Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 930–937 | Cite as

Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Linguistic Validation of the FACE-Q Questionnaire for Brazilian Portuguese

  • Adriana Margarita Buelvas Bustillo
  • Rodolfo Costa LobatoEmail author
  • Bruno Ferreira Luitgards
  • Cristina Pires Camargo
  • Rolf Gemperli
  • Luiz Carlos Ishida
Original Article Facial Surgery



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


Facial 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.

Ethical Approval

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.

Informed Consent

All participants provided informed consent in writing.


  1. 1.
    Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL et al (2009) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1819–1827. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A et al (2010) Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg 26:303–309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Panchapakesan V, Klassen AF, Cano SJ et al (2013) Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q aging appraisal scale and patient-perceived age visual analog scale. Aesthet Surg J 33:1099–1109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N et al (2017) Linguistic validation of the “FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module” in Italian. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 274:1771–1772. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kappos EA, Temp M, Schaefer DJ et al (2017) Validating facial aesthetic surgery results with the FACE-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 139:839–845. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bulut OC (2017) Reply to the letter ‘Linguistic validation of the “FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module” in Italian’. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 274:1773–1774. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang BL, Wilson AJ, Taglienti AJ et al (2016) Patient perceived benefit in facial aesthetic procedures: FACE-Q as a Tool to study botulinum toxin injection outcomes. Aesthet Surg J 36:810–820. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    East C, Badia L, Marsh D et al (2017) Measuring patient-reported outcomes in rhinoplasty using the FACE-Q: a single site study. Facial Plast Surg 33:461–469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fleury CM, Schwitzer JA, Hung RW, Baker SB (2018) Adverse event incidences following facial plastic surgery procedures: incorporating FACE-Q data to improve patient preparation. Plast Reconstr Surg 141:28e–33e. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hibler BP, Schwitzer J, Rossi AM (2016) Assessing improvement of facial appearance and quality of life after minimally-invasive cosmetic dermatology procedures using the FACE-Q scales. J Drugs Dermatol 15:62–67. Google Scholar
  16. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA et al (2016) Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 18:27–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Grotting JC et al (2017) FACE-Q eye module for measuring patient-reported outcomes following cosmetic eye treatments. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 19:7–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mess SA (2017) Lower face rejuvenation with injections: Botox, Juvederm, and Kybella for marionette lines and jowls. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5:1–3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qureshi AA, Parikh RP, Sharma K et al (2017) Nonsurgical facial rejuvenation: outcomes and safety of neuromodulator and soft-tissue filler procedures performed in a resident cosmetic clinic. Aesthet Plast Surg 41:1177–1183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raspaldo H, Chantrey J, Belhaouari L et al (2015) Juvéderm volbella with lidocaine for lip and perioral enhancement: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3:1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwitzer JA, Sher SR, Fan KL et al (2015) Assessing patient-reported satisfaction with appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty using the FACE-Q appraisal scales. Plast Reconstr Surg 135:830e–837e. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sinno S, Schwitzer J, Anzai L, Thorne CH (2015) Face-lift satisfaction using the FACE-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 136:239–242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tan SK, Leung WK, Tang ATH et al (2017) Orthognathic relevant scales of FACE-Q: translation and validation for Hong Kong Chinese patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5:1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3186–3191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28. (2017) Isaps international survey on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed in 2017. Accessed 21 Feb 2019
  29. 29.
    Cano SJ, Klassen A, Pusic AL (2009) The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:98–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cogliandro A, Barone M, Persichetti P (2017) Italian linguistic validation of the FACE-Q instrument. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 19:336–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Radulesco T, Mancini J, Penicaud M et al (2018) Assessing normal values for the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module: an observational study. Clin Otolaryngol 43:1025–1030. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    WHO Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Accessed 28 Jan 2019
  33. 33.
    Poulsen L, Rose M, Klassen A et al (2017) Danish translation and linguistic validation of the BODY-Q: a description of the process. Eur J Plast Surg 40:29–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lorenzen MM, Poulsen L, Bo Thomsen J et al (2018) Danish translation and linguistic validation of the BODY-Q Chest Module. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 52:343–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N et al (2017) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 274:1807–1811. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plastic Surgery DivisionHospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations