Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Linguistic Validation of the FACE-Q Questionnaire for Brazilian Portuguese
Patient-reported outcomes measurement instruments (PRO) are a good way to measure results after aesthetic procedures. FACE-Q is a systematized and standardized PRO tool and was not available in Portuguese.
This cross-sectional study included four stages: translation of FACE-Q, backtranslation, testing in patients who underwent facial aesthetic procedures and review of the questionnaires between September and December, 2018. Guidelines merging WHO and ISPOR’s rules were followed.
Translation was conducted by two translators, resulting in two versions, translation A and translation B, which were reconciled to generate the first Portuguese version. Reconciliation showed inconsistencies between TA and TB in 63% (n = 222) of the 353 questions, which were solved by maintaining TA in 25% of cases (n = 87), TB in 27% and a new version in 11% (n = 40) of the questions. Backtranslation showed written differences with the original FACE-Q in 64 (22.7%) of the 353 question, but only one case of semantic difference, which was corrected resulting in production of the second Portuguese version. Seven patients with a mean age of 35.8 years were interviewed to assess the difficulty in understanding the questionnaires. Four patients had no or minor difficulties understanding the questionnaire, and the other three had difficulties and suggested changes that led to a third Portuguese version. The third version was reviewed for grammar and spelling resulting in the final Portuguese version.
A Brazilian Portuguese version of the FACE-Q questionnaire was obtained maintaining equivalency with the source instrument. This will allow cross-cultural research and comparison of results between different studies.
Level of Evidence V
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
KeywordsFacial cosmetic surgery Aesthetic surgery Outcomes Quality of life Patient satisfaction Patient-reported outcomes
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.
All participants provided informed consent in writing.
- 5.Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cano SJ (2013) 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 40:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Schwitzer JA et al (2016) Development and psychometric validation of the FACE-Q skin, lips, and facial rhytids appearance scales and adverse effects checklists for cosmetic procedures. JAMA Dermatol 152:443–451. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Schwitzer JA et al (2015) 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 135:375–386. https://doi.org/10.1097/Prs.0000000000000895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott AM, Pusic AL (2014) 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 133:21–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000436814.11462.94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Chen B, Song H (2017) Measuring satisfaction with appearance: Validation of the FACE-Q scales for double-eyelid blepharoplasty with minor incision in young Asians-retrospective study of 200 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 70:1129–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2017.05.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Pusic AL (2016) FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scores from close to 1000 facial aesthetic patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 137:651e–652e. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000480007.03293.ed CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Tenna S, Cogliandro A, Barone M et al (2017) Comparative study using autologous fat grafts plus platelet-rich plasma with or without fractional CO2 laser resurfacing in treatment of acne scars: analysis of outcomes and satisfaction with FACE-Q. Aesthet Plast Surg 41:661–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0777-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Wild D, Grove A, Martin M et al (2005) 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 8:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Isaps.org (2017) Isaps international survey on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed in 2017. https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ISAPS_2017_International_Study_Cosmetic_Procedures.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2019
- 32.WHO Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/. Accessed 28 Jan 2019