Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q aging appraisal scale and patient-perceived age visual analog scale

Aesthetic Surgery Journal

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1099-1109

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

^a William Osler Health System   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

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

^d MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

aesthetic facial surgery; FACE Q; patient satisfaction; patient reported outcomes; quality of life

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ESTHETIC SURGERY; EYELID RECONSTRUCTION; FACE; FACE Q AGING APPRAISAL SCALE; FACE Q PATIENT PERCEIVED AGE VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; INTERVIEW; ITEM TOTAL CORRELATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; RELIABILITY; RHYTIDOPLASTY; VALIDITY; YOUNG ADULT;

AESTHETIC FACIAL SURGERY; FACE-Q; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES; QUALITY OF LIFE;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGING; BODY IMAGE; CANADA; COSMETIC TECHNIQUES; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; REJUVENATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF CONCEPT; SKIN AGING; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84890446286     PISSN: 1090820X     EISSN: 1527330X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1090820X13510170     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Cole J. Empathy needs a face. J Consciousness Stud. 2001 ; 8: 51-68
2. Honigman R, Castle DJ. Aging and cosmetic enhancement. Clin Interv Aging. 2006 ; 1 (2). 115-119
3. Goodman M. Social, psychological, and developmental factors in women's receptivity to cosmetic surgery. J Aging Stud. 1994 ; 8: 375-396
4. Sezgin B, Findikcioglu K, Kaya B, Sibar S, Yavuzer R. Mirror on the wall: a study of women's perception of facial features as they age. Aesthetic Surg J. 2012 ; 32 (4). 421-425
5. Finn CJ, Cox SE, Earl ML. Social implications of hyperfunctional facial lines. Dermatol Surg. 2003 ; 29 (5). 450-455
6. Napoleon A, Lewis CM. Psychological considerations in the elderly cosmetic surgery candidate. Ann Plast Surg. 1990 ; 24 (2). 165-169
7. Slevec JH, Tiggemann M. Predictors of body dissatisfaction and disordered eating in middle-aged women. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 ; 31 (4). 515-524
8. Sarwer DB, Pertschuk MJ, Wadden TA, Whitaker LA. Psychological investigations in cosmetic surgery: a look back and a look ahead. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 ; 101 (4). 1136-1142
9. Sarwer DB, Wadden TA, Pertschuk MJ, Whitaker LA. The psychology of cosmetic surgery: a review and reconceptualization. Clin Psychol Rev. 1998 ; 18 (1). 1-22
10. American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Statistics. 2013. http://www.surgery.org/media/statistics
11. Chauhan N, Warner JP, Adamson PA. Perceived age change after aesthetic facial surgical procedures quantifying outcomes of aging face surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2012 ; 14 (4). 258-262
12. Fagien S, Carruthers JD. A comprehensive review of patient-reported satisfaction with botulinum toxin type A for aesthetic procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 ; 122 (6). 1915-1925
13. Carruthers A, Carruthers J. Patient-reported outcomes with botulinum neurotoxin type A. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2007 ; 9: 32-37
14. Carruthers J, Fagien S, Matarasso SL. Consensus recommendations on the use of botulinum toxin type A in facial aesthetics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 ; 114 (6). 1S - 22S
15. Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe R, Antony M. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 ; 111: 11
16. Bolton MA, Pruzinsky T, Cash TF, Persing JA. Measuring outcomes in plastic surgery: body image and quality of life in abdominoplasty patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 ; 112 (2). 619-627
17. Acaster S, Cimms T, Lloyd A Design and Selection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Use in Patient Centered Outcomes Research. San Francisco, CA: Oxford Outcomes ; 2012 :
18. Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL, et al. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 ; 123 (6). 1819-1827
19. Cano S, Klassen A, Scott A, Cordeiro P, Pusic A. The BREAST-Q©: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 ; 129 (2). 293-302
20. Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Scott A, Klok J, Cano SJ. Satisfaction and quality of life in women who undergo breast surgery: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2009 ; 9: 11
21. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 ; 124 (2). 345-353
22. Klassen A, Cano S, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic A. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg. 2010 ; 26 (4). 303-309
23. Food and Drug Administration. Patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims. 2009. http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/prolbl.pdf
