Volume 11, Issue 2 (7-2022)                   WJPS 2022, 11(2): 68-74 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Mahmoudi S, Zadeh M R. Development and Validation of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE) Questionnaire: An Analytical Study. WJPS 2022; 11 (2) :68-74
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-930-en.html
1- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran.
2- Department of Psychology, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract:   (934 Views)


background: Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) is an easy-to-use questionnaire that allows comprehensive assessment of rhinoplasty-related patient satisfaction. However, the normal values for this questionnaire are not known. Therefore, we aim to validate the ROE questionnaire adapted to Iranian culture.

METHOD: In this cross-sectional descriptive study, the statistical population consisted of applicants for cosmetic surgery referred to Shahid Rajaee Hospital, Shiraz, Iran, in the autumn and winter of 2017. Two hundred individuals participated in this research by a convenience sampling method. The questionnaire (ROE) was translated to Persian and backward translated to English by independent medical extern Persian speakers with complete English proficiency. The data were analyzed using SPSS software version 23 using exploratory factor analysis.

RESULTS: The findings showed that the Cronbach’s Alpha of composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE); overall, values above 0.4 were favorable in this measure. In addition, the AVE ranged from 0.50 to 0.59, which confirmed convergent validity. The AVEs of each factor was higher than the squared correlations and confirmed discriminant validity within the constructs. In the presence of significant factor loadings and composite reliability greater than 0.70, convergence validity was confirmed. Furthermore, the higher AVEs for each factor were compared to the squared correlations to confirm discriminant validity.

CONCLUSION: The Iranian version of ROE is a valid instrument to assess results in rhinoplasty patients.


Full-Text [PDF 331 kb]   (530 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Special
Received: 2022/06/18 | Accepted: 2022/07/19 | Published: 2022/07/30

1. 1. Ilhan AE, Saribas B, Caypinar B. Aesthetic and Functional Results of Lateral Crural Repositioning. Jama Facial Plast Su 2015;17(4):286-292. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2015.0590 [DOI:10.1001/jamafacial.2015.0590] [PMID]
2. Fung E, Hong P, Moore C, Taylor SM. The effectiveness of modified Cottle maneuver in predicting outcomes in functional rhinoplasty. Plast Surg Int 2014;2014. doi: 10.1155/2014/618313. [DOI:10.1155/2014/618313] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Bagal AA, Adamson PA. Revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plastic Surg 2002;18(04):233-44. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-36491. [DOI:10.1055/s-2002-36491] [PMID]
4. Vuyk HD, Watts SJ, Vindayak B. Revision rhinoplasty: a review of deformities, etiology and treatment strategies. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2000;25(6):476-81. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2273.2000.00353.x [DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2273.2000.00353.x] [PMID]
5. Rhee JS, Daramola OO. No need to fear evidence-based medicine. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012;14(2):89-92. doi: 10.1001/archfacial.2011.1182. [DOI:10.1001/archfacial.2011.1182] [PMID]
6. Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthet Plast Surg 2000;24(3):192-7. doi: 10.1007/s002660010031. [DOI:10.1007/s002660010031] [PMID]
7. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 1998;46(12):1569-85. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00009-4. [DOI:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00009-4]
8. Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Brandão KV, Lopes AS, Garcia LB, Suguri VM, Gregório LC. Normal values for the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 78(4):76-9. doi: 10.1590/s1808-86942012000400015. [DOI:10.1590/S1808-86942012000400015] [PMID]
9. Mulafikh DS, Alharethy SE, Alqabbani AA, Mesallam TA. Validation and clinical application of the Arabic rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation questionnaire. Saudi Med J 2021;42(6):655-60. doi: 10.15537/smj.2021.42.6.20210038. [DOI:10.15537/smj.2021.42.6.20210038] [PMID] [PMCID]
10. Çelik M, Altıntaş A. The Turkish version of the rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation questionnaire: validation and clinical application. Balkan Med J 2019;36(2):129. doi: 10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2018.2018.1129 [DOI:10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2018.2018.1129] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF Jr, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson CM Jr. Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001; 3(3):198-201. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.3.3.198. [DOI:10.1001/archfaci.3.3.198] [PMID]
12. Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Lopes AS, Brandão KV, Sousa LB, Suguri VM, Gregório LC. Validation of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire adapted to Brazilian Portuguese. Qual Life Res 2014; 23(3):953-8. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0539-x. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-013-0539-x] [PMID]
13. Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ, Rosenfeld RM, Abramson PJ, Chaiet SR, Davis KS, Doghramji K, Farrior EH, Finestone SA, Ishman SL. Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017;156(2_suppl): S1-30. doi: 10.1177/0194599816683153. [DOI:10.1177/0194599816683153] [PMID]
14. Rosa F, Lohuis PJ, Almeida J, Santos M, Oliveira J, Sousa CA, Ferreira M. Versão em português do" The Utrecht questionnaire for outcome assessment in aesthetic rhinoplasty": validação e aplicação clínica☆. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 85(2):170-5. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.11.007. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.11.007] [PMID]
15. Jahandideh H, Firouzabadi FD, Firouzabadi MD, Lohuis PJ, Roomiani M. The Persian Version of Utrecht Questionnaire for Evaluation of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty Outcomes: Translation and Validation. WJPS 2020;9(2):141. doi: 10.29252/wjps.9.2.141. [DOI:10.29252/wjps.9.2.141] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Firat C, Bekircan K, Algan MF. Use of an autologous diced cartilage graft and fat graft combination to improve regeneration in rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 2021; 45(6): 1-2. doi: 10.1007/s00266-021-02186-7. [DOI:10.1007/s00266-021-02186-7] [PMID]
17. Bulut OC, Plinkert PK, Wallner F, Baumann I. Quality of life in functional rhinoplasty: rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation German version (ROE-D). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273(9):2569-73. doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-3920-x. [DOI:10.1007/s00405-016-3920-x] [PMID]
18. Arima LM, Velasco LC, Tiago RS. Crooked nose: Outcome evaluations in rhinoplasty. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 77:510-5. doi: 10.1590/S1808-86942011000400016. [DOI:10.1590/S1808-86942011000400016] [PMID]
19. Esteves SS, Gonçalves Ferreira M, Almeida JC, Abrunhosa J, Sousa CA. Evaluation of aesthetic and functional outcomes in rhinoplasty surgery: a prospective study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 83:552-7. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.06.010. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.06.010] [PMID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | World Journal of Plastic Surgery

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb