Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK)

Abstract

The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) is one of the most widely utilized and thoroughly validated psychometric self-report instruments in behavioral medicine, orthopedic rehabilitation, and pain psychology. Originally developed to quantify an individual’s fear of movement, physical activity, and re-injury, the scale operationalizes the clinical construct of kinesiophobia. This condition represents an excessive, irrational, and debilitating fear of physical movement stemming from a vulnerability to painful injury or reinjury. The classical instrument comprises 17 self-report items evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree), yielding a total cumulative score between 17 and 68 points, with four negatively keyed items (Items 4, 8, 12, and 16) requiring reverse scoring. Extensive exploratory and confirmatory psychometric investigations across international cohorts of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain—including chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, and post-surgical conditions—predominantly substantiate a robust two-factor latent structure consisting of Activity Avoidance (the belief that physical activity should be curtailed to avoid pain exacerbation) and Somatic Focus (the catastrophic belief that pain signals an underlying, severe, and progressive organic pathology). The TSK demonstrates robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging from .76 to .88), acceptable to excellent test-retest reliability across short- and medium-term intervals (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC] ranging from .70 to .91), and profound convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity within the broader Fear-Avoidance Model of chronic pain. By identifying maladaptive cognitive appraisals of pain sensations, the TSK plays a critical role in predicting functional disability, physical performance deficits, treatment attrition, and prolonged work absenteeism, while providing a sensitive metric for monitoring therapeutic responses to cognitive-behavioral therapy, graded exposure, and interdisciplinary physical rehabilitation.

Keywords

Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, TSK, kinesiophobia, fear of movement, fear of reinjury, Fear-Avoidance Model, chronic musculoskeletal pain, pain catastrophizing, Somatic Focus, Activity Avoidance, psychometrics, rehabilitation psychology

Authors

The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia was conceived and constructed in 1991 through an interdisciplinary clinical collaboration at the Pain Management and Rehabilitation Center in Tampa, Florida. The original authors of the scale are:

• Robert P. Miller, Ph.D. — Clinical Psychologist, affiliated with the Pain Management Center, Tampa, FL, United States.
• S. Henry Kori, M.D. — Neurologist and Pain Medicine Specialist, affiliated with the Pain Management Center, Tampa, FL, United States.
• Daniel D. Todd, M.S. — Clinical Researcher and Biostatistician, affiliated with the Pain Management Center, Tampa, FL, United States.

The foundational theoretical conceptualization of kinesiophobia was originally formulated by Kori, Miller, and Todd in a seminal 1990 clinical monograph. They defined the phenomenon as an exaggerated, irrational, and debilitating fear of physical movement and activity resulting from a feeling of vulnerability to painful injury or reinjury. Although the initial 1991 instrument was introduced in an unpublished clinical report, it gained immediate international academic prominence through formal empirical validation, psychometric adaptation, and widespread dissemination by prominent pain researchers, most notably Johan W. S. Vlaeyen and colleagues at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, followed by extensive North American and European structural validation studies.

Purpose

The primary clinical and empirical purpose of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia is to quantitatively measure the degree to which an individual with an acute, subacute, or chronic pain condition catastrophically misinterprets nociceptive or somatic sensations as signs of mechanical damage, bodily fragility, or impending reinjury, thereby precipitating an avoidance of physical exertion. Musculoskeletal pain syndromes often trigger natural protective behavioral adaptations; however, in a substantial subset of patients, these protective mechanisms evolve into entrenched cognitive-affective barriers to recovery. The TSK systematically maps these maladaptive cognitive frameworks to fulfill several distinct functions across clinical practice and research settings.

From an applied clinical perspective, the TSK functions as an indispensable diagnostic and prognostic screening tool. High baseline scores on the TSK consistently identify patients at elevated risk for transition from acute musculoskeletal injury into chronic, intractable pain syndromes accompanied by severe functional disability. In occupational health and vocational rehabilitation, kinesiophobia serves as one of the most reliable psychosocial predictors of prolonged work absenteeism, delayed return-to-work timelines, and failed functional capacity evaluations. By quantifying fear of movement prior to beginning an exercise or physical therapy regimen, clinicians can anticipate non-compliance, therapeutic resistance, and early program abandonment, which are frequently driven by fear rather than biomechanical limitations.

