С¶÷ÑÅ

Pelvic Girdle Pain: 

(Grotle et al, 2012) 

• SEM = 2.20 for FABQ-PA

Pelvic Girdle Pain:

(Grotle et al, 2012 for ¡°primary and secondary care clinics¡±)

• MDC for individuals = 6.1 for FABQ-PA
• Group MDC = 6.1 for FABQ-PA 

Pelvic Girdle Pain:

(Grotle et al, 2012) 

• 25% for FABQ-PA 

Shoulder Pain:

(Mintkin et al, 2010)

Neck Pain:

(Fau et al. 2006)

Pelvic Girdle Pain:

(Grotle et al, 2012) 

• Excellent FABQ-PA (ICC = 0.88, 95% CI of 0.77-0.93) 

Shoulder Pain:

(Mintkin et al, 2010)

• Excellent FABQ-PA (ICC = 0.88, 95% CI of 0.75-0.93). 

Neck Pain:

(Fau et al. 2006) 

• The mean time interval for the test-retest reliability was 12.5¡À7.8 days in sample A:

Test-retest reliability: Adequate-Excellent

• Internal Consistency: Excellent

Predictive Validity:

Neck Pain:

(Fau et al. 2006)

• Cronbach¡¯s alpha for entire questionnaire = 0.90 (95% CI 0.88-0.92) (Excellent)
• The item total correlation coefficients for all 16 items of the questionnaire range: r = 0.31 to 0.68 (no item had to be excluded from further analysis) (Adequate-Excellent) 

(George. Steven Z. 2006) 

Correlations Among 4-week Changes in Disability, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs, and Average Pain Intensity: 

• FABQ-PA and Disability: r = .43 (Adequate) 
• FABQ-PA and Pain: r = 0.45 (Adequate)

Shoulder Pain: 

(Mintkin et al, 2010)

• Factor analysis identified a 4-factor solution (work pain beliefs for items 8, 9, and 12-16 [Cronbach ¦Á =0.89]
• Consequences of work for 6, 7, & 10-12 [¦Á=0.88]
• Consequences of physical activity for items 2-5 [¦Á=0.74], physical activity pain beliefs for items 1-2 [¦Á=0.59]) with a cumulative response variance of 73.5% (explaining percentages of disability, as determined by SPADI). This forth factor was regarded as unstable. 
• The FABQ-PA was identified as the strongest individual contributor to SPADI disability scores (when compared with these other scales and the TSK-11); it accounted for 11% of the variance in SPADI disability scores (P<0.01). 

Pelvic Girdle Pain: 

(Grotle et al, 2012) 

The FABQ-PA had the following construct validity:

• Excellent Discriminant validity for distinguishing pregnancy: AUC = 0.796 (95% CI of 0.701-0.890). 

• Adequate Discriminant validity for distinguishing between pain at all 3 pelvic joints (2 SI and pubic symphysis): AUC = 0.592 (95% CI of 0.459-0.726).

(George. Steven Z. 2006) 

Correlation of FABQ ¨CPA Question and Average Pain Intensity During the Past 24 Hours

Neck Pain:

(Fau et al. 2006)

Neck Pain: 

(Fau et al. 2006) 

• All groups (A,B,C,D) 3.5-4.8 (good-very good)

Pelvic Girdle Pain:

(Grotle et al, 2012): None for the FABQ-PA 

Workers with upper extremity injury:

(Inrig, 2012, Workers with UE injury)

• FABQ-W: 13 (change scores equivalent to 30-33% of scale)
• FABQ-PA: 8 (change scores equivalent to 30-33% of scale)

Workers with upper extremity injury:

(Inrig, 2012, Workers with UE injury, n = 187, 56% working, 44% not currently working)

• FABQ-W: 35.2/42, SD = 6.7
• FABQ-PA: 20.3/24, SD = 4.4 

(Waddell et al. 1993) 

"All 16 individual items reached acceptable levels of test-retest reproducibility. 71% of individual answers were identical on retest which is high for 7-point scales. K statistics confirmed that all 16 items had high level of reproducibility. Two items had moderate concordance of 0.41-0.60, 8 had substantial concordance of 0.61-0.80 and 6 had close to complete concordance of greater than 0.80 (Landis and Koch 1977). The average level of K for all 16 items was 0.74 and all reached the 0.001 level of significance. 

Workers with upper extremity injury:

(Inrig, 2012, Workers with UE injury)

• FABQ-W: adequate reliability (ICC = 0.55)
• FABQ-PA: adequate reliability (ICC = 0.69) 

(George. Steven Z. 2006) 

• Interrater reliability: ICC = 0.94

Workers with upper extremity injury:

(Inrig, 2012, Workers with UE injury)

• FABQ-W: Good consistency (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.75)
• FABQ-PA: Good consistency (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.78) 

(Waddell et al. 1993) 

• FABQl was weakly related to sex. 
• FABQ2 was not significantly related to sex. 
• The mean score of FABQl in patients with low back pain alone was 21.9 +/- 14.3, in low back pain plus referred thigh pain 25.2 +/- 12.1 and in nerve root pain 17.8 +/- 12.0. 
• Neither of the factors showed any significant correlation with total duration, duration of the present episode or time pattern of pain. 
• Fear-avoidance beliefs about work were consistently more powerful in males than in females accounting for 27% and 35% of the variance of disability and work loss in the past year, respectively, in males but only 17% and 18% in females. 

