Turkish Translation and Validation of the Expectations of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty Scale

Abstract

The aim of this study was to translate, validate, and culturally adapt the original English version of the Expectations of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty Scale (EARS) into Turkish for use in Turkish-speaking communities. Fifty-one patients who wanted to undergo primary rhinoplasty and were literate in Turkish were included in the study. The control group consisted of 81 healthy volunteers who did not require rhinoplasty. A Turkish version of the EARS (EARS-T) was created. The participants completed the EARS-T questionnaire twice, 4-week apart. The internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach's α), the test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and differences between the patient and control groups (Pearson's chi-square test) were analyzed. A statistically significant difference was found between the age and gender of the patient and control groups (p = 0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Univariate analysis showed that this significant difference did not affect the study results (age: p = 0.2; gender: p = 0.12). In addition, a statistically significant difference was found between the scale scores of the control and rhinoplasty groups (all p < 0.05). The EARS-T had good internal consistency, with high Cronbach's α scores ranging between 0.74 and 0.87. Test–retest reliability was demonstrated by high ICC scores ranging from 0.71 to 0.87. Our study revealed that the EARS-T has good internal consistency, reliability, and validity. Therefore, it can be used to assess the expectations of aesthetic rhinoplasty patients in preoperative consultation practice and in clinical studies related to rhinoplasty.

Keywords

rhinoplasty - expectations - scale - translation - validation

Publication History

Accepted Manuscript online:
24 October 2024

Article published online:
24 November 2024

• References

• 1 Waljee J, McGlinn EP, Sears ED, Chung KC. Patient expectations and patient-reported outcomes in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 2014; 155 (05) 799-808
• 2 Naraghi M, Atari M. Development and validation of the expectations of aesthetic rhinoplasty scale. Arch Plast Surg 2016; 43 (04) 365-370
• 3 Kandathil CK, Patel PN, Spataro EA, Most SP. Examining preoperative expectations and postoperative satisfaction in rhinoplasty patients: a single-center study. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2021; 23 (05) 375-382
• 4 Clappier M, Tanna N. Preoperative evaluation of the rhinoplasty patient. Clin Plast Surg 2022; 49 (01) 1-11
• 5 Naraghi M, Atari M, Asadollahi H. When aesthetics, surgery, and psychology meet: aesthetic nasal proportions in patients having rhinoplasty and normal adults. Surg J (NY) 2016; 2 (01) e44-e48
• 6 Naraghi M, Atari M. Comparison of patterns of psychopathology in aesthetic rhinoplasty patients versus functional rhinoplasty patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 152 (02) 244-249
• 7 Picavet VA, Prokopakis EP, Gabriëls L, Jorissen M, Hellings PW. High prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder symptoms in patients seeking rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (02) 509-517
• 8 Dey JK, Ishii M, Phillis M, Byrne PJ, Boahene KD, Ishii LE. Body dysmorphic disorder in a facial plastic and reconstructive surgery clinic: measuring prevalence, assessing comorbidities, and validating a feasible screening instrument. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2015; 17 (02) 137-143
• 9 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association Washington, DC; 2013
• 10 Phillips KA, Menard W, Fay C, Weisberg R. Demographic characteristics, phenomenology, comorbidity, and family history in 200 individuals with body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics 2005; 46 (04) 317-325
• 11 Gorney M, Martello J. Patient selection criteria. Clin Plast Surg 1999; 26 (01) 37-40 , vi
• 12 Rohrich RJ, Adams WP, Ahmad J, Gunter J. Dallas Rhinoplasty: Nasal Surgery by the Masters. CRC Press; 2014
• 13 Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46 (12) 1417-1432
• 14 World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013; 310 (20) 2191-2194
• 15 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25 (24) 3186-3191
• 16 Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE; 2013
• 17 Avcu M, Metin M. Evaluation of the relationship between patient expectation, patient expectation coverage rates and patient satisfaction in open primary septorhinoplasty surgery: a prospective randomized study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021; 278 (07) 2337-2346
• 18 Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ. et al. Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (2_suppl, suppl): S1-S30
• 19 Kucur C, Kuduban O, Ozturk A. et al. Psychological evaluation of patients seeking rhinoplasty. Eurasian J Med 2016; 48 (02) 102-106
• 20 Tasman AJ. The psychological aspects of rhinoplasty. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 18 (04) 290-294
• 21 Mandavia R, Parmar D, Ahmed MN. et al. EAFPS Rhinoplasty Research Network. An overview of rhinoplasty practices: European Academy of Facial Plastic Surgery, collaborative cross-sectional study. Facial Plast Surg 2024; 40 (01) 31-35
• 22 Nabavizadeh SS, Naseri R, Sadeghi E. et al. Prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder in rhinoplasty candidates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Sci Rep 2023; 6 (08) e1495