| MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES | |
| Limitations | >=5 European languages (English) |
| Observations | |
| 1. RELIABILITY | |
| A. Internal Consistency | Tested |
| Cronbach's (Describe) |
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81 |
| B. Reliability intraobserver or test-retest | Tested |
| Continuous scores: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) Dichotomus: Cohen kappa (Describe) |
The test–retest reliability was ‘substantial’ with Pearson’s r=0.78 |
| C. Reliability interobserver or Measurement error | Not Tested |
| Standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) or Limits of agreement (LoA) (Describe) |
|
| 2. VALIDITY | |
| A. Content validity: face validity | Not Tested |
| Expert opinion (relevance and comprehensiveness) (Describe) |
|
| B. Construct Validity: Structural validity |
Tested |
| Hypotheses-testing | Tested |
| Cross-cultural validity | Tested |
| Brief Description |
For the TSK, Roelofs et al (2004) conducted a validation study with individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and fibromyalgia patients, validating the two-factor model of the TSK by means of confirmatory factor analysis. Construct and predictive validity of the TSK subscales were also examined. Results clearly indicated that a two-factor model fitted best in both pain samples. Construct validity of the TSK and its subscales was supported by moderate correlation coefficients with self-report measures of pain-related fear, pain catastrophising, and disability, predominantly in patients with CLBP. The TSK-11 scales demonstrated a moderate, but significant, inverse association to pain-related acceptance, providing discriminant evidence of construct validity. |
| C. Criterion validity | Not Tested |
| Comparison with a 'gold standard' Continuous scores: correlations, ROC curves Dichotomus: Sensitivity & Specificity (Describe) |
|