Table 1.

Subjective Assessments.

Reference	Scale	Subject Population	Findings
Pezner (18)	Two 4-point ordinal scales	14 Photographs of BCT patients	Experienced observers had higher agreements than novice observers. The scales showed low reliability (κ = 0.31).
Lowery (19)	4-point, subscales (volume, contour, inframammary fold, scars), & visual analogue scales	50 photographs of BRC patients	Suggested explicit criteria and to separate various components of the aesthetic result to improve the reliability of the assessment. Low reliability was observed: four-point scale (κ = 0.31), visual analogue scale (κ = 0.13 – 0.15), subscales (κ = 0.19 – 0.63).
Sneeuw (20)	4-point scale with subscales (scar, size, shape, color, firmness)	76 Photograph of BCT patients	Reported higher intra-rater agreement between the nurse and the oncologist (κ = 0.64) but lower inter-rater agreements between ratings by patients and clinical observers (κ < 0.10) using global 4-point scale. Subscales of 4-point scale showed low to moderate reliabilities (κ = 0.24 – 0.40).
Cohen (24)	Questionnaire on breast aesthetics with 5-point scale	36 photographs of BRC patients	Reported better internal consistency (α = 0.92) and more reliability of ratings (κ = 0.57 – 0.88) by patients evaluating their own results; Ratings by surgeons were not as internally consistent (Chronbach α = 0.74 – 0.89) and reproducible (κ = 0.0 – 0.39) as patients’ ratings.