In intervention planning, the TSK facilitates individualized treatment matching. Patients displaying severe kinesiophobia often experience poor outcomes or adverse symptom exacerbation when subjected to conventional, purely biomechanical physical conditioning without psychological support. Administering the TSK allows interdisciplinary teams to identify individuals who require targeted cognitive-behavioral interventions, such as Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT), in vivo graded exposure therapy, pain neuroscience education, and cognitive restructuring prior to or alongside intensive physical reconditioning. By confronting catastrophic beliefs regarding bodily fragility, these therapeutic modalities help extinguish fear-conditioned avoidance behavior.

In research contexts, the TSK serves as a core outcome measure in clinical trials evaluating pharmacological, psychological, physiotherapeutic, and surgical interventions for chronic spinal pain, joint arthroplasty, sports-related injuries (such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions), and central sensitivity syndromes. Researchers utilize the scale to evaluate mediation pathways within longitudinal structural equation models, dissecting how changes in cognitive appraisals directly moderate reductions in self-reported physical disability, objective muscle dynamometry, and physiological stress reactivity.

Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct quantified by the TSK is kinesiophobia. Defined within the cognitive-behavioral lexicon as a condition-specific phobic state, kinesiophobia differs from generalized anxiety disorders or trait neurosis by being anchored specifically to the execution of physical movements and the anticipation of mechanical reinjury. Within the construct, fear is conceptualized as an immediate, defensive neurophysiological reaction to an identifiable, imminent threat, whereas anxiety involves a sustained, anticipatory state of apprehension focused on future, less certain dangers. In kinesiophobia, pain ceases to be interpreted merely as an unpleasant sensory experience and is instead appraised as an imminent signal of structural trauma, tissue disruption, or physiological catastrophic failure.

Extensive psychometric investigations have established that kinesiophobia is a multidimensional construct, primarily characterized by two core interrelated, yet psychometrically separable, latent dimensions:

1. Activity Avoidance (AA)

The Activity Avoidance subscale captures the behavioral disposition and cognitive intention to avoid physical exertion, exercise, or daily occupational tasks out of an anticipatory belief that movement will inevitably cause pain exacerbation, suffering, or new physical trauma. Patients scoring high on Activity Avoidance exhibit a pervasive behavioral pattern of safety-seeking behaviors, hypervigilant movement pacing, and avoidance conditioning. They endorse statements suggesting that being physically active is fundamentally unsafe for a person with their medical presentation (Item 14) and that completely avoiding unnecessary movements is the only sensible and protective strategy to prevent clinical deterioration (Item 10). This dimension reflects the direct behavioral consequence of fear: the avoidance of movements previously associated with painful episodes, which subsequently leads to generalized functional restriction across occupational, social, and domestic environments.

2. Somatic Focus (SF)

The Somatic Focus subscale reflects the cognitive and somatic dimension of kinesiophobia, characterized by hypervigilant bodily scanning, catastrophic somatic misinterpretation, and the entrenched belief that the body is structurally damaged, fragile, and inherently prone to recurrent destruction. Patients with elevated Somatic Focus interpret every nociceptive signal as clear evidence of severe, progressive organic pathology. This dimension is exemplified by the conviction that their physical problem has placed their body at risk for the rest of their life (Item 6), that any experience of pain signifies acute reinjury (Item 7), and that pain sensations prove something dangerously wrong is occurring beneath the surface (Item 3 and Item 11). Rather than focusing solely on the behavioral inhibition of physical tasks, Somatic Focus indexes an underlying cognitive schema of permanent somatic vulnerability and systemic physical incompetence.

