Self-Report Scales to Measure Expectations and Appearance-Related Psychosocial Distress in Patients Seeking Cosmetic Treatments

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background

The use of screening scales in cosmetic practices may help to identify patients who require education to modify inappropriate expectations and/or psychological support.

Objectives

To describe the development and validation of scales that measure expectations (about how one's appearance and quality of life might change with cosmetic treatments) and appearance-related psychosocial distress.

Methods

The scales were field-tested in patients 18 years and older seeking facial aesthetic or body contouring treatments. Recruitment took place in clinics in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada between February 2010 and January 2015. Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was used for psychometric evaluation. Scale scores range from 0 to 100; higher scores indicate more inappropriate expectations and higher psychosocial distress.

Results

Facial aesthetic (n = 279) and body contouring (n = 90) patients participated (97% response). In the RMT analysis, all items had ordered thresholds and acceptable item fit. Person Separation Index and Cronbach alpha values were 0.88 and 0.92 for the Expectation scale, and 0.81 and 0.89 for the Psychosocial Distress scale respectively. Higher expectation correlated with higher psychosocial distress (R = 0.40, P < .001). In the facial aesthetic group, lower scores on the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Appearance scale correlated with higher expectations (R = −0.27, P = .001) and psychosocial distress (R = −0.52, P < .001). In the body contouring group, lower scores on the BODY-Q Satisfaction with Body scale correlated with higher psychosocial distress (R = −0.31, P = .003). Type of treatment and marital status were associated with scale scores in multivariate models.

Conclusions

Future research could examine convergent and predictive validity. As research data are accumulated, norms and interpretation guidelines will be established.

Level of Evidence

2

Level of Evidence

JOURNAL/aesj/04.02/00146797-201610000-00014/math_14MM1/v/2017-10-13T050715Z/r/image-png

Level of Evidence

Risk

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles