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 .
Parents and practitioners are poor judges of young children's pain severity.
OBJECTIVE Visual analog pain scales are reliable measures in older children and adults ; however , pain studies that include young children often rely on parental or practitioner assessment s for measuring pain severity . The authors correlated patient , parental , and practitioner pain assessment s for young children with acute pain . METHODS This was a prospect i ve , descriptive study of a convenience sample of 63 emergency department patients aged 4 - 7 years , with acute pain result ing from acute illness or painful invasive procedures . A trained research assistant administered a structured pain survey containing demographic and historical features to all parents/guardians . Children assessed their pain severity using a vali date d ordinal scale that uses five different faces with varying degrees of frowning ( severe pain ) or smiling ( no pain ) . Each face was converted to a numeric value from 0 ( no pain ) to 4 ( severe pain ) . Parents and practitioners independently assessed their child 's pain using a vali date d 100-mm visual analog scale ( VAS ) marked " most pain " at the high end . Pairwise correlations between child , parent , and practitioner pain assessment s were performed using Spearman 's or Pearson 's test as appropriate . The association between categorical data was assessed using chi(2 ) tests . RESULTS Sixty-three children ranging in age from 4 to 7 were included . Mean age ( + /-SD ) was 5.7 ( + /-1.1 ) ; 42 % were female . Fifty-seven successfully completed the face scale . The distribution of the children 's scores was 0 - 17 % , 1 - 9 % , 2 - 30 % , 3 - 14 % , and 4 - 30 % . Mean parental and practitioner scores ( + /-SD ) on the VAS were 61 ( + /-26 ) mm and 37 ( + /-26 ) mm , respectively ( maximal = 100 mm ) . Correlation between child and parent scores was 0.47 ( p < 0.001 ) . Correlation between child and practitioner scores was 0.08 ( p = 0.54 ) . Correlation between parent and practitioner scores was 0.04 ( p = 0.001 ) . CONCLUSIONS There is poor agreement between pain ratings by children , parents , and practitioners . It is unclear which assessment best approximates the true degree of pain the child is experiencing
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 .