24. Cano SJ, Hobart JC. Watch out, watch out, the FDA are about. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008 ; 50 (6). 408-409
25. 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 (4). 539-549
26. Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002 ; 11: 193-205
27. Lasch K, Marquis P, Vigneuz M, et al. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as crucial foundation. Qual Life Res. 2010 ; 19: 9
28. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic AL. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg. 2010 ; 26 (4). 303-309
29. Hays R, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res. 1993 ; 2 (6). 441-449
30. Cano S, Klassen A, Pusic A. The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 ; 123 (1). 98e - 106e
31. Australia: QSR International ; 2008 :
32. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948 ; 32 (3). 221-233
33. Dillman D Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley ; 1978 :
34. Dillman D Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2 nd ed.Toronto: John Wiley; 2000. Toronto: John Wiley ; 2000 :
35. Mapi Research Trust: France. 2004-2012. http://www.mapitrust.org/
36. Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P, Fulleton S, Aaronson N. Patient reported outcomes and regulatory issues: the example of health-related quality of life - a European guidance document for the improved integration of HRQL assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Inf J. 2002 ; 36 (1). 209-238
37. 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 ; 52 (1). 39-61
38. 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: 11
39. Rasch G Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Education Research ; 1960 :
40. Akkermans W. Polytomous item scores and Guttman dependence. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1999 ; 52: 39-61
41. Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip JC. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 1989 ; 70 (4). 308-312
42. Andrich D Rasch Models for Measurement. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage ; 1988 :
43. Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol. 2007 ; 46 (pt 1). 1-18
44. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd ; 2009 :
45. Zhu W, Updyke WF, Lewandowski C. Post-hoc Rasch analysis of optimal categorization of an ordered-response scale. J Outcome Meas. 1997 ; 1 (4). 286-304
46. 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 (1). 9
47. Wright B, Masters G Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA ; 1982 :
48. Wright BD, Stone MH Best Test Design: Rasch Measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA ; 1-17.
49. Hobart J, Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic intervention in MS: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess. 2009 ; 13 (12). 1-200
50. 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 (4). 13
51. Tennant AHM, Pallant JF Introductory Rasch Analysis: A Workbook. Leeds, UK: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Leeds ; 2011 :
52. Wright BD. Interpreting reliabilities. Rasch Meas Trans. 1998 ; 11 (4). 602
53. Schumacker RE, Smith EV. Reliability: a Rasch perspective. Educ Psychol Meas. 2007 ; 67: 394-409
54. McHorney C, Haley S, Ware JJ. 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 (4). 451-461
55. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932 ; 140: 50
56. Ware J, Harris W, Gandek B, Rogers B, Reese P MAP-R for Windows: Multi-Trait/Multi-Item Analysis Program - Revised User's Guide. Boston, MA: Health Assessment Laboratory ; 1997 :
57. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951 ; 16: 297-334
58. Sarwer DB, Spitzer JC. Body image dysmorphic disorder in persons who undergo aesthetic medical treatments. Aesthetic Surg J. 2012 ; 32 (8). 999-1009
59. Sarwer DB, Crerand CE. Body image and cosmetic medical treatments. Body Image. 2004 ; 1 (1). 99-111
60. Hobart JC, Cano SJ, Zajicek JP, Thompson AJ. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 2007 ; 6 (12). 1094-1105
61. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res. 1995 ; 4 (4). 293-307
62. Forrest M, Andersen B. Ordinal scale and statistics in medical research. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 ; 292 (6519). 537-538
63. Horton M, Tennant A. Patient reported outcomes: misinference from ordinal scales?. Trials. 2011 ; 12: A65
64. Eriksen SJ. To cut or not to cut: cosmetic surgery usage and women's age-related experiences. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2012 ; 74 (1). 1-24
65. Brown A, Furnham A, Glanville L, Swami V. Factors that affect the likelihood of undergoing cosmetic surgery. Aesthetic Surg J. 2007 ; 27 (5). 501-508
66. Frederick DA, Lever J, Peplau LA. Interest in cosmetic surgery and body image: views of men and women across the lifespan. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 ; 120 (5). 1407-1415
67. Henderson-King D, Henderson-King E. Acceptance of cosmetic surgery: scale development and validation. Body Image. 2005 ; 2 (2). 137-149