RESUMEN
The Fear-Avoidance Components Scale (FACS) and the Fear of Daily Activities Questionnaire (FDAQ) assess fear-avoidance model components. However, the questionnaires are not available in Brazilian Portuguese. This study aimed to translate the original English FACS and FDAQ into Brazilian (Br) Portuguese and assess their measurement properties in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP). One hundred thirty volunteers with CLBP participated in this study. Structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and hypothesis testing for construct validity were analyzed. Results indicated a 2-factor solution for the FACS-Br, while the FDAQ-Br had a one-factor solution. Internal consistency showed acceptable Cronbach's alpha (alpha >.8). Suitable reliability was found for the FDAQ-Br (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] = .98). For both FACS-Br factors, suitable reliability was found as well (ICC = .95 and .94). Hypothesis testing for construct validity confirmed more than 75% of the hypotheses proposed a priori for the FACS maladaptive pain/movement-related beliefs domain and the FDAQ-Br. In conclusion, the FACS-Br and FDAQ-Br demonstrated acceptable reliability, internal consistency, and structural validity measurement properties and their correlation (r < .50) suggests that the tools are not interchangeable measures.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Several patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are available in the literature to support the evaluation and diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders and headaches. However, clinicians and researchers usually complain that they had no education on PROMs and low overall knowledge about PROMs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to summarize, describing the measurement properties and clinical applicability of the main condition-specific PROMs available in the literature to the assessment of patients with Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches. METHODS: The current manuscript reviewed 10 PROMs commonly used in the field. Four instruments about functioning and disability: 1. Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), 2. Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI), 3. 8-item and 20-item Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS), and 4. Manchester Orofacial Pain Disability Scale (MOPDS). Two instruments about headache-related disability: 5. Headache-Related Disability Index (HDI) and 6. Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Three instruments focused on TMD and headache screening: 7. 3Q/TMD, 8. Short-Form Anamnestic Fonseca Index (SFAI), 9. Headache Screening Questionnaire. In addition, one instrument about maladaptive beliefs regarding pain and injury: 10. Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders (TSK-TMD). CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge about the limitations and applicability of the PROMs commonly used to assess TMDs and Headaches can help clinicians and researchers to obtain reliable and valid outcomes to support the decision-making process. The current review recognizes the importance of using patient-reported outcome measures in research and clinical practice. However, our findings call the attention that further studies on the measurement properties of such instruments are imperative.