Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty

JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 27-35

  Klassen, Anne F ^a   Cano, Stefan J ^b   East, Charles A ^c   Baker, Stephen B ^d   Badia, Lydia ^e   Schwitzer, Jonathan A ^d,f   Pusic, Andrea L ^f  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Modus Outcomes   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS   (United Kingdom)

^d GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e Rhinoplasty London   (United Kingdom)

^f MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOSE RECONSTRUCTION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOMETRICS; RHINOPLASTY; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84955621413     PISSN: 21686076     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamafacial.2015.1445     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2014 Cosmetic plastic surgery statistics. http: //www .plasticsurgery.org/Documents/news-resources /statistics/2014-statistics/cosmetic-procedure -trends-2014.pdf. Published 2015. Accessed October 9, 2015.
2. Fatemi MJ, Rajabi F, Moosavi SJ, Soltani M. Quality of life among Iranian adults before and after rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012;36(2): 448-452.
3. Pecorari G, Gramaglia C, GarzaroM, et al. Self-esteem and personality in subjects with and without body dysmorphic disorder traits undergoing cosmetic rhinoplasty: Preliminary data. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(3): 493-498.
4. Zojaji R, Keshavarzmanesh M, Arshadi HR, Mazloum Farsi Baf M, Esmaeelzadeh S. Quality of life in patients who underwent rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg. 2014;30(5): 593-596.
5. Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: A review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2000;24(3): 192-197.
6. Cingi C, Eskiizmir G. Deviated nose attenuates the degree of patient satisfaction and quality of life in rhinoplasty: A prospective controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol. 2013;38(2): 136-141.
7. Chauhan N,Warner J, Adamson PA. Adolescent rhinoplasty: Challenges and psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010;34(4): 510-516.
8. Harris DL, Carr AT. 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(3): 216-222.
9. Picavet VA, Prokopakis EP, Gabriels L, Jorissen M, Hellings PW. High prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder symptoms in patients seeking rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(2): 509-517.
10. Mohammadshahi M, Pourreza A, Orojlo PH, Mahmoodi M, Akbari F. Rhinoplasty as a medicalized phenomenon: A 25-center survey on quality of life before and after cosmetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2014;38(4): 615-619.
11. Cingi C, Songu M, Bal C. Outcomes research in rhinoplasty: Body image and quality of life. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25(4): 263-267.
12. Cingi C, Toros SZ, Cakli H, Gurbuz MK. Patient-reported outcomes after endonasal rhinoplasty for the long nose. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(3): 1002-1006.
13. Simsek G, Demirtas E. Comparison of surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction after 2 different rhinoplasty techniques. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25 (4): 1284-1286.
14. Lavinsky-Wolff M, Dolci JEL, Camargo HL Jr, et al. Vertical dome division: A quality-of-life outcome study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013; 148(5): 758-763.
15. Lindsay RW. Disease-specific quality of life outcomes in functional rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(7): 1480-1488.
16. Saleh AM, Younes A, Friedman O. Cosmetics and function: Quality-of-life changes after rhinoplasty surgery. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(2): 254-259.
17. Most SP. Analysis of outcomes after functional rhinoplasty using a disease-specific quality-of-life instrument. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;8(5): 306-309.
18. Gunel C, Omurlu IK. The effect of rhinoplasty on psychosocial distress level and quality of life. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(8): 1931-1935.
19. Bulut C,Wallner F, Plinkert PK, Baumann I. Development and validation of the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology. 2014;52(4): 315-319.
20. Morley D, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R. A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures used in cosmetic surgical procedures: Report to Department of Health, 2013. http: //phi.uhce.ox.ac.uk/pdf/Cosmetic%20Surgery %20PROMs%20Review2013.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2015.
21. FACE-Q. Introducing FACE-Q. https: //webcore .mskcc.org/faceq/. Accessed October 9, 2015.
22. 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.
23. Pusic A, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scale: A new patient-reported outcome instrument for facial aesthetics patients. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40: 249-260.
24. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Schwitzer JA, Scott AM, Pusic AL. FACE-Q scales for health-related quality of life, early life impact, satisfaction with outcomes, and decision to have treatment: Development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(2): 375-386.
25. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. http: //www.ispor.org/workpaper/FDA%20PRO %20Guidance.pdf. Published December 2009. Accessed June 10, 2015.
26. Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, et al; 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(3): 193-205.
27. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity: Establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report, part 1: Eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14(8): 967-977.
28. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity: Establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report, part 2: Assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14(8): 978-988.
29. 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.
30. Khadka J, Gothwal VK, McAlinden C, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10: 80.
31. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap): Ametadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2): 377-381.
32. Andrich D. Controversy and the Rasch model: A characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care. 2004;42(1)(suppl): I7-I16.
33. Wright BD, Masters G. Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA; 1982.
34. Andrich D, Sheridan B. RUMM2030. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory; 1997-2011.
35. 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.
36. Andrich D. Rasch Models for Measurement. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1988.
37. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Education Research; 1960.
38. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient a and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16: 297-334.
39. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27(3)(suppl): S178-S189.
40. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
41. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112 (1): 155-159.
42. Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992;30(10): 917-925.
43. 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(9): 1044-1048.
44. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3): 221-233.
45. McCarthy CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, et al. The magnitude of effect of cosmetic breast augmentation on patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(1): 218-223.
46. Cano SJ, O'Connor RJ, Thompson AJ, Hobart JC. Exploring disability rating scale responsiveness II: Do more response options help? Neurology. 2006;67(11): 2056-2059.
47. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28(7): 632-642.