Dutch Translation and Validation of the FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module

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

• References

• 1 Saleh HA, Beegun I, Apaydin F. Outcomes in rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2019; 35 (01) 47-52
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 6 FACE-Q. FACE-Q rhinoplasty module. Accessed July 13, 2020 at: http://qportfolio.org/face-q/aesthetics/
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 10 WHO. Research tools: translation and adaptation of instruments. 2020 . Accessed December 1, 2019 at: https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/en/
• 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
• 12 Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed.. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1994
• 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
• 14 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Burlington, VT: Elsevier Science; 2013
• 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
• 16 Sedaghat AR. Understanding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 161 (04) 551-560
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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