ArticlePloS one2026
Validity, reliability, and comparison of the Indonesian version of two baumann skin type indicator (BSTI) questionnaires.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate skin type classification is essential for dermatological care and research; however, commonly used classification systems do not adequately capture the multidimensional nature of skin characteristics. The Baumann Skin Type Indicator (BSTI) was developed as a questionnaire-based tool to address this limitation, and a simplified version was introduced in 2022 to improve clinical usability. To date, no validated multidimensional skin type assessment tool is available for the Indonesian population.
objectivesTo evaluate the validity and reliability of the Indonesian translations of the 2006 and 2022 versions of the Baumann Skin Type Indicator (BSTI-Ina) and to assess the level of agreement between the two versions when applied to Indonesian adults.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using Bahasa Indonesia versions of the 2006 and 2022 BSTI questionnaires, which were distributed online to 150 adult respondents. Content and construct validity were assessed, internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, and agreement between the two versions was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsConstruct validity coefficients ranged from -0.037 to 0.751 for the 2006 BSTI-Ina and from 0.231 to 0.685 for the 2022 version. Cronbach's alpha values were ranged from 0.613-0.718 for the 2006 version and were 0.704 for the 2022 version, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The ICC between twoversions was 0.435, indicating moderate agreement.
conclusionBoth the 2006 and 2022 Indonesian versions of the BSTI demonstrate acceptable validity and reliability for skin-type classification in Indonesian adults. The shorter 2022 version may offer a more practical option for routine and research use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.