Develops and validates a 45-item measure for facial synkinesis, indicating strong reliability.
Background: Facial synkinesis (FS) is a common and disabling sequelae of facial nerve injury, yet no validated, condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) exists to assess its functional and psychosocial effects. This study aimed to develop and validate a reliable, patient-centered instrument for individuals with FS. Methods: This prospective, multi-phase validation study (2023–2025) was performed at a tertiary academic medical center in accordance with established recommendations for PROM development and reported following guidelines for observational studies. The process included three phases: instrument development informed by direct patient input, content validation by international experts, and assessment of test–retest reliability. Ninety-nine patients with FS and 25 experts participated. Psychometric evaluation of the 45-item Facial Synkinesis PROM (FSP-45) included internal consistency using Cronbach’s α and test–retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: In Phase 1, 44 patients (mean age 55 years) informed a 67-item draft. In Phase 2, 25 experts evaluations resulted in a refined 46-item measure across five domains: symptoms, involuntary movements, daily activity limitations, social impact, and self-perception. In Phase 3, 55 patients (mean age 50 years) completed the questionnaire twice, approximately one month apart. Cronbach’s α values ranged from 0.888 to 0.943 initially and 0.905 to 0.963 on retest. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.553 to 0.839, indicating moderate to excellent test–retest reliability. Conclusion: The FSP-45 demonstrates strong reliability and internal consistency, capturing the physical and psychosocial burden of FS in adults. Responsiveness to clinical change and minimal clinically important difference remain to be established.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rozen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: