Table of Contents
Abstract
The Risk assessment Scale for Pathological scarring is a newly developed clinical instrument designed to identify patients who are highly susceptible to developing severe, abnormal scars following skin injury. While normal scarring is an expected outcome of wound healing, pathological variations like Hypertrophic scars and Keloids represent a dysregulation in collagen synthesis. These abnormal scars can cause significant physical discomfort, functional impairment, and psychological distress.
Developed through a rigorous multi-phase methodology involving literature reviews, expert interviews, and the Delphi technique, this 12-item scale provides a standardized metric for evaluating risk. By quantifying a patient's vulnerability early in the wound-healing trajectory, the instrument empowers healthcare professionals to implement preventative strategies proactively rather than relying solely on reactive treatments once the scar has already formed.
📊 Psychometric Scorecard
12
Multidimensional
0.74
📍 China
Authors
Purpose
Historically, clinicians have understood that various distinct elements—ranging from genetic predispositions to localized mechanical tension—contribute to abnormal scarring. However, the field lacked a cohesive, unified framework to evaluate these disparate risk factors systematically. The primary purpose of this scale is to bridge that critical gap by offering a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment tool.
For researchers, the scale standardizes the measurement of scar risk, facilitating more robust comparative studies and clinical trials for preventative treatments. For frontline healthcare providers, it serves as a practical triage instrument. By identifying high-risk individuals early, clinicians can allocate specialized resources, such as tension-relieving dressings or targeted anti-inflammatory therapies, to those who need them most, ultimately improving patient outcomes and quality of life.
Construct
The instrument measures the multidimensional construct of 'Pathological scarring risk,' which encompasses the biological, mechanical, and clinical variables that disrupt normal wound healing. The theoretical framework posits that scar formation is not dictated by a single variable but rather by the complex interplay of several distinct domains.
The scale operationalizes this construct through three primary dimensions: systemic factors inherent to the patient (such as genetic background or demographic variables), local factors specific to the wound environment (including inflammation levels, mechanical tension, and wound depth), and therapeutic factors related to clinical management. By integrating these dimensions, the scale captures a holistic profile of the patient's overall vulnerability to excessive fibroblast proliferation and collagen deposition.
Validity
The development of the scale incorporated robust validation procedures to ensure its clinical utility and theoretical soundness. Content validity was established through a rigorous Delphi expert consultation process involving specialists in wound therapy and scar management. The resulting scale demonstrated strong content validity, with an overall scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) of 0.82, indicating a high degree of consensus among experts that the items accurately represent the risk factors for abnormal scarring.
Additionally, item-level content validity indices (I-CVI) ranged from 0.67 to 1.0, confirming that individual items were highly relevant to the target construct. Construct validity was further supported by exploratory factor analysis, which verified that the empirical data aligned well with the theoretical dimensions of scar risk, ensuring the tool measures what it claims to measure.
Reliability
Reliability analyses indicate that the scale possesses adequate consistency for clinical and research applications. Internal consistency, which measures how well the items within the scale correlate with one another, was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. The overall scale achieved an alpha coefficient of 0.74, which falls comfortably within the acceptable range for newly developed psychometric instruments, suggesting that the items reliably measure the unified construct of scar risk.
Furthermore, the instrument demonstrated strong interrater reliability, yielding a Kappa coefficient of 0.73. This is a critical metric for a clinical assessment tool, as it signifies that different healthcare professionals using the scale to evaluate the same patient will arrive at highly consistent risk scores, thereby minimizing subjective bias in clinical decision-making.
Factor Analysis
To understand the underlying structure of the scale, the researchers subjected the patient data to factor analysis. This statistical technique helps determine how individual items group together based on patient responses, revealing the latent variables driving the assessment.
The analysis extracted four common factors that collectively accounted for 62.22% of the total variance in the data. This substantial variance explanation indicates that the extracted factors capture the majority of the information regarding pathological scar risk. While the initial theoretical model proposed three dimensions, the emergence of four statistical factors suggests a nuanced underlying structure, highlighting the complexity of wound healing and the multifaceted nature of scar development.
