New Factor Structure of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in Older Japanese Adults After Lumbar Surgery

Figures & data

Figure 1 Flowchart of participants.

Table 1 Medians and Frequency Distributions of the 17 Items in the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia

Item	Median (QD)	Proportion (%)
		1	2	3	4
1	2 (0.5)	40 (19.0)	96 (45.5)	70 (33.2)	5 (2.4)
2	2 (0)	52 (24.6)	128 (60.7)	28 (13.3)	3 (1.4)
3	2 (0)	46 (21.8)	117 (55.5)	44 (20.9)	4 (1.9)
4	2 (0.5)	12 (5.7)	133 (63.0)	50 (23.7)	16 (7.6)
5	2 (0)	47 (22.3)	115 (54.5)	46 (21.8)	3 (1.4)
6	2 (0.5)	39 (18.5)	105 (49.8)	59 (28.0)	8 (3.8)
7	3 (0.5)	28 (13.3)	66 (31.3)	98 (46.4)	19 (9.0)
8	3 (0.5)	2 (0.9)	70 (33.2)	111 (52.6)	28 (13.3)
9	3 (0.5)	22 (10.4)	68 (32.2)	113 (53.6)	8 (3.8)
10	3 (0.5)	19 (9.0)	66 (31.3)	106 (50.2)	20 (9.5)
11	2 (0.5)	42 (19.9)	114 (54.0)	49 (23.2)	6 (2.8)
12	2 (0.5)	11 (5.2)	132 (62.6)	56 (26.5)	12 (5.7)
13	3 (0.5)	11 (5.3)	78 (37.0)	114 (54.0)	8 (3.8)
14	2 (0.5)	21 (10.0)	109 (51.7)	70 (33.2)	11 (5.2)
15	2 (0.5)	32 (15.2)	121 (57.3)	53 (25.1)	5 (2.4)
16	3 (0.5)	5 (2.4)	88 (41.7)	104 (49.3)	14 (6.6)
17	3 (0)	6 (2.8)	45 (21.3)	137 (64.9)	23 (10.9)

Note: n = 211.

Abbreviation: QD, quartile deviation.

Table 2 Factor Loadings, Alpha Coefficients, and Correlation Coefficients for Each Factor of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia

	Initial Model Constructed with the First C-EFA				Modified Model Constructed with the Third C-EFA
	Items	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Items	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Factor loadings	3	1.176	−0.442	0.027	3	1.033	−0.348	−0.004
	11	0.771	−0.068	−0.004	11	0.811	−0.108	0.003
	6	0.701	0.026	−0.044	6	0.781	−0.027	−0.063
	5	0.486	0.072	−0.130	7	0.552	0.279	−0.011
	7	0.483	0.296	−0.079	5	0.527	0.098	−0.018
	2	0.463	0.343	0.258	2	0.489	0.202	0.282
	9	0.450	0.314	0.101	9	0.486	0.243	0.080
	13	−0.179	0.813	0.232	17	−0.238	0.831	−0.011
	17	−0.231	0.726	−0.054	16	0.034	−0.647	0.246
	14	0.135	0.648	0.162	13	−0.096	0.644	0.302
	10	0.168	0.618	0.080	14	0.196	0.550	0.196
	15	0.113	0.566	0.020	10	0.245	0.517	0.104
	16	0.056	−0.550	0.225	15	0.170	0.495	0.057
	1	0.226	0.426	0.129
	4	0.088	0.042	0.785	12	0.031	−0.054	0.836
	12	0.074	0.137	0.765	4	−0.163	−0.085	0.771
	8	−0.108	−0.198	0.233
Contribution ratio (cumulative)		0.209	0.199 (0.408)	0.092 (0.499)		0.240	0.179 (0.420)	0.110 (0.529)
Cronbach’s alpha		0.829	0.780	0.489		0.829	0.770	0.705
Factor correlations	Factor 1 <> Factor 2				Factor 1 <> Factor 2
	0.676				0.649
	Factor 2 <> Factor 3				Factor 2 <> Factor 3
	0.096				0.347
	Factor 1 <> Factor 3				Factor 1 <> Factor 3
	0.0.25				0.258

Notes: n = 211. Values above 0.40 are in bold.

Abbreviation: C-EFA, categorical explanatory factor analysis.

Figure 2 Parallel analysis of the initial categorical exploratory factor analysis.

Figure 3 Parallel analysis of the second categorical exploratory factor analysis.

Figure 4 Parallel analysis of the third categorical exploratory factor analysis.

Table 3 Estimates and Fit Index of the Three Models According to Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Model	Hypothetical Model		Traditional One-Factor Model		Traditional Two-Factor Model
Latent Variables	Item		Item		Item
Factor 1	7	0.703	2	0.706	7	0.739
	2	0.701	10	0.672	6	0.715
	6	0.674	14	0.665	3	0.663
	9	0.662	7	0.663	11	0.656
	11	0.633	9	0.658	5	0.513
	3	0.625	6	0.620
	5	0.483	11	0.576
			3	0.570
			1	0.565
			15	0.562
			13	0.532
			5	0.441
			17	0.382
			16	−0.353
			12	0.240
			8	−0.206
			4	0.047
Factor 2	14	0.746	N.A.		2	0.732
	10	0.738			10	0.699
	15	0.611			9	0.690
	13	0.595			14	0.685
	17	0.431			1	0.600
	16	−0.402			15	0.572
					13	0.550
					17	0.390
Factor 3	12	1.000	N.A.		N.A.
	4	0.468
Covariances	Factor 1 <> Factor 2		N.A.		Factor 1 < > Factor 2
	0.735				0.728
	Factor 2 <> Factor 3
	0.253
	Factor 1 <> Factor 3
	0.145
Fit index
TLI	0.793		0.693		0.905
RMSEA (90% confidence interval)	0.056 (0.040–0.072)		0.071 (0.059–0.084)		0.050 (0.028–0.069)
SRMR	0.072		0.092		0.063
ECVI	0.701		1.128		0.498

Note: n = 211.

Abbreviations: TLI, Tucker Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean residual; ECVI, expected cross-validation index.

Table 4 Spearman’s Partial Rank Correlations Between Factors of the TSK and EQ-5D, Pain, and Dysesthesia

	Factor 1	Factor 2 (R)*	Factor 2 (D)**	Factor 3
EQ-5D	−0.506 (−0.600–−0.397)	−0.200 (−0.327–−0.066)	−0.210 (−0.337–−0.076)	0.131 (−0.005–0.262)
Low back pain	0.313 (0.185–0.431)	0.146 (0.010–0.276)	0.148 (0.012–0.278)	−0.114 (−0.247–0.022)
Leg pain	0.304 (0.176–0.423)	0.106 (−0.030–0.239)	0.104 (−0.033–0.236)	−0.032 (−0.167–0.105)
Leg dysesthesia	0.351 (0.226–0.465)	0.113 (−0.023–0.245)	0.117 (−0.019–0.249)	−0.015 (−0.151–0.121)

Notes: n = 211. Age, sex (0: male, 1: female), postoperative days, and surgery procedure (0: with fusion; 1: with fusion) were used as controlling variables. The values in parentheses represent the 95% confidence interval. *The total score was calculated by reversing the scores for item 16. **The total score was calculated by deleting item 16.

Abbreviations: TSK, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia; EQ-5D, EuroQol-5 dimensions.