Document Type: RESEARCH PAPER
Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Texas Orthopedics, Sports and Rehabilitation Associates, Austin, TX, USA
Background: We compared the amount of variation in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System
Physical Function (PROMIS PF) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) accounted for by The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia
(TSK) and its short form (TSK-4) independent of other factors. Questionnaire coverage, reliability, and validity
were compared for both TSK and TSK-4 using mean scaled scores, internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects,
interquestionnaire correlations, and collinearity with other measures as the Pain Catastrophizing Scale short form
(PCS-4), PROMIS Depression CAT, and PROMIS Pain Interference (PROMIS PI) CAT.
Methods: One hundred forty eight consecutive new or return patients were enrolled. Patients were seen in an outpatient
setting in several orthopaedic clinics in a large urban area. All patients completed the TSK, PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS
PI CAT, PROMIS Depression CAT, and PCS-4.
Results: Greater fear of movement (higher TSK) was associated with worse physical function (lower PROMIS PF CAT)
and the full TSK explained more variation in physical function than the short form (TSK-4). In contrast to prior studies
PCS-4 was not independent of TSK. Flooring and ceiling effects were seen with TSK-4. Worse physical function was
associated with older age, traumatic condition, and more symptoms of depression.
Conclusion: The short form of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia can be used as a brief screening measure in patient
care and research in order to identify an independent influence of kinesiophobia on lower extremity specific limitations.
Additional study is needed to determine whether there is utility in screening for both TSK and PCS or if one or the
other provides sufficient information about cognitive biases regarding pain to guide treatment with cognitive behavioral
therapy and related techniques.
Level of evidence: II