Subscales
| Subscale | Items | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Systemic factors | Measures patient-specific biological and demographic variables that predispose individuals to abnormal scarring. | |
| Local factors | Assesses wound-specific variables such as mechanical tension, inflammation, and wound depth. | |
| Therapeutic factors | Evaluates elements related to the clinical management and treatment of the wound. |
Instrument
| Test Type | Clinician-rated scale |
| Format | 12 items |
| Language | Chinese |
| Population | Medical patients |
| Administration | Clinician assessment |
Risk Assessment Scale for Pathological Scarring Items
Items are currently not available
The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.
Sample
The validation sample consisted of 409 patients with surgical wounds resulting from trauma or surgery (including burns and plastic surgery procedures) admitted to the Department of Burn and Plastic Surgery at West China Hospital, Sichuan University, between November 2021 and April 2022.
Cite This Paper
Yanqiong Wang, Ruiqi Liu, Zhihui Wu, Xuewen Xu, Lingxiao He (2023). Risk assessment Scale for Pathological scarring. International wound journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14241
References
31 references
- Yang, S., Luo, Y., Luo, C. (2021). Network Meta-Analysis of Different Clinical Commonly Used Drugs for the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scar and Keloid. Frontiers in Medicine, 8 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.691628
- Frykberg, R., Banks, J. (2015). Challenges in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds. Advances in wound care, 4(9), 560-582. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0635
- Monstrey, S., Middelkoop, E., Vranckx, J., Bassetto, F., Ziegler, U., Meaume, S., … et al. (2014). Updated Scar Management Practical Guidelines: Non-invasive and invasive measures. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 67(8), 1017-1025. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.04.011
- Mahdavian Delavary, B., van der Veer, W., Ferreira, J., Niessen, F. (2012). Formation of Hypertrophic scars: Evolution and susceptibility. Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, 46(2), 95-101. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3109/2000656X.2012.669184
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140‐6736(16)31406‐4
- Elsaie, M. (2021). Update on management of keloid and Hypertrophic scars: A systemic review. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 20(9), 2729-2738. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.14310
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1055/s‐0041‐1731461
- Deflorin, C., Hohenauer, E., Stoop, R., van Daele, U., Clijsen, R., Taeymans, J. (2020). Physical Management of Scar Tissue: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 26(10), 854-865. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2020.0109
- Friedstat, J., Hultman, C. (2014). Hypertrophic Burn Scar Management. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 72(6), S198-S201. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000103
- Nakashima, M., Chung, S., Takahashi, A., Kamatani, N., Kawaguchi, T., Tsunoda, T., … et al. (2010). A genome-wide association study identifies four susceptibility loci for keloid in the Japanese population. Nature Genetics, 42(9), 768-771. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.645
- Ogawa, R., Watanabe, A., Than Naing, B., Sasaki, M., Fujita, A., Akaishi, S., … et al. (2014). Associations between Keloid Severity and Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms: Importance of rs8032158 as a Biomarker of Keloid Severity. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 134(7), 2041-2043. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2014.71
- Butzelaar, L., Ulrich, M., Mink van der Molen, A., Niessen, F., Beelen, R. (2016). Currently known risk factors for hypertrophic skin scarring: A review. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 69(2), 163-169. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.015
- Ogawa, R. (2017). Keloid and Hypertrophic scars Are the Result of Chronic Inflammation in the Reticular Dermis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(3), 606. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18030606
- Wang, Z., Zhao, W., Cao, Y., Liu, Y., Sun, Q., Shi, P., … et al. (2020). The Roles of Inflammation in Keloid and Hypertrophic scars. Frontiers in Immunology, 11 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.603187
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524‐475X.2012.00820.x
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2017.03.017
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419‐021‐03481‐6
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318220b159
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-198310000-00009
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555‐019‐00327‐0
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12277
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12197
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824f632d
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12637
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15379
- Kline RB (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling.
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008667
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630‐199509000‐00013
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000172982.43599.d6
- 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534‐199811000‐00022
Cite this article
(2026). Risk Assessment Scale for Pathological Scarring. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/risk-assessment-scale-for-pathological-scarring/
. "Risk Assessment Scale for Pathological Scarring." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 12 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/risk-assessment-scale-for-pathological-scarring/.
. "Risk Assessment Scale for Pathological Scarring." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/risk-assessment-scale-for-pathological-scarring/.
(2026) 'Risk Assessment Scale for Pathological Scarring', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/risk-assessment-scale-for-pathological-scarring/.
[1] , "Risk Assessment Scale for Pathological Scarring," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.
. Risk Assessment Scale for Pathological Scarring. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.