Objective This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish versions of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale–5 (PCS-5) and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia–6 (TSK-6) in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP). Methods A total of 174 participants with CMSP (115 females, 59 males; mean age: 43.81 ± 14.60 years) were included. Internal consistency, test–retest reliability, structural validity, and criterion validity were assessed. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to examine the underlying factor structure of the scales. Results The PCS-5 demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.802), moderate test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.729), and a one-factor structure explaining 56.37% of the variance. Item–rest correlations ranged from 0.488 to 0.688. The TSK-6 demonstrated moderate internal consistency (α = 0.608) and moderate test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.740). Item 6 showed poor psychometric performance, with an item–rest correlation of 0.007 and a factor loading of 0.012. An exploratory analysis excluding item 6 resulted in improved internal consistency (α = 0.690) and a one-factor structure. Criterion validity analyses showed significant positive correlations of the PCS-5 with the PCS-13 (ρ = 0.708), TSK-17 (ρ = 0.438), and FABQ-physical activity (ρ = 0.377). The TSK-6 correlated with the PCS-13 (ρ = 0.549), TSK-17 (ρ = 0.504), and FABQ-physical activity (ρ = 0.349). Conclusions The Turkish PCS-5 demonstrated good internal consistency, moderate test–retest reliability, and a clear one-factor structure in individuals with CMSP. Although the TSK-6 demonstrated moderate reliability, item 6 showed poor psychometric performance and warrants further investigation. The findings from the exploratory analysis of the five-item version should be interpreted cautiously and do not support replacing the standardized TSK-6 without further evidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mirza et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: