Validation of the Russian-language version of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS)

V.V. Zholtikov

Federal State budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education «St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University» of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation

N.P. Korableva

Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Yu.V. Lebedeva

Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

ORCID: 0000-0001-9116-9589

M. Saltychev

Turku University Hospital and University of Turku

S.M. Most

Stanford University School of Medicine

S.P. Moubayed

Université de Montréal

Validation of the Russian-language version of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS)

Authors:

V.V. Zholtikov, N.P. Korableva, Yu.V. Lebedeva, M. Saltychev, S.M. Most, S.P. Moubayed

More about the authors

Journal: Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2021;(2): 81‑86

DOI: 10.17116/plast.hirurgia202102181

Downloaded: 220

To cite this article:

Zholtikov VV, Korableva NP, Lebedeva YuV, Saltychev M, Most SM, Moubayed SP. Validation of the Russian-language version of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS). Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2021;(2):81‑86. (In Russ., In Engl.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202102181

Кардиологические дебаты — VI. Версия 2.0

Доказательная гастроэнтерология: pro et contra

Актуальные вопросы педиатрической практики

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

OBJECTIVE

To validate the Russian-language version of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

SCHNOS was processed by forward and backward translations and adapted to the cultural context in accordance with international standards. Its psychometric validity was tested with native Russian speakers. The authors measured internal consistency, correlation and reproducibility of the questionnaire to determine its validity.

RESULTS

The final Russian-language version of SCHNOS was presented to 76 Russian speakers. Both SCHNOS-O (obstructive domain) and SCHNOS-C (cosmetic domain) showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.84 and 0.94, respectively). Spearman’s correlations between the items SCHNOS-O (0.38-0.82) and SCHNOS-C (0.49-0.88) were positive and significant. Spearman’s rank correlation in retest analysis of SCHNOS-O (r=0.87) and SCHNOS-C (r=90) was positive and significant. Statistical significance of responses was obtained for SCHNOS-O (p<0.001), but not for SCHNOS-C (p=0.222).

CONCLUSION

In this study, SCHNOS was successfully translated and culturally adapted into Russian. The Russian-language version of SCHNOS turned out to be reliable and effective tool. Therefore, the authors recommend this method in Russian-speaking patients undergoing functional and/or aesthetic rhinoplasty.

Keywords:

rhinoplasty

nasal valve

nasal obstruction

surgical outcome

questionnaire

SCHNOS

evaluation of postoperative outcome

nasal breathing impairment

patients survey

Authors:

V.V. Zholtikov

Federal State budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education «St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University» of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation

N.P. Korableva

Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Yu.V. Lebedeva

Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

ORCID: 0000-0001-9116-9589

M. Saltychev

Turku University Hospital and University of Turku

S.M. Most

Stanford University School of Medicine

S.P. Moubayed

Université de Montréal

Received:

28.02.2021

Accepted:

11.03.2021

List of references:

Moubayed SP, Ioannidis JPA, Saltychev M, et al. The 10-item Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) for functional and cosmetic rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2018;20:37-42.
Most SP, Rudy SF. Septoplasty: basic and advanced techniques. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2017;25:161-169.
Saltychev M, Kandathil CK, Abdelwahab M, et al. Psychometric properties of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey: item response theory analysis. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2018;20:519-521.
Arefiev AL. Russkij yazyk na rubezhe XX—XXI vekov (Elektronnyj resurs). M.: Tsentr sotsial’nogo prognozirovaniya i marketinga; 2012:482.
Lewis MP, Simons GF, Fennig CD. Slavic. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (18th Ed.). Dallas: SIL International; 2015.
Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8:94-104.
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;46:1417-1432.
Sullivan G. A primer on the validity of assessment instruments. J Grad Med Educ. 2011;3:119-120.
Marro M, Mondina M, Stoll D, et al. French validation of the NOSE and RhinoQOL questionnaires in the management of nasal obstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;144:988-993.
Vincent C, Gagné JP, Leroux T, et al. French-Canadian translation and validation of four questionnaires assessing hearing impairment and handicap. Int J Audiol. 2017;56:248-259.
Ramos TD, Brito MJ, Piccolo MS, et al. Body Dysmorphic Symptoms Scale for patients seeking esthetic surgery: cross-cultural validation study. Sao Paulo Med J. 2016;134:480-490.
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):1-30.
Acquadro C, Conway K, Hareendran A, et al.; European Regulatory Issues and Quality of Life Assessment (ERIQA) Group. Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health. 2008;11:509-521.
Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, et al. Quality of life measures in health care. I: Applications and issues in assessment. BMJ. 1992;305:1074-1077.

Close metadata