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for the 2 scales were:

• FABQ1: r = 0.95 (Excellent) 
• FABQ2: r = 0.88 (Excellent).

Workers with upper extremity injury:

(Inrig, 2012, Workers with UE injury)

(Waddell et al. 1993) 

• The present FABQ was developed in 2 pilot groups totaling 30 patients attending an orthopaedic out-patient clinic. The FABQ focused on patients¡¯ beliefs about how physical activity and work affected their current low back pain. It was based mainly on fear theory and fear-avoidance cognitions but also drew on the concept of Disease Conviction (Pilowsky and Spence 1975, 1983) which includes beliefs about the seriousness of the illness and its effect on the patient¡¯s life and on the concepts of somatic focusing and increased somatic awareness (Main 1983). The final format was a self-report questionnaire of 16 items presented on a single page (Appendix). The items were original though the wording of many of the items was derived from Fordyce¡¯s teaching aphorisms about pain behaviour (Fordyce 1988) and the 2 questions from Sandstrom and Esbjornsson (1986). Only I item was similar to 1 of the items in PAIRS (Riley et al. 1988) and 3 items to the SOPA harm scale (Jensen 1991). Each item was answered on a ¡®7-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. 

(Waddell et al. 1993) 

• ¡°There are several limitations to the present study. The analysis was based entirely on self-report measures and should ideally, as far as possible, be checked or compared with externally validated measures. These findings could be tested with alternative and more comprehensive measures of pain¡­¡± (pg.8) 
• This paragraph sums up the measure of face validity. Not only is this measure entirely subjective, it is solely based on self report measures, therefore the face validity is in question. 

(Cleland et al, 2007) 

• The measure is based on self-report, so there are inherent face validity issues present.

(Waddell et al. 1993) 

• ¡°In the complete series of 210 patients none had to be excluded because of lack of understanding or compliance on the FABQ itself, although 21 patients were unable to complete items 6-16 because they were not employed. Otherwise, there were only 1.3% missing answers and no individual item had greater than 2.1% missing answers. The answers to all 16 individual items were distributed across at least 4 categories and no item had to be excluded from further analysis because of excessively skewed distribution (Maxwell 1971).¡± (p. 6) 

Workers with upper extremity injury:

(Inrig, 2012, Workers with UE injury)

• FABQ-W: poor ceiling effects (22.9%)
• FABQ-PA: poor ceiling effects (38.3%) 

LBP:

(George. Steven Z. 2006)

• 13-point change

Patients with Acute or Sub-Acute Low Back Pain:

(Beneciuk et al, 2012, Acute or Sub-acute Low Back Pain, n = 108 with chronic low back pain of varying intensities) 

• FABQ-W: 13.3/42, SD = 11.1
• FABQ-PA: 14.9/24, SD = 5.5

Chronic LBP:

(Cleland et al, 2007)

• FABQ-PA Private insurance: 14.6 (5.9), worker¡¯s compensation: 14.4 (6.6), significance: 0.77,
• FABQ-W: Private insurance: 12.9 (10.1), worker¡¯s compensation: 23.3 (10.8), significance: <0.001

Chronic LBP:

(Swinkels-Meewisse et al. 2003)

• FABQ/pa (r = 0.64; P ¡Ü 0.01; Excellent)
• FABQ/w (r = 0.80; P ¡Ü 0.01; Excellent)

(Staerkle et al. 2004)

• Kappa for all 16 items: 0.54 (range 0.34-0.68, P <0.01 for each coefficient; moderate-substantial agreement)
• Average weighted kappa: 0.76 (range 0.48-0.89, P<0.01; moderate-almost perfect agreement)
• FABQ1 (r = 0.91; Excellent)
• FABQ2 (r = 0.84; Excellent)

Chronic Low Back Pain:

(Crombez et al, 1999, patients with chronic low back pain)

• FABQ-W: excellent consistency (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.84-0.92)
• FABQ-PA: poor consistency (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.52-0.57)

(Swinkels-Meewisse et al. 2003)

• Cronbach Alpha: FABQ/pa for t1 and t2 were at1 = 0.70 and at2 = 0.72 (Good)
• Cronbach Alpha: FABQ/w were at1 = 0.82, and at2 = 0.83 (Good)

(Staerkle et al. 2004)

• Cronbach Alpha: FABQ1 (items 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15): 0.89 (Excellent)
• Cronbach Alpha: FABQ2 (items 2, 3, 4 and 5): 0.82 (Excellent)
• ICC: FABQ1: 0.91 (Excellent)
• ICC: FABQ2: 0.83 (Excellent)

Predictive Validity:

Chronic Low Back Pain:

(Crombez et al, 1999, patients with chronic low back pain)

•  FABQ-W to pain disability (RDQ): adequate predictive value (standardized beta: 0.57)
• FABQ-PA to pain disability (RDQ): adequate predictive value (standardized beta: 0.40)
• FABQ-PA to trunk extension/flexion (TEF) torque: poor predictive value (standardized beta: -0.28)

LBP:

(George, 2011)

• Pain Intensity: Of assessed pain-related fear measures (TSK-11, PCS, FABQ-PA), only the FABQ-PA contributed statistically to the model, providing an additional 18% variance in pain intensity ratings (P<0.01). For disability scores, which the FABQ-PA provided an additional 27% variance (p<0.01).