Collectively, these two subscales interact to create a self-sustaining cognitive-behavioral feedback loop. An individual high in Somatic Focus continuously monitors the body for nociceptive inputs, catastrophically framing minor sensations as evidence of impending damage. This somatic misinterpretation fuels intense Activity Avoidance, leading to a profound reduction in physical activity, progressive musculoskeletal deconditioning, secondary hyperalgesia, and an ultimate confirmation of the patient’s original catastrophic expectations.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical underpinning of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia is situated within the Fear-Avoidance Model of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain, initially synthesized and popularized by Johan W. S. Vlaeyen, Gordon J. G. Asmundson, Steven J. Linton, and Geert Crombez. Grounded in cognitive-behavioral theory and classical conditioning paradigms, the Fear-Avoidance Model provides an elegant psychological explanation for why a substantial portion of individuals with self-limiting musculoskeletal injuries fail to recover and instead descend into prolonged disability and persistent pain.

The model posits a fundamental cognitive fork in the trajectory of injury recovery, dependent upon how an individual cognitively appraises nociceptive sensory input:

• The Adaptive / Confrontation Pathway: When an acute injury occurs, the individual interprets the associated pain as an unpleasant but non-threatening, temporary signal of tissue healing. The cognitive appraisal remains realistic and non-catastrophic. The person maintains an optimistic recovery expectation, avoids prolonged immobilization, gradually resumes normal functional activity, and successfully navigates the rehabilitation trajectory toward physical recovery and psychosocial reintegration.
• The Maladaptive / Fear-Avoidance Pathway: If the individual possesses pre-existing cognitive vulnerabilities—such as elevated anxiety sensitivity, negative affectivity, or a tendency toward pain catastrophizing—the acute pain experience is catastrophically misinterpreted. The individual views the pain as an uncontrollable, catastrophic threat indicating continuous tissue degradation. This appraisal directly generates kinesiophobia (fear of movement and reinjury).

Once kinesiophobia becomes entrenched, it activates a cascade of psychophysiological and behavioral responses. Physiologically, fear of movement triggers muscular guarding, sympathetic nervous system arousal, and heightened central neurophysiological sensitization, all of which lower pain thresholds. Behaviorally, it produces extensive avoidance of physical movements, exercise, and daily living tasks, along with excessive safety-seeking behaviors. In the short term, avoidance behavior is negatively reinforced because the immediate threat of pain confrontation is temporarily mitigated. In the long term, however, persistent avoidance leads to physical deconditioning, muscle atrophy, loss of joint mobility, and impaired motor coordination.

This progressive musculoskeletal deconditioning renders the musculoskeletal system structurally more vulnerable to strain during everyday tasks, which predictably produces subsequent pain flares upon minimal physical exertion. Psychosocially, prolonged avoidance strips the individual of positive reinforcement, vocational identity, and social connectivity, frequently precipitating clinical depression, demoralization, and perceived invalidation. The heightened disability and amplified pain sensations are then perceived as undeniable validation of the original catastrophic belief that the body is permanently damaged, effectively locking the patient into a self-perpetuating, vicious cycle. The TSK serves as the primary psychometric instrument designed to measure the central cognitive hub of this model: the fear-induced appraisal of movement as inherently hazardous.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia has been scrutinized across hundreds of international studies involving tens of thousands of participants suffering from varied acute, subacute, and chronic pain etiologies. These empirical evaluations confirm exceptional construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Convergent Validity

The TSK displays robust, theoretically predictable correlations with a broad nomological network of related cognitive-affective and functional instruments:

• Pain Catastrophizing: Convergent validity is evidenced by moderate to strong positive correlations with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), typically yielding correlation coefficients ranging between r = .45 and r = .68. This relationship demonstrates that individuals who catastrophize about pain tend to harbor elevated fear regarding movement-induced bodily harm.
• Fear-Avoidance Beliefs: The TSK shows strong convergence with the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), demonstrating correlations of r = .50 to .75 with the FABQ Physical Activity subscale and r = .40 to .60 with the FABQ Work subscale.
• Functional Disability: Substantial positive correlations are routinely observed between TSK scores and standardized functional disability indices, such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for low back pain (r = .35 to .55) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) (r = .38 to .58).
• Pain Intensity: The scale displays low to moderate positive correlations with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) or Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), typically ranging from r = .20 to .40. This modest relationship underscores an essential construct distinction: kinesiophobia is not a redundant proxy for sensory pain intensity, but rather a distinct cognitive-affective reaction to pain.

