante S (2016) Responsiveness and minimal clinically important changes for the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia after lumbar fusion during cognitive behavioral rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 53:351–358. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.16.04362-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Huang H, Nagao M, Arita H, Shiozawa J, Nishio H, Kobayashi Y, Kaneko H, Nagayama M, Saita Y, Ishijima M (2019) Reproducibility, responsiveness and validation of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in patients with ACL injuries. Health Qual Life Outcomes 17:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1217-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Freeman J, Walters R, Ingram W, Slade A, Hobart J, Zajicek J (2013) Evaluating change in mobility in people with multiple sclerosis: relative responsiveness of four clinical measures. Mult Scler J 19:1632–1639. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458513482373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pei L, Xia J, Yan J (2010) Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the chinese version of the fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire. J Int Med Res 38:1985–1996. https://doi.org/10.1177/147323001003800612

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chaory K, Fayad F, Rannou F, Lefèvre-Colau M-M, Fermanian J, Revel M, Poiraudeau S (2004) Validation of the French version of the fear avoidance belief questionnaire. Spine 29:908–913. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200404150-00018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Staerkle R, Mannion AF, Elfering A, Junge A, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Grob D, Dvorak J, Boos N (2004) Longitudinal validation of the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) in a Swiss-German sample of low back pain patients. Eur Spine J 13:332–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0663-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Monticone M, Portoghese I, Rocca B, Giordano A, Campagna M, Franchignoni F (2021) Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in people with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.21.06729-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Rocca B, Foti C, Ferrante S (2016) Responsiveness of the tampa scale of kinesiophobia in Italian subjects with chronic low back pain undergoing motor and cognitive rehabilitation. Eur Spine J 25:2882–2888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HC, Hancock MJ (2010) Global perceived effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Behbahan Faculty of Medical Sciences, Behbahan, Iran for financial support.

Funding

This study was supported by a Research Grant from Behbahan Faculty of Medical Sciences, Behbahan, Iran.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

    Maryam Saadat, Farzaneh Soleimani & Mehrnoosh Amin

  2. Rehabilitation Research Center, Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

    Maryam Saadat, Farzaneh Soleimani & Mehrnoosh Amin

  3. Behbahan Faculty of Medical Sciences, Behbahan, Iran

    Sara Salamat

  4. Department of Physiotherapy, School of Paramedical and Rehabilitation Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Neda Mostafaee

  5. Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Neda Mostafaee

  6. Physical Therapy Department, School of Rehabilitation, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Zeinab Rouintan

  7. Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Zeinab Rouintan

Authors
  1. Maryam Saadat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sara Salamat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neda Mostafaee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Farzaneh Soleimani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zeinab Rouintan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mehrnoosh Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Salamat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saadat, M., Salamat, S., Mostafaee, N. et al. To evaluate responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) for the Persian versions of FABQ, TSK, and PCS. Eur Spine J 32, 3023–3029 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07835-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07835-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation