Facial disability index (FDI): Adaptation to Spanish, reliability and validity

Abstract

Objectives: To adapt to Spanish the facial disability index (FDI) described by VanSwearingen and Brach in 1995 and to assess its reliability and validity in patients with facial nerve paresis after parotidectomy. Study Design: The present study was conducted in two different stages: a) cross-cultural adaptation of the questionnaire and b) cross-sectional study of a control group of 79 Spanish-speaking patients who suffered facial paresis after superficial parotidectomy with facial nerve preservation. The cross-cultural adaptation process comprised the following stages: (I) initial translation, (II) synthesis of the translated document, (III) retro-translation, (IV) review by a board of experts, (V) pilot study of the pre-final draft and (VI) analysis of the pilot study and final draft. Results: The reliability and internal consistency of every one of the rating scales included in the FDI (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) was 0.83 for the complete scale and 0.77 and 0.82 for the physical and the social well-being subscales. The analysis of the factorial validity of the main components of the adapted FDI yielded similar results to the original questionnaire. Bivariate correlations between FDI and House-Brackmann scale were positive. The variance percentage was calculated for all FDI components. Conclusions: The FDI questionnaire is a specific instrument for assessing facial neuromuscular dysfunction which becomes a useful tool in order to determine quality of life in patients with facial nerve paralysis. Spanish adapted FDI is equivalent to the original questionnaire and shows similar reliability and validity. The proven reproducibi-lity, reliability and validity of this questionnaire make it a useful additional tool for evaluating the impact of facial nerve paralysis in Spanish-speaking patients. Key words:Parotidectomy, facial nerve paralysis, facial disability.

Validation of French versions of the Facial Disability Index and the Facial Clinimetric Evaluation Scale, specific quality of life scales for peripheral facial palsy patients

“…For FDI, Cronbach's α were 0.88 and 0.86 (test‐retest) for physical function and 0.70 and 0.82 (test‐retest) for social function. These values are similar to Spanish (0.77 for physical and 0.82 for social functions) and Swedish (0.86 for physical and 0.81 for social functions) validations …”

“…No difficulty in translation process and in French adaptation was encountered. In our validation study, the population size (67 patients) was consistent with the literature . PFP was idiopathic in 53.7% of cases, and iatrogenic in 29.9%.…”

“…Test‐retest reliability or concordance degree was rated by Pearson's coefficient with Bland and Altman method by repeating questionnaires after seven days . Test‐retest reliability was also evaluated by intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC) since this statistical method was used in previous works of translation of FDI and FaCE …”

“…Since their descriptions, these questionnaires have been used in several studies . After the original version in English, versions in Spanish, Chinese, Swedish, Italian, German and Dutch languages have also been validated …”

Functional results after facial reanimation in iatrogenic facial palsy

“…In future studies, we aim to implement patient‐based instruments to assess patient satisfaction and health‐related quality of life after surgical facial reanimation (Gyori et al, ), which were not available in this retrospective study. Well‐established patient‐reported outcome measures assessing facial function and quality of life in facial palsy patients are the Facial Clinimetric Evaluation Scale (FaCE Scale) (Kahn et al, ) and the Facial Disability Index (FDI) (VanSwearingen & Brach, ), which are widely used validated instruments (Fattah et al, ) that have been translated into different languages, including German (Volk et al, ), Swedish (Marsk, Hammarstedt‐Nordenvall, Engstrom, Jonsson, & Hultcrantz, ) and Spanish (Gonzalez‐Cardero, Infante‐Cossio, Cayuela, Acosta‐Feria, & Gutierrez‐Perez, ). The literature analyzing patient‐reported outcome measures in patients treated with facial reanimation procedures, however, is very limited (Gyori et al, ).…”