Discriminant Validity

The TSK effectively distinguishes fear of movement from generalized distress, trait anxiety, and depressive symptomatology. Although kinesiophobia shares general affective variance with instruments such as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (correlations generally between r = .25 and .45), factor-analytic and structural equation modeling paradigms demonstrate that TSK items consistently load on independent latent factors separate from generalized dysphoria or somatic neurosis. Furthermore, the TSK demonstrates superior specificity over generic anxiety inventories when predicting physical performance testing and occupational lifting capabilities in clinical environments.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Prospective and longitudinal studies demonstrate that baseline TSK scores possess significant predictive utility for critical clinical, behavioral, and occupational outcomes:

• Physical Performance: In laboratory and functional capacity evaluation settings, elevated TSK scores predict poor performance on objective physical metrics—such as trunk flexion range of motion, isokinetic strength testing, and standardized lifting tasks—even after statistically controlling for actual physiological impairment and pain intensity.
• Treatment Outcomes: High pre-treatment TSK scores predict reduced functional recovery following spinal surgery, total knee arthroplasty, and conservative rehabilitation programs, as well as an increased likelihood of early treatment dropout.
• Work Absenteeism: Prospective occupational studies establish that high kinesiophobia represents an independent prognostic risk factor for prolonged sick leave, failure to return to competitive work at 6- and 12-month follow-ups, and subsequent long-term disability claims.

Reliability

The reliability of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia has been repeatedly established across linguistic adaptations, clinical populations, and diverse experimental designs.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency metrics for the full 17-item TSK demonstrate robust scale cohesion across clinical cohorts:

• Total Scale: Across clinical samples of patients with chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic musculoskeletal conditions, Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) for the overall 17-item scale routinely falls between .76 and .88, denoting high internal reliability without redundancy. In non-clinical populations, values generally range between .72 and .82.
• Activity Avoidance Subscale: The Activity Avoidance dimension reliably achieves Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .70 and .84 across published validation studies.
• Somatic Focus Subscale: The Somatic Focus dimension typically demonstrates internal consistency estimates ranging between .68 and .81.

Methodologists have observed that the four reverse-scored items (Items 4, 8, 12, and 16) periodically attenuate the overall alpha coefficient due to method effects associated with reverse wording. When these four items are statistically controlled for or removed (as seen in the shortened 11-item or 13-item variants), the internal consistency of the remaining item sets frequently improves, regularly exceeding $lpha = .80$.

Test-Retest Reliability and Stability

The temporal stability of the TSK has been rigorously evaluated over intervals ranging from 24 hours to multiple weeks in stable clinical populations prior to active intervention:

• Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC): Test-retest reliability evaluations over a 24- to 72-hour interval typically yield ICC values between .84 and .94, demonstrating minimal measurement error. Over extended test intervals of two to four weeks in non-treatment control cohorts, ICC values remain consistently acceptable to high, ranging from .70 to .88.
• Pearson Correlation: Test-retest correlation coefficients over short-term windows consistently fall within the range of r = .78 to .91.

Standard Error of Measurement and Responsiveness

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) for the total 17-item TSK is typically estimated between 2.5 and 3.5 points, depending on the clinical cohort under evaluation. The Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) at the 95% confidence interval ($MDC_{95}$) is generally determined to be approximately 5.5 to 8.0 points on the 17-to-68 scale. This indicates that an individual patient must demonstrate a score shift exceeding approximately 6 to 8 points following an intervention to provide 95% certainty that the observed change reflects true psychological reduction in kinesiophobia rather than random measurement fluctuation. The scale has demonstrated strong responsiveness to interventions focused on in vivo exposure and cognitive restructuring, showing medium to large effect sizes (Cohen’s d ranging from 0.60 to 1.20) in successful clinical trials.

Factor Analysis

The internal latent structure of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia has been the subject of extensive psychometric investigation through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Over three decades of structural inquiry have evaluated multiple competing models ranging from unifactorial solutions to four- and five-factor specifications.

