All 4 faces pain scales were found to be adequately supported by psychometric data .
When given a choice between faces scales , children preferred the WBFPRS .
Confounding of pain intensity with affect caused by use of smiling and crying anchor faces is a disadvantage of the WBFPRS .
: For clinical use , we found no grounds to switch from 1 faces scale to another when 1 of the scales is in use .
CONTEXT : Numerous faces scales have been developed for the measurement of  pain intensity in children .
It remains unclear whether any one of the faces scales is better for a particular purpose with regard to validity , reliability , feasibility , and preference .
OBJECTIVES : To summarize and systematic ally review faces pain scales most commonly used to obtain self-report of pain intensity in children for evaluation of reliability and validity and to compare the scales for preference and utility .
Pain assessment in the paediatric Emergency Department: whose view counts?
Objectives : To compare patient , guardian and professional assessment of acute pain in children presenting to an Emergency Department , and to examine whether there was a correlation between the scores obtained using the Faces and linear scales for each group . Methods : A prospect i ve , observational cohort study of 73 children aged 4–14 years attending a paediatric hospital Emergency Department between March and April 2002 with pain caused by an acute injury . The child 's pain on admission , as estimated by the child , their guardian and a healthcare professional ( nurse/doctor/emergency nurse practitioner ) was recorded using a Faces scale and a linear scale . Results : Professionals consistently score pain lower [ median linear scale score 3.1 ; interquartile range ( IQR ) 1.6–5.3 ] than do patients ( 6.6 ; 4.9–7.4 ) or guardians ( 6.0 ; 3.9–7.1 ) using both linear and Faces scales . There is a significant correlation between pain scores obtained using the two scales for professionals [ Spearman R value 0.88 ; 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) 0.82–0.93 ] , guardians ( 0.83 ; 0.74–0.89 ) and patients ( 0.42 ; 0.21–0.59 ) . Conclusion : Professionals score pain lower than do children or guardians . Similar pain scores are obtained using both a Faces and a linear scale . This study offers no support for the introduction of a uniform pain assessment tool in a paediatric Emergency Department setting
All 4 faces pain scales were found to be adequately supported by psychometric data .
When given a choice between faces scales , children preferred the WBFPRS .
Confounding of pain intensity with affect caused by use of smiling and crying anchor faces is a disadvantage of the WBFPRS .
: For clinical use , we found no grounds to switch from 1 faces scale to another when 1 of the scales is in use .
CONTEXT : Numerous faces scales have been developed for the measurement of  pain intensity in children .
It remains unclear whether any one of the faces scales is better for a particular purpose with regard to validity , reliability , feasibility , and preference .
OBJECTIVES : To summarize and systematic ally review faces pain scales most commonly used to obtain self-report of pain intensity in children for evaluation of reliability and validity and to compare the scales for preference and utility .