title: FACE-Q scales for health-related quality of life, early life impact, satisfaction with outcomes, and decision to have treatment: development and validation.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  An ever-growing range of facial cosmetic products and treatments are available, but little clinical research is being performed to determine treatment outcomes from the patient's perspective. The FACE-Q is a patient-reported outcome instrument composed of more than 40 independently functioning scales and checklists. The aim of this article is to describe the development and psychometric evaluation of five new FACE-Q scales.
  
  
  METHODS
  FACE-Q scales were developed according to international guidelines for patient-reported outcome instrument development. The following FACE-Q scales and a single symptom checklist (Recovery Early Symptoms) were evaluated in this study: Psychological Wellbeing, Social Function, Satisfaction with Decision to Have Treatment, Satisfaction with Outcome of Treatment, and Early Life Impact of Treatment. Modern and traditional psychometric methods were used to examine reliability, validity, and responsiveness.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The sample included 702 participants from three studies. The FACE-Q scales were found to be reliable, valid, and responsive to clinical change. These findings were supported by Rasch measurement theory (e.g., overall chi-square values, p ≥ 0.06; Person Separation Index ≥0.81), traditional psychometric (e.g., Cronbach alpha values ≥0.90) and responsiveness (i.e., significant improvement following face lift and lip treatment) analysis.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The FACE-Q measures concepts and symptoms important to facial aesthetic patients. The five scales and single symptom checklist described here can be used to measure what patients think about cosmetic treatments in a scientifically sound manner. As the cosmetics industry continues to expand, the patient perspective of treatment outcomes should be measured and reported.
  
  
  METHODS
  Diagnostic, III.
authors: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Plymouth, United Kingdom; and New York, N.Y. From McMaster University; Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry; and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
authors: Anne F
authors: AF
authors: Klassen
authors: Stefan J
authors: SJ
authors: Cano
authors: Jonathan A
authors: JA
authors: Schwitzer
authors: Amie M
authors: AM
authors: Scott
authors: Andrea L
authors: AL
authors: Pusic
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D057189:Checklist; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000523:psychology; D003357:Cosmetic Techniques / Q000523:psychology*; D004644:Emotions; D004954:Esthetics; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D018579:Patient Selection; D011594:Psychometrics; D011788:Quality of Life / Q000523:psychology*; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000523:psychology*; D015983:Selection Bias; D057566:Self Report; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D063189:Symptom Assessment / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
references: Cano SJ, Klassen A, Pusic AL. The science behind quality-of-life measurement: A primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:98e–106e
references: Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167
references: Sigurdson L, Kirkland SA, Mykhalovskiy E. Validation of a questionnaire for measuring morbidity in breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:1108–1114
references: Kerrigan CL, Collins ED, Striplin D, et al. The health burden of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:1591–1599
references: 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;124:345–353
references: Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q: Further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:293–302
references: 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;54:216–222
references: Carr T, Moss T, Harris D. The DAS24: A short form of the Derriford Appearance Scale DAS59 to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance. Br J Health Psychol. 2005;10:285–298
references: Pusic A, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cano SJ. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Appearance Scale: A new PRO instrument for facial aesthetics patients. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40:249–260
references: Brown BC, McKenna SP, Solomon M, Wilburn J, McGrouther DA, Bayat A. The patient-reported impact of scars measure: Development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1439–1449
references: Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW. The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire: A reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1481–1489
references: Chren MM, Lasek RJ, Quinn LM, Mostow EN, Zyzanski SJ. Skindex, a quality of life measure for patients with skin disease: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Invest Dermatol. 1996;107:707–713
references: Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott AM, Pusic AL. 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. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:21–30
references: Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M, et al. PRO development: Rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:1087–1096
references: 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;14:967–977
references: 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;14:978–988
references: Panchapakesan V, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott AM, Pusic 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
references: 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
references: 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
references: 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
references: Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334
references: 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
references: Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:1–55
references: Eisen M, Ware JE Jr, Donald CA, Brook RH. Measuring components of children’s health status. Med Care. 1979;17:902–921
references: 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
references: Lamping DL, Schroter S, Kurz X, Kahn SR, Abenhaim L. Evaluation of outcomes in chronic venous disorders of the leg: Development of a scientifically rigorous, patient-reported measure of symptoms and quality of life. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:410–419
references: Lamping DL, Schroter S, Marquis P, Marrel A, Duprat-Lomon I, Sagnier PP. The community-acquired pneumonia symptom questionnaire: A new, patient-based outcome measure to evaluate symptoms in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Chest. 2002;122:920–929
references: Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27(Suppl):S178–S189
references: Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28:632–642
references: Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70