Scholarlink

Objectives <p>This study aimed to assess aspects of validity of four FACE-Q Aesthetics scales in a sample of patients undergoing and planning facial minimally invasive cosmetic procedures (MICPs), such as botulinum toxin, lip augmentation and soft tissue augmentation treatments.</p> Methods <p>In 2023, a cross-sectional survey included 210 Hungarian women who had undergone and 147 planning facial MICPs, with similar mean ages Respondents completed four FACE-Q scales (Aging Appraisal, Appearance Distress, Early Life Impact and Age VAS), EQ-5D-5L, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) and the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Straightforward Items (BFNE-S). Comprehensibility, ceiling/floor effects, structural validity (principal component analysis, confirmatory factor analysis), internal consistency, and construct validity (convergent, divergent, known-group validity) of the four FACE-Q scales were assessed.</p> Results <p>All FACE-Q scales, except the Age VAS, showed a ceiling effect (20–28%). Appearance Distress showed strong convergent validity with RSES (r = 0.742), BFNE-S (r = −&#xa0;0.702), and EQ-5D-5L anxiety/depression (r = −&#xa0;0.519). Aging Appraisal and Appearance Distress scales were unidimensional, whereas Early Life Impact Scale had a three-factor structure. All four FACE-Q scales were able to differentiate between known groups of patients based on self-esteem, fear of negative evaluation and acceptance of bodily appearance. Women who had undergone procedures reported higher Aging Appraisal (72.9 vs. 63.3) and Appearance Distress (77.1 vs. 68.4) scores and felt younger (−&#xa0;5.0 vs. −&#xa0;2.8 years) than those planning them (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 for all).</p> Conclusions <p>Our findings provide initial support for the validity of the four FACE-Q scales in MICP populations, but further validation (e.g. assessment of responsiveness and test–retest reliability) is needed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Psychometric properties of four FACE-Q Aesthetics scales in patients planning and undergoing minimally invasive facial cosmetic procedures

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月15日

查看全文
  • Eszter Mercédesz Müller,
  • Anna Nikl,
  • Máté Krebs,
  • Ákos Szabó,
  • Péter Holló,
  • Valentin Brodszky,
  • Fanni Rencz,
  • Lajos Vince Kemény

摘要

Objectives

This study aimed to assess aspects of validity of four FACE-Q Aesthetics scales in a sample of patients undergoing and planning facial minimally invasive cosmetic procedures (MICPs), such as botulinum toxin, lip augmentation and soft tissue augmentation treatments.

Methods

In 2023, a cross-sectional survey included 210 Hungarian women who had undergone and 147 planning facial MICPs, with similar mean ages Respondents completed four FACE-Q scales (Aging Appraisal, Appearance Distress, Early Life Impact and Age VAS), EQ-5D-5L, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) and the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Straightforward Items (BFNE-S). Comprehensibility, ceiling/floor effects, structural validity (principal component analysis, confirmatory factor analysis), internal consistency, and construct validity (convergent, divergent, known-group validity) of the four FACE-Q scales were assessed.

Results

All FACE-Q scales, except the Age VAS, showed a ceiling effect (20–28%). Appearance Distress showed strong convergent validity with RSES (r = 0.742), BFNE-S (r = − 0.702), and EQ-5D-5L anxiety/depression (r = − 0.519). Aging Appraisal and Appearance Distress scales were unidimensional, whereas Early Life Impact Scale had a three-factor structure. All four FACE-Q scales were able to differentiate between known groups of patients based on self-esteem, fear of negative evaluation and acceptance of bodily appearance. Women who had undergone procedures reported higher Aging Appraisal (72.9 vs. 63.3) and Appearance Distress (77.1 vs. 68.4) scores and felt younger (− 5.0 vs. − 2.8 years) than those planning them (p < 0.001 for all).

Conclusions

Our findings provide initial support for the validity of the four FACE-Q scales in MICP populations, but further validation (e.g. assessment of responsiveness and test–retest reliability) is needed.