(Swinkels-Meewisse et al. 2003)

 Pearson¡¯s rho (concurrent):

• Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and FABQ/w for t1 r = 0.33 (Adequate) and t2 r = 0.38 (Adequate) (P ¡Ü 0.01).
• TSK and FABQ/pa for t1 r = 0.39 (Adequate) and t2 r = 0.59 (Adequate) (P ¡Ü 0.01)

(Cleland et al, 2007)

LBP:

(George, 2011)

• FABQ-PA has adequate correlations with the FABQ-W (Pearson r = 0.41), TSK-11 (r = 0.55), PCS (r = 0.31), numeric pain rating scale (r = 0.37), and ODI (r = 0.49).
• FABQ-W has adequate corrections with the PCS (Pearson r = 0.39), numeric pain rating scale (r = 0.37), and ODI (r = 0.34); FABQ-W has a poor correlation with the TSK-11 (r = 0.28).
• Factor analysis identified items 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10-12 loaded on a pain-related fear of work (explained 12.26% of the variance) and items 2-5 loaded on a pain-related fear of physical activity (12.07% of variance), similar to the pain and work subscales

(Cleland et al, 2007)

• Private insurance: 0.20
• Worker¡¯s comp: 0.59

Chronic Low Back Pain:

(Crombez et al, 1999, patients with chronic low back pain)

LBP:

(Cleland et al, 2007)

• 189 patients were excluded from the study due to missing FABQ scores¡ªit is possible that the missing scores may have influenced the results. Also, the duration of physical therapy was only 30 days, so it is difficult to project usefulness of the FABQ in terms of long-term prognosis.

LBP:

(Staerkle et al. 2004)

• Low to moderate: FABQ1 (work, effect size: 0.33 [Moderate Change])
• FABQ2 (physical activity, effect size: 0.41 [Moderate Change])

Musculoskeletal Disorders:

(Holden et al., 2010)

• FABQ-W cut-off score of > 39.5 and <= 27.5

Musculoskeletal Disorders:

(Holden et al, 2010, n = 117)

• FABQ-W score: 8¨C42, SD: 34.8 (6.5)

Predictive Validity:

Musculoskeletal Disorders:

(Holden et al, 2010)

• Study looked to ¡°determine the predictive validity of the FABQ-W by establishing an upper FABQ-W cut off score with maximum speci?city to identify participants at a high risk of nonreturn to work and a lower FABQ-W cut off score with maximumsensitivity to identify participants at low risk.¡±
• Cutoff score 39.5: speci?city=81.8%, positive predictive value=47.8%, & positive LR=1.7.
• Cutoff FABQ-W score >/=27.5: 100% sensitivity.

Cervical Radiculopathy:

(Dedering & Borjesson, 2012)

Cervical Radiculopathy:

(Dedering & Borjesson, 2012, n = 82 (k-value of weighted kappa and p-value of sign test))

• FABQ-PA: k=0.50 Moderate, p=0.243
• FABQ-W: k=0.67 Good, p=0.100
• FABQ: k=0.68 Good, p=0.617

Cervical Radiculopathy:

(Dedering & Borjesson, 2012)

• FABQ: Cronbach¡¯s alpha 0.89, Excellent

Predictive Validity:

Spine Surgery:

(Havakeshian & Minnon, 2013)

• ¡°In a multivariable prospective (predictive) model, FABQ-PA was the only baseline psychological factor that signi?cantly predicted outcome.¡±
• In lower FABQ-PA scores OR 0.877 (95 %CI 0.809¨C0.949), p = 0.001.

Cervical Radiculopathy:

(Dedering & Borjesson, 2012)

• ¡°The present results indicate that the FABQ has concurrent validity also for patients with cervical radiculopathy because it is able to distinguish between patients and healthy subjects¡±
• (Mann-Whitney p-values: FABQ-PA, FABQ-W, and FABQ p<0.0001).

Cervical Radiculopathy:

(Dedering & Borjesson, 2012)

The FABQ-PA, FABQ-W, and FABQ-SUM had the following construct validity:

Cervical Radiculopathy:

(Dedering & Borjesson, 2012)

• ¡°The present study focused on construct validity, but to determine further usefulness of the FABQ and the TSK questionnaires for patients with cervical radiculopathy, further studies addressing responsiveness are needed.¡±

(George. Steven Z. 2006)

• Effect size = 1.8