Faces Scales for the Measurement of Postoperative Pain Intensity in Children Following Minor Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Faces scales are commonly used to obtain self-reports of pain intensity from children. Previous research using hypothetical vignettes and pain following venepuncture has found differences in children's pain ratings as a function of the type of faces scale used. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether scales beginning with a smiling rather than neutral "no pain" face would produce higher ratings in the assessment of postoperative pain intensity in children and to compare ratings using different faces scales to those reported with an additional independent measure of pain intensity. METHODS: Participants were 78 children between the ages of 5 and 13 years undergoing surgery, one of their parents, and their postoperative care nurse. Following surgery, children were asked to provide a rating of their current pain intensity using a set of 5 successively administered faces scales and the Colored Analog Scale (CAS). Parents and nurses provided independent ratings using the same measures. RESULTS: Results showed that parents and nurses rated significantly more pain when using scales with a smiling rather than a neutral "no pain" face. This pattern was not as clear for the children's ratings, although their highest ratings were provided when using a smiling "no pain" faces scale. Children's and nurses' ratings on the CAS were generally more similar to their ratings using scales with neutral "no pain" faces, whereas parents' CAS ratings tended to fall in between ratings provided on the smiling and neutral "no pain" faces scales. Scale preference, age and sex differences in pain ratings, and child-parent-nurse agreement in pain ratings are also examined. DISCUSSION: Children's and parents' ratings of postoperative pain intensity are influenced by the presence of a smiling "no pain" face at the beginning of faces scales, with such scales producing significantly higher ratings than scales with neutral "no pain" faces. Ratings on the independent CAS measure were more comparable to those provided on faces scales with neutral "no pain" faces. Nurses are also susceptible to the influencing effect of a smiling face at the beginning of a faces scale.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".