1. Roberts WE. Skin type classification systems old and new. Dermatol Clin 2009; 27: 529-33.
2.
Oliveira R, Ferreira J, Azevedo LF, Almeida IF. An overview of methods to characterize skin type: focus on visual rating scales and self-report instruments. Cosmetics 2023; 10: 14.
3.
Baumann L. The Skin Type Solution. Bantam Books, New York 2006.
4.
Baumann L. Validation of a Questionnaire to Diagnose the Baumann Skin Type in All Ethnicities and in Various Geographic Locations. J Cosmetics Dermatol Sci Appl 2016; 6: 34-40.
5.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420-8.
6.
Gwet KL. Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. Br J Math Stat Psychol 2008; 61: 29-48.
7.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica 1951; 16: 297-334.
8.
Kline P. Classical and Modern Measurement Theories. Routledge & Kegan Paul 1986.
9.
Cronbach LJ, Gleser GC. The signal/noise ratio in the comparison of reliability coefficients. Educ Psychol Meas 1964; 24: 467-80.
10.
Revelle W, Condon DM. Reliability from a to w: a tutorial. Psychol Assess 2019; 31: 1395-411.
11.
Duhachek A, Iacobucci D. Alpha’s standard error (ASE): an accurate and precise confidence interval estimate. J Appl Psychol 2004; 89: 792-808.
12.
R Core Team. R Core Team 2023 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/ 2023.
13.
Gwet KL. irrCAC: Computing Chance-Corrected Agreement Coefficients (CAC). R package version 1.0. 2019.
14.
Kuhn M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J Stat Softw 2008; 28: 1-25.
15.
Makowski D, Lüdecke D, Patil I, et al. Automated Results Reporting as a Practical Tool to Improve Reproducibility and Methodological Best Practices Adoption. . 2023.
16.
Sjoberg DD, Whiting K, Curry M, et al. Reproducible Summary Tables with the gtsummary Package. R Journal 2021; 13: 570-80.
17.
Wickham H, Bryan J. readxl: Read Excel Files. R package version 1.4.3. 2023.
18.
Wickham H, François R, Henry L, et al. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 1.1.3, 2023.
19.
Wickham H, Vaughan D, Girlich M. tidyr: Tidy Messy Data. R package version 1.3.0, 2023.
20.
Revelle W. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.3.9, 2023.
21.
Baumann LS, Penfield RD, Clarke JL, Duque DK. A validated questionnaire for quantifying skin oiliness. J Cosmetics Dermatol Sci Appl 2014; 4: 79-84.
22.
Farage MA, Miller KW, Maibach HI. Textbook of aging skin. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89656-2.
23.
Youn SW, Kim SJ, Hwang IA, Park KC. Evaluation of facial skin type by sebum secretion: discrepancies between subjective descriptions and sebum secretion. Skin Res Technol 2002; 8: 168-72.
24.
Yurtsever I, Matusiak Ł, Szepietowska M, et al. Cosmetic Procedure Screening Questionnaire (COPS): creation and validation of the Polish language version. Adv Dermatol Allergol 2021; 38: 881-6.
25.
Ahn SK, Jun M, Bak H, et al. Baumann skin type in the Korean female population. Ann Dermatol 2017; 29: 586-96.
26.
Lee YB, Ahn SK, Ahn GY, et al. Baumann skin type in the Korean male population. Ann Dermatol 2019; 31: 621-30.
27.
Cho SI, Kim D, Lee H, et al. Explore highly relevant questions in the Baumann skin type questionnaire through the digital skin analyzer: a retrospective single-center study in South Korea. J Cosmet Dermatol 2023; 22: 3159-67.
28.
Choi JY, Choi YJ, Nam JH, et al. Identifying skin type using the baumann skin type questionnaire in Korean women who visited a dermatologic clinic. Korean J Dermatol 2016; 54: 422-37
