ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Development and validation of the pulmonary rehabilitation Kinesiophobia scale for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundKinesiophobia is a significant barrier to pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there is currently a lack of a specific assessment tool for kinesiophobia in Chinese COPD patients. This study aims to develop the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Kinesiophobia Scale for Patients with COPD and to evaluate its psychometric properties.
methodsThis study was conducted in two stages. Stage I (instrument development): Based on literature review, qualitative interviews, and expert consultation, a preliminary version of the scale was developed. Stage II (item evaluation and psychometric testing): From April to September 2024, A total of 323 COPD patients from a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou completed the scale survey via convenience sampling. Data were analyzed for item selection, as well as reliability and validity testing. Reliability was assessed using internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and split-half reliability. Validity was evaluated through content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to assess the scale's structure. For criterion-related validity, the correlation was analyzed between scale scores and the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC), the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and the 6-minute walk distance (6-MWD).
resultsThe scale comprises 17 items. EFA revealed a reasonable distribution of factor loadings across five factors, with a cumulative variance explained of 70.7%. This factor structure was further supported by CFA, and the model fit indicators were: χ²/df = 1.555, RMSEA = 0.053, GFI = 0.906, IFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.946, and CFI = 0.957. Reliability analysis showed a Cronbach's α of 0.910, test-retest reliability of 0.844, and split-half reliability of 0.930. The content validity index I-CVI was 0.83-1.00, the S-CVI/UA was 0.824, and the S-CVI/Ave was 0.971. The correlation coefficients between the scale scores and mMRC, CAT, and 6MWD were 0.753, 0.731, and - 0.538, respectively.
conclusionsThe Pulmonary Rehabilitation Kinesiophobia Scale for Patients with COPD demonstrates good reliability and validity, which can be used to assess kinesiophobia in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.