Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Appearance Scale. A New Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument for Facial Aesthetics Patients

Clinics in Plastic Surgery

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 249-260

  Pusic, Andrea L ^a   Klassen, Anne F ^b   Scott, Amie M ^a   Cano, Stefan J ^c  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY PENINSULA SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aesthetic surgery; Facial cosmetic surgery; Outcomes; Patient satisfaction; Psychometrics; Quality of life; Questionnaire; Rasch measurement

Indexed keywords

BOTULINUM TOXIN A;

ADULT; AGED; BROW LIFT; CONVALESCENCE; ESTHETIC SURGERY; EYELID RECONSTRUCTION; FACE Q SATISFACTION WITH FACIAL APPEARANCE SCALE; FACE SURGERY; FACIES; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; NECK LIFT; NOSE RECONSTRUCTION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RASCH ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; RHYTIDOPLASTY; SKIN SURGERY; SOCIAL ASPECT; VALIDITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COSMETIC TECHNIQUES; ESTHETICS; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PERSONAL SATISFACTION; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84875357702     PISSN: 00941298     EISSN: 15580504     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.001     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2012. Available at:. Accessed Sept 21, 2012. http://www.plasticsurgery.org/News-and-Resources/2011-Statistics-.html.
2. Pusic A., Lemaine V., Klassen A., et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: use and interpretation in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011, 127:6.
3. Fitzpatrick R., Jenkinson C., Klassen A., et al. Methods of assessing health-related quality of life and outcome for plastic surgery. Br J Plast Surg 1999, 52:251-255.
4. Cano S., Browne J., Lamping D. Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: current approaches and future directions. Br J Plast Surg 2004, 57:1-11.
5. Cano S., Hobart J. The problem with health measurement. Patient Prefer Adherence 2011, 5:279-290.
6. Kosowski T., McCarthy C., Reavey P., et al. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009, 123:1819-1827.
7. Cano S., Klassen A., Scott A., et al. The BREAST-Q ©: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012, 129:293-302.
8. Klassen A., Pusic A., Scott A., et al. Satisfaction and quality of life in women who undergo breast surgery: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health 2009, 9:11-18.
9. Pusic A., Klassen A., Scott A., et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009, 124:345-353.
10. Klassen A., Cano S., Scott A., et al. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg 2010, 26:303-309.
11. Food and Drug Administration. Patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. Available at:. Accessed Sept 21, 2012. http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/prolbl.pdf.
12. Cano S., Hobart J. Watch out, watch out, the FDA are about. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008, 50:108-109.
13. Mokkink L., Terwee C., Patrick D., et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010, 19:539-549.
14. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002, 11:193-205.
15. Lasch K., Marquis P., Vigneuz M., et al. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as crucial foundation. Qual Life Res 2010, 19:9.
16. Hays R., Anderson R., Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993, 2:441-449.
17. Cano S., Klassen A., Pusic A. The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009, 123:98e-106e.
18. Qualitative Solutions Research International: NVivo 8 2008, QSR International, Australia.
19. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948, 32:12.
20. Dillman D. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method 1978, Wiley, New York.
21. Dillman D. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method 2000, Wiley, Toronto. 2nd edition.
22. MAPI Research Trust: France. 2004-2012. Available at:. Accessed Sept 21, 2012. http://www.mapitrust.org/.
23. Chassany O., Sagnier P., Marquis P., et al. Patient-reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life - A European guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. DIA J 2002, 36:209-238.
24. Wild D., Grove A., Martin M., et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 2005, 8:94-104.
25. Wild D., Eremenco S., Mear I., et al. Multinational trials-recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: the ISPOR Patient-Reported Outcomes Translation and Linguistic Validation Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2009, 12(4):430-440.
26. Andrich D. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms?. Med Care 2004, 42:17-116.
27. Wright B., Masters G. Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement 1982, MESA, Chicago.
28. Massof R. Understanding Rasch and item response theory models: applications to the estimation and validation of interval latent trait measures from responses to rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2011, 18:19.
29. Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement 1988, Sage Publications, Beverley Hills (CA).
30. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests 1960, Danish Institute for Education Research, Copenhagen (Denmark).
31. Andrich D., Sheridan B. RUMM 2030 2011, RUMM Laboratory, Perth (Australia).
32. Andrich D. Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011, 11:14.
33. Hobart J., Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic intervention in MS: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess 2009, 13:1-200.
34. Andrich D. An index of person separation in latent trait theory, the traditional KR20 index and the Guttman scale response pattern. Educ Psychol Res 1982, 9:9.
35. Hagquist C., Andrich D. Is the Sense of Coherence instrument applicable on adolescents? A latent trait analysis using Rasch modelling. Pers Indiv Differ 2004, 36:13.
36. McHorney C., Haley S., Ware J.J. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:451-461.
37. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932, 140:50.
38. Ware J., Harris W., Gandek B., et al. MAP-R for Windows: multi-trait/multi-item analysis program-revised user's guide 1997, Health Assessment Laboratory, Boston.
39. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
40. Eisen M., Ware J.J., Donald C., et al. Measuring components of children's health status. Med Care 1979, 17:19.
41. Kazis L., Anderson J., Meenan R. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989, 27:178-189.
42. Liang M., Fossel A., Larson M. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990, 28:10.
43. Hobart J., Cano S., Thompson A. Effect sizes can be misleading: is it time to change the way we measure change?. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010, 81:4.
44. Ching S., Thoma A., McCabe R., et al. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003, 111:11.
45. Wright B., Linacre J. Observations are always ordinal: measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989, 70:857-860.
46. Bond T., Fox C. Applying the Rasch model. Fundamental measurement in the human sciences 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey. 2nd edition.
47. Harris D., Carr A. The Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS59): a new psychometric scale for the evaluation of patients with disfigurements and aesthetic problems of appearance. Br J Plast Surg 2001, 54:216-222.
48. Wright B. Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model. J Educ Meas 1977, 14:97-116.
49. Branski R., Cukier-Blaj S., Pusic A., et al. Measuring quality of life in dysphonic patients: a systematic review of content development in patient-reported outcomes measures. J Voice 2010, 24:193-198.
50. Klassen A., Stotland M., Skarsgard E., et al. Clinical research in pediatric plastic surgery and systematic review of quality-of-life questionnaires. Clin Plast Surg 2008, 35:251-267.
51. Pusic A., Chen C.M., Cano S., et al. Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007, 120:823-837. [discussion: 838-9].
52. Garratt A., Schmidt L., Mackintosh A., et al. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 2002, 324:1417.
53. Hunt S. The problem of quality of life. Qual Life Res 1997, 6:205-212.
54. Lamping D. Methods for measuring outcomes to evaluate interventions to improve health-related quality of life in HIV. Psychol Health 1994, 9:31-39.