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 .
The faces pain scale for the self-assessment of the severity of pain experienced by children: Development, initial validation, and preliminary investigation for ratio scale properties
& NA ; Altogether 553 children ( 195 first grade rs , mean age 6.8 years , and 358 third grade rs , mean age 8.7 years ) participated in the development of a self‐report measure to assess the intensity of children 's pain .  The first step was the derivation , from children 's drawings of facial expressions of pain , of 5 sets of 7 schematic faces depicting changes in severity of expressed pain from no pain to the most pain possible . With the set of faces that achieved the highest agreement in pain ordering , additional studies were conducted to determine whether the set had the properties of a scale . In one study , children rank‐ordered the faces on 2 occasions , separated by 1 week . All 7 faces were correctly ranked by 64 % ( retest 1 week later , 61 % ) of grade 1 children and by 86 % ( retest 89 % ) of grade 3 children . In a second study , the faces were presented in all possible paired combinations . All 7 faces were correctly placed by 62 % ( retest 86 % ) of the younger and by 75 % ( retest 71 % ) of the older subjects . A third study asked children to place faces along scale : a procedure allowing a check on the e quality of intervals . The fourth study checked on whether pain was acting as an underlying construct for ordering the faces in memory . We asked whether children perceived the set as a scale by asking if memory for an ordered set of faces was more accurate than for a r and om set . The final study checked , with 6‐year‐old children , the test‐retest reliability of ratings for recalled experiences of pain . Overall , the faces pain scale incorporates conventions used by children , has achieved strong agreement in the rank ordering of pain , has indications that the intervals are close to equal , and is treated by children as a scale . The test‐retest data suggest that it may prove to be a reliable index over time of self‐reported pain
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 .