Dataset Information

Measuring patient-reported outcomes in orthognathic surgery: Linguistic and psychometric validation of the Mandarin Chinese version of FACE-Q instrument.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Orthognathic surgery is useful for correction of dental malocclusion and improvement of facial appearance. The FACE-Q is a patient-reported outcome instrument for evaluation of surgical and psychosocial effect. The purposes of this study were to conduct a linguistic validation of all FACE-Q scales to Mandarin Chinese, to test the orthognathic surgery-related scales for reliability and validity, and to evaluate the effect of orthognathic surgery. METHODS:All FACE-Q scales and checklists were translated from English to Mandarin Chinese according to international recommendations: forward translations, backward translation, and cognitive interviews. Psychometric testing of orthognathic surgery-related scales of translated version was administered to patients with facial deformities and history of orthognathic surgery (n = 53; 17 scales) or no history of orthognathic surgery (n = 44; 11 scales), and control subjects (n = 57; 11 scales). RESULTS:All FACE-Q scales and checklists were linguistically validated into Mandarin Chinese. The contents were confirmed valid among Mandarin Chinese-speaking population. The FACE-Q scales had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.70) and discriminated (p < 0.05) well between patients before and after orthognathic surgeries and normal subjects. CONCLUSIONS:This study discovered significant benefit of orthognathic surgery on improving facial appearance and psychosocial function, as compared with the non-surgical patients and normal controls.

SUBMITTER: Su YY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7090319 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring patient-reported outcomes in orthognathic surgery: Linguistic and psychometric validation of the Mandarin Chinese version of FACE-Q instrument.

Su Yu-Ying YY Denadai Rafael R Ho Cheng-Ting CT Lai Bo-Ru BR Lo Lun-Jou LJ

Biomedical journal 20200201 1

<h4>Background</h4>Orthognathic surgery is useful for correction of dental malocclusion and improvement of facial appearance. The FACE-Q is a patient-reported outcome instrument for evaluation of surgical and psychosocial effect. The purposes of this study were to conduct a linguistic validation of all FACE-Q scales to Mandarin Chinese, to test the orthognathic surgery-related scales for reliability and validity, and to evaluate the effect of orthognathic surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>All FACE-Q scale ...[more]

PMID: 32200957

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWomen diagnosed with early stage (I or II) breast cancer face a highly challenging decision - whether or not to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy. We developed a decision quality instrument for chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer and sought to evaluate its performance.MethodsCross-sectional, mailed survey of recent breast cancer survivors, providers, and healthy controls and a retest survey of survivors. The decision quality instrument includes questions on knowledge and personal goals. It results in a knowledge score and concordance score, which reflects the percentage of patients who received treatments that match their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, validity, and reliability of the survey instrument were examined.ResultsResponses were received from 352 patients, 89 providers and 35 healthy controls. The decision quality instrument was feasible to implement with few missing data. The knowledge scores had good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) =0.75). Knowledge scores discriminated between providers and patients (mean difference 31.1%, 95% CI 26.9, 35.3) and between patients and healthy controls (mean difference 11.2, 95% CI 5.4, 17.1). Most providers reported that the knowledge items covered essential content. Two of the five goal items had a ceiling effect, and one goal had low content validity. The goal items had moderate retest reliability (ICC's 0.57 to 0.78). In the multivariable model of treatment, none of the patient goals was associated with receipt of chemotherapy. Age and hormone receptor status were the only variables independently associated with chemotherapy. Most patients (77.6%) had treatment concordant with that predicted by the model. Patients who had concordant treatment had similar levels of confidence and regret as those who did not.ConclusionsThe Decision Quality Instrument is a reliable and valid measure of patient knowledge about chemotherapy, but its ability to measure concordance with patient goals is limited. In this sample, patient goals were not associated with treatment, and most patients reported they were not asked their preference, suggesting that goals were not adequately considered in decision making.

Project description:BackgroundAssessing the early development of children at a population level in educational settings, may be useful for public health and policy decision making. In this study, we evaluated the psychometric properties and the contextual appropriateness of a German language version of the Early Development Instrument (EDI), a survey-based instrument originally developed in Canada, which assesses developmental vulnerability for children in preschool settings.MethodsSixty preschool teachers from six preschool organizations (22% of organizations contacted) in three cities in southwest Germany participated. They administered a German version of the EDI (GEDI) to 225 children (51% of eligible children). We assessed internal consistency, test-retest and interrater reliability. Preschool teachers assisted in determining face-validity by reviewing item coverage and comprehensibility. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to evaluate convergent validity. Concurrent validity was measured using correlations and agreements (Bland-Altman plots) between GEDI and other validated instrument scores. Additionally, we compared associations between GEDI domain scores and sociodemographic characteristics with similar associations in EDI studies worldwide.ResultsGEDI domains showed good to excellent internal consistency (0.73 < α > 0.99) and moderate to good test-retest and interrater reliability (0.50 to 0.81 and 0.48 to 0.71, respectively [p-value < 0.05]). Face validity was considered acceptable. EFA showed a factor structure similar to the original EDI. Correlations (range: 0.32 to 0.67) and agreements between GEDI scores and other German language instruments suggested good external reliability. Scoring within the lowest 10th percentile was strongly associated with age.ConclusionsOur psychometric assessment suggests good reliability and consistency of the GEDI. Differences in the age distribution of children, pedagogical objectives and educational system features of German preschools require future work to determine score thresholds indicative of vulnerability. Aside from dropping selected items from the original EDI that were inconsistent with features of the German educational system, the distribution of values in the language and cognitive development domain also suggested that context-specific cut-offs must be established for the German version. Such efforts are needed to account for relevant contextual differences between the educational systems.

Dataset Information

Measuring patient-reported outcomes in orthognathic surgery: Linguistic and psychometric validation of the Mandarin Chinese version of FACE-Q instrument.

Publications

Measuring patient-reported outcomes in orthognathic surgery: Linguistic and psychometric validation of the Mandarin Chinese version of FACE-Q instrument.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets