E H Lee1, A F Klassen2, S J Cano3, K S Nehal1, A L Pusic4. 1. Dermatology Division, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 16 East 60th St, New York, NY, 10022, U.S.A. 2. Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Modus Outcomes, Letchworth, Garden City, U.K. 4. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, U.S.A.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The patient's perspective of their facial scar after skin cancer surgery influences perception of care and quality of life (QoL). Appearance satisfaction after surgery is also an important but often overlooked treatment outcome. OBJECTIVES: To report the psychometric validation of the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module consisting of five scales, measuring appearance satisfaction (Satisfaction with Facial Appearance, Appraisal of Scars), QoL (Cancer Worry, Appearance-related Psychosocial Distress) and the patient experience (Satisfaction with Information: Appearance). METHODS: Participants underwent Mohs surgery for facial basal or squamous cell carcinoma or excision of early facial melanoma. Cohort 1 received a set of scales before and after surgery. Cohort 2 received the scales on two occasions in the postoperative period for test-retest reliability. Rasch measurement theory was used to select (item-reduce) the most clinically meaningful items for the scales. Reliability, validity, floor and ceiling effects and responsiveness were also analysed. RESULTS: Of 334 patients, 209 (response rate 62·6%) were included. Rasch analysis reduced the total scale items from 77 to 41. All items had ordered thresholds and good psychometric fit. Reliability was high (Person separation index and Cronbach's α ≥ 0·90) and scales measuring similar constructs were correlated. High floor and ceiling effects were seen for the scales. The Cancer Worry scale demonstrated responsiveness (P = 0·004). CONCLUSIONS: The FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module meet the requirements of the Rasch model providing linearized measurement. Discriminating between patients with minimal appearance or worry impairment may be a limitation. The scales can be used for larger validation studies, clinical practice and research.
BACKGROUND: The patient's perspective of their facial scar after skin cancer surgery influences perception of care and quality of life (QoL). Appearance satisfaction after surgery is also an important but often overlooked treatment outcome. OBJECTIVES: To report the psychometric validation of the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module consisting of five scales, measuring appearance satisfaction (Satisfaction with Facial Appearance, Appraisal of Scars), QoL (Cancer Worry, Appearance-related Psychosocial Distress) and the patient experience (Satisfaction with Information: Appearance). METHODS:Participants underwent Mohs surgery for facial basal or squamous cell carcinoma or excision of early facial melanoma. Cohort 1 received a set of scales before and after surgery. Cohort 2 received the scales on two occasions in the postoperative period for test-retest reliability. Rasch measurement theory was used to select (item-reduce) the most clinically meaningful items for the scales. Reliability, validity, floor and ceiling effects and responsiveness were also analysed. RESULTS: Of 334 patients, 209 (response rate 62·6%) were included. Rasch analysis reduced the total scale items from 77 to 41. All items had ordered thresholds and good psychometric fit. Reliability was high (Person separation index and Cronbach's α ≥ 0·90) and scales measuring similar constructs were correlated. High floor and ceiling effects were seen for the scales. The Cancer Worry scale demonstrated responsiveness (P = 0·004). CONCLUSIONS: The FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module meet the requirements of the Rasch model providing linearized measurement. Discriminating between patients with minimal appearance or worry impairment may be a limitation. The scales can be used for larger validation studies, clinical practice and research.
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; Chad J Gwaltney; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mona L Martin; Elizabeth Molsen; Lena Ring Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; Chad J Gwaltney; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mona L Martin; Elizabeth Molsen; Lena Ring Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Susan D Mathias; Mary-Margaret Chren; Hilary H Colwell; Yeun Mi Yim; Carolina Reyes; Diana M Chen; Scott W Fosko Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Anthony M Rossi; Joseph Sobanko; Naomi Lawrence; Jeremy Bordeaux; Todd Cartee; Eric S Armbrecht; Anit Behera; Christian L Baum; Murad Alam; Ian A Maher Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Sarah E Sasor; Julia A Cook; Scott N Loewenstein; William A Wooden; Adam C Cohen; Michael W Chu; Sunil S Tholpady Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Shoko Mori; Nina R Blank; Karen L Connolly; Stephen W Dusza; Kishwer S Nehal; Anthony M Rossi; Erica H Lee Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Inge J Veldhuizen; Philip Brouwer; Abdullah Aleisa; Nicholas R Kurtansky; Stephen W Dusza; Kishwer S Nehal; Maarten M Hoogbergen; René R W J van der Hulst; Erica H Lee Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2021-11-14 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Lucy J van Hensbergen; Inge J Veldhuizen; Erica H Lee; Saskia Houterman; Tjinta Brinkhuizen; René R W J van der Hulst; Maarten M Hoogbergen Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 3.955
Authors: Inge J Veldhuizen; Erica H Lee; Nicholas R Kurtansky; Lucy J van Hensbergen; Stephen W Dusza; Marleen C Hölscher; René R W J van der Hulst; Maarten J Ottenhof; Andrea L Pusic; Maarten M Hoogbergen Journal: Arch Dermatol Res Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Jacob K Dey; Lisa E Ishii; Kofi D O Boahene; Patrick J Byrne; Masaru Ishii Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.611
Authors: I J Veldhuizen; E Schroen; E H Lee; N R Kurtansky; S W Dusza; R R W J van der Hulst; A L Pusic; M M Hoogbergen Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2021-02-21 Impact factor: 1.771