Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37(03): 296-301
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721099
Original Research

Dutch Translation and Validation of the FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module

Laura Pingnet 
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, GZA Ziekenhuizen Campus Sint-Vincentius, Antwerp, Belgium
,
Valérie Verkest
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, GZA Ziekenhuizen Campus Sint-Vincentius, Antwerp, Belgium
,
Erik Fransen
2   Center of Statistics, University of Antwerp, StatUa, Antwerp, Belgium
,
Frank Declau
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, GZA Ziekenhuizen Campus Sint-Vincentius, Antwerp, Belgium
3   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Antwerp Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wilrijk, Antwerp, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

FACE-Q was developed by Klassen et al in 2010 as a validated psychometric evaluation instrument for patients undergoing aesthetic surgery. The aim of this study was to translate, adapt, and validate the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module into a Dutch version of the FACE-Q questionnaire conceptually equivalent to the original English version. “Satisfaction with nose” and “satisfaction with nostrils” questionnaires were used and translated from English into Dutch. The translation process and cross-cultural adaptation were conducted in accordance to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and World Health Organization guidelines. Psychometric validation was performed prospectively on a patient cohort of 30 patients. Each step in the translation process allowed us to make changes to achieve a conceptual translation equivalent to the original version. Psychometric validation revealed highly significant values for internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and responsiveness. The use of international translation guidelines, with a strict translation–back-translation process, led to a Dutch version of the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module. Statistical validation proved the conceptual correspondence with the original English version. The FACE-Q rhinoplasty module is an adequate instrument for determining successful aesthetic surgery based on patient satisfaction. This tool measures twofold: the degree of success with respect to the patient as well as being an assessment tool for the surgeon. We hope this will provide an additional tool to the clinician evaluating the Dutch-speaking rhinoplasty patient.

Keywords

patient-reported outcome measures - rhinoplasty - Dutch - FACE-Q - validation


Publication History

Article published online:
27 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Saleh HA, Beegun I, Apaydin F. Outcomes in rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2019; 35 (01) 47-52
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46 (12) 1417-1432
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 André RF, Vuyk HD, Ahmed A, Graamans K, Nolst Trenité GJ. Correlation between subjective and objective evaluation of the nasal airway. A systematic review of the highest level of evidence. Clin Otolaryngol 2009; 34 (06) 518-525
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 van Zijl F, Mokkink LB, Haagsma JA, Datema FR. Evaluation of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty: a systematic review. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2019; 21 (02) 152-162
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA. et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18 (01) 27-35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 FACE-Q. FACE-Q rhinoplasty module. Accessed July 13, 2020 at: http://qportfolio.org/face-q/aesthetics/
    PubMed
  • 7 Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic AL. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2010; 26 (04) 303-309
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (04) 1807-1811
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Wild D, Grove A, Martin M. et al. ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. 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 (02) 94-104
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 WHO. Research tools: translation and adaptation of instruments. 2020 . Accessed December 1, 2019 at: https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/en/
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 World medical association declaration of Helsinki. 2020 . Accessed December 1, 2019 at: https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/DoH-Oct1996.pdf
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed.. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1994
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability Research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15 (02) 155-163
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Burlington, VT: Elsevier Science; 2013
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 1986; 39 (11) 897-906
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Sedaghat AR. Understanding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 161 (04) 551-560
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Soni K, Patro SK, Aneja J, Kaushal D, Goyal A, Shakrawal N. Post-rhinoplasty outcomes in an Indian population assessed using the FACE-Q appraisal scales: a prospective observational study. J Laryngol Otol 2020; 134 (03) 247-251
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Radulesco T, Penicaud M, Santini L, Graziani J, Dessi P, Michel J. French validation of the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module. Clin Otolaryngol 2019; 44 (03) 240-243
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Aronica R, Tambone V, Persichetti P. Linguistic validation of the “FACE-Q rhinoplasty module” in Italian. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (03) 1771-1772
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Kalaaji A, Dreyer S, Schnegg J, Sanosyan L, Radovic T, Maric I. Assessment of rhinoplasty outcomes with FACE-Q rhinoplasty module: Norwegian linguistic validation and clinical application in 243 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (09) e2448
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Bustillo AMB, Lobato RC, Luitgards BF, Camargo CP, Gemperli R, Ishida LC. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and linguistic validation of the FACE-Q questionnaire for Brazilian Portuguese. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2019; 43 (04) 930-937
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar