Measuring outcomes that matter to face-lift patients: Development and validation of face-q appearance appraisal scales and adverse effects checklist for the lower face and neck

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 133, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 21-30

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

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CHECKLIST; CLINICAL TRIAL; FACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NECK; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RHYTIDOPLASTY; STANDARDS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION STUDY; ARTICLE; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD;

ADULT; AGED; CHECKLIST; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; NECK; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RHYTIDOPLASTY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE;

EID: 84893649406     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000436814.11462.94     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Available at: http://www. plasticsurgery.org/News-and-Resources/2011-Statistics-.html. Accessed November 29, 2013.
2. Honigman RJ, Phillips KA, Castle DJ. A review of psychoso-cial outcomes for patients seeking cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1229-1237
3. Shridharani SM, Magarakis M, Manson PN, Rodriguez ED. Psychology of plastic and reconstructive surgery: A systematic clinical review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:2243-2251.
4. 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;123:1819-1827.
5. Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF Jr, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson CM Jr. Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: A pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001;3:198-201.
6. Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: A review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2000;24:192-197.
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed November 29, 2013
8. Scientifc 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.
9. 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;26:303-309.
10. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221-233.
11. MAPI Research Trust (Web site). 2004-2012. Available at: http://www.mapitrust.org/. Accessed November 29, 2013.
12. Andrich D. Controversy and the Rasch model: A characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care 2004;42(Suppl):1-16.
13. Wright BD, Masters G. Rasch measurement. In: Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago: Mesa; 1982.
14. Andrich D, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM 2030. 1997-2013. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory.
15. Andrich D. Rasch Models for Measurement. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage; 1988.
16. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Education Research; 1960.
17. Cronbach LJ. Coeffcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-334.
18. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989;27(Suppl):S178-S189.
19. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of fve health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990;28:632-642.
20. Hobart JC, Cano SJ, Thompson AJ. Effect sizes can be misleading: Is it time to change the way we measure change? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010;81:1044-1048.
21. Hobart JC, Cano SJ. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic intervention in MS: The role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1-200.
22. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE Jr. 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.
23. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:1-55.
24. Ware JE, Harris WJ, Gandek B, et al. MAP-R for Windows: Multi-trait/Multi-Item Analysis Program-Revised User's Guide. Boston: Health Assessment Laboratory; 1997.
25. Eisen M, Ware JE Jr, Donald CA, Brook RH. Measuring components of children's health status. Med Care 1979;17:902-921.
26. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994;32:40-66.
27. Bohrnstedt GW. Measurement. In: Rossi PH, Wright JD, Anderson AB, eds. Handbook of Survey Research. New York: Academic Press; 1983: 69-121.
28. Pusic AL, Klassen AK, Scott A, Cano SJ. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scale: A new patient-reported outcome instrument for facial aesthetic patients. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40:249-260.
29. Panchapakesan V, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q Aging Appraisal Scale and Patient-Perceived Age Visual Analog Scale. Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33:1099-1109.
30. Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: A structured review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12:559-568.
31. Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:179-193.
32. Greenhalgh J, Meadows K. The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: A literature review. J Eval Clin Pract. 1999;5:401-416.