The Classical Two-Factor Solution

The structural consensus in the international literature, initiated by the landmark psychometric analyses of Vlaeyen et al. (1995) and subsequently corroborated across large cohorts by Roelofs et al. (2004), supports a robust, correlated two-factor model comprising:

1. Factor 1: Activity Avoidance (AA) — Consisting predominantly of items reflecting the cognitive expectation that physical activity will result in pain or injury, and the behavioral intent to avoid such activities (typically Items 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 17).
2. Factor 2: Somatic Focus (SF) — Consisting predominantly of items emphasizing the belief that the body is structurally damaged, fragile, or facing imminent physical danger (typically Items 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11).

Confirmatory factor analyses testing this correlated two-factor structure across multiple chronic pain cohorts have generally demonstrated acceptable goodness-of-fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranging between .90 and .95 in adequately specified models.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently reported between .88 and .93.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Typically falling between .045 and .068 (90% CI: .038–.075), meeting the standard benchmarks for adequate structural fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Routinely falling below .060.

The Psychometric Anomaly of Reverse-Scored Items

A recurrent finding across cross-cultural CFA evaluations (e.g., French, Dutch, German, Spanish, and North American cohorts) involves the statistical behavior of the four reverse-scored items: Item 4 (“My pain would probably be relieved if I were to exercise”), Item 8 (“Just because something aggravates my pain does not mean it is dangerous”), Item 12 (“Although my condition is painful, I would be better off if I were physically active”), and Item 16 (“Even though something is causing me a lot of pain, I don’t think it’s actually dangerous”).

In classical EFA and unconstrained CFA models, these four items frequently load onto a distinct, artifactual third factor representing a “method effect” driven entirely by the direction of item wording, rather than substantive psychological variance. These items frequently display lower item-total correlations (often $r < .30$) and diminished factor loadings on the primary latent dimensions compared to the non-reversed items. Consequently, while the full 17-item scale remains widely utilized due to historical precedent and broad normative datasets, several abbreviated variants (such as the TSK-11 developed by Woby et al., and the TSK-13) have eliminated these four reverse-scored items. These shortened forms often achieve improved confirmatory model fit indices ($CFI > .95$,$RMSEA < .05$) and higher internal consistency, while maintaining a strong correlation ($r > .95$) with the full 17-item score.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Psychometric self-report questionnaire / screening and outcome assessment tool.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, digital survey, or clinician-administered interview.
• Target Population: Adults (aged 18 and older) experiencing acute, subacute, or chronic musculoskeletal pain, spinal disorders, fibromyalgia, arthritis, or post-surgical orthopedic trauma. Adapted versions are also available for adolescents.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes to complete.
• Item Count: 17 authentic items.
• Response Format: 4-point Likert scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree.
• Scoring Rules:
  • Four items are negatively keyed and reverse-scored: Items 4, 8, 12, and 16. For these four items, response values must be inverted prior to summation: 4 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Disagree, 2 = Agree, 1 = Strongly agree.
  • All remaining thirteen items (Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17) are directly scored according to their marked values (1 to 4).
  • The Total TSK Score is computed by calculating the arithmetic sum of all 17 items following the reversal of Items 4, 8, 12, and 16.
  • Total Score Range: Minimum score = 17; Maximum score = 68. Higher total scores denote elevated levels of kinesiophobia, reflecting greater fear of movement and reinjury.
  • Subscale Computations:
    • Activity Avoidance (AA) Subscale: Commonly calculated by summing Items 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 17 (range: 8 to 32 points).
    • Somatic Focus (SF) Subscale: Commonly calculated by summing Items 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 (range: 5 to 20 points). Note: Some scoring rubrics incorporate the reverse-scored items into these subscales, while others exclude them when focusing solely on the pure core subscale indices.
• Clinical Interpretation and Cutoff Scores:
  • Score < 33: Low or subclinical levels of kinesiophobia. The individual exhibits adaptive beliefs regarding movement and pain confrontation.
  • Score 33 – 37: Moderate kinesiophobia. Indicates emerging apprehension regarding physical exertion; warrants monitoring during intensive exercise regimens.
  • Score > 37: High kinesiophobia. An established, clinically significant cutoff indicating substantial fear of movement and re-injury. Individuals scoring above 37 are at increased risk for functional decline and may benefit from targeted cognitive-behavioral pain education or graded exposure.
  • Score > 44: Severe, debilitating kinesiophobia. Suggests pervasive avoidance behavior, prominent somatic misinterpretations, and a marked risk of long-term disability and treatment resistance.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia was created in 1991 by Robert P. Miller, S. Henry Kori, and Daniel D. Todd at the Pain Management Center in Tampa, Florida. The scale was initially detailed in an unpublished institutional report entitled “The Tampa Scale” (Miller et al., 1991), following an introductory clinical presentation on kinesiophobia by Kori et al. in 1990.

