ArticleMusculoskeletal care2026
Structural Validity and Measurement Properties of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in Knee Osteoarthritis: Comparison of Candidate Factor Structures.
Article in Musculoskeletal care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeKinesiophobia is clinically relevant in knee osteoarthritis (KOA), but the appropriate Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) structure remains uncertain. We compared candidate TSK factor structures and examined the selected measurement properties of the solution with the most favourable relative fit in this sample.
methodsAmong 119 participants with KOA, ordinal confirmatory factor analysis tested three a priori structures: one-factor 17-item, one-factor 11-item, and two-factor 11-item. After three items in the two-factor 11-item structure had loadings below 0.20, a secondary exploratory 8-item solution was examined. For this exploratory solution, convergent validity, test-retest reliability, measurement error, composite reliability, and floor and ceiling effects were assessed.
resultsAll a priori structures had borderline fit and weak loadings. Among the models examined, the exploratory two-factor 8-item solution had the highest CFI and TLI (0.948 and 0.924), although its RMSEA was the highest (0.078). Reliability was substantial for Somatic focus (ICC = 0.85) and Activity avoidance (ICC = 0.78), with low measurement error. Composite reliability was adequate only for Activity avoidance.
conclusionThe exploratory 8-item solution provided preliminary evidence, particularly for Activity avoidance, but requires independent validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.