The original authors did not secure a commercial copyright or register the instrument as proprietary intellectual property. As a consequence of its dissemination in subsequent peer-reviewed validation studies (such as Vlaeyen et al., 1995), the TSK has entered the public domain for academic, clinical, and scientific research purposes. No royalty fees, purchase orders, or formal licensing costs are required to administer the scale in non-commercial research, institutional audits, or routine healthcare practice. Researchers and clinicians adapting, translating, or administering the instrument are expected to maintain professional scientific ethics by appropriately citing the primary foundational sources (Miller et al., 1991; Kori et al., 1990; Vlaeyen et al., 1995). Commercial entities seeking to embed the TSK into proprietary software platforms, digital health applications, or commercial clinical registries are advised to review relevant institutional guidelines and verify intellectual property considerations within their specific legal jurisdictions.

References

• Asmundson, G. J., Norton, P. J., & Vlaeyen, J. W. (2004). Fear-avoidance models of chronic pain: An overview. In G. J. Asmundson, J. W. Vlaeyen, & G. Crombez (Eds.), Understanding and Treating Fear of Pain (pp. 3–24). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780198525349.003.0001
• Crombez, G., Vlaeyen, J. W., Heuts, P. H., & Lysens, R. (1999). Pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself: Evidence on the role of pain-related fear in chronic back pain disability. Pain, 80(1–2), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00229-2
• French, D. J., France, C. R., Vigneau, F., French, J. A., & Evans, R. T. (2007). Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic pain: A psychometric evaluation of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. European Journal of Pain, 11(1), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.12.006
• Goubert, L., Crombez, G., Van Damme, S., Vlaeyen, J. W., Bijttebier, P., & Roelofs, J. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia: Invariant two-factor model across low back pain patients and fibromyalgia patients. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 20(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200403000-00007
• Kori, S. H., Miller, R. P., & Todd, D. D. (1990). Kinesiophobia: A new view of chronic pain behavior. Pain Management, 3, 35–43.
• Miller, R. P., Kori, S. H., & Todd, D. D. (1991). The Tampa Scale (Unpublished clinical research report). Pain Management Center, Tampa, FL.
• Roelofs, J., Goubert, L., Peters, M. L., Vlaeyen, J. W., & Crombez, G. (2004). The application of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia across pain diagnoses and languages: A European collaborative research project on kinesiophobia. European Journal of Pain, 8(5), 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2004.01.004
• Swinkels-Meewisse, E. J., Swinkels, R. A., Verbeek, A. L., Vlaeyen, J. W., & Oostendorp, R. A. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Tampa Scale for kinesiophobia and the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire in acute low back pain. Manual Therapy, 8(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1054/math.2002.0484
• Vlaeyen, J. W., Kole-Snijders, A. M., Boeren, R. G., & van Eek, H. (1995). Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain, 62(3), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(94)00279-N
• Vlaeyen, J. W., & Linton, S. J. (2000). Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: A state of the art. Pain, 85(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00242-0
• Woby, S. R., Roach, N. K., Urmston, M., & Watson, P. J. (2005). Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: A shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Pain, 117(1–2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2005.05.029

Items of the Scale