Table 1.
Reviewed Pediatric Pain Measures
| Measure | Brief Description | Ages (years) | Psychometrics | EBA Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pain intensity self-report | ||||
| Visual analog scale (VAS) | Self-report visual analog scales for pain intensity. Horizontal line with descriptive pain anchors at endpoints; draws line that intersects to indicate intensity. | 3–adult | Inter-rater correlations =.28–.72a Concurrent validity =.61–.90 Test-retest reliability =.41–.58 | Well-established |
| The Oucher (Beyer, 1984) | Self-report photograph scale for pain intensity. | 3–12 | Concurrent validity =.62–.95 Test-retest reliability = 78% of children reported scores within ± one level after 15 min. | Well-established |
| Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (Wong & Baker, 1988) | Self-report faces scale for acute pain. six line drawn faces range from no hurt to hurts worst. | 3–18 | Concurrent validity: Other pain measures =.67–73 Inter-rater correlations =.26–.37 | Approaching well-established |
| Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R; Hicks, von Baeyer, Spafford, van Korlaar & Goodenough, 1993) | Self-report faces scale for acute pain. six cartoon faces range from neutral to high pain expression. | 4–16 | Concurrent validity =.84–.99 Inter-rater correlations =.84–.99 | Well-established |
| Poker chip tool (Hester, 1979) | Self-report poker chips are used to represent pain intensity. Child chooses which chips represent the pain they experience | 4–7 | Inter-rater correlations =.23–.70 Concurrent validity =.65–.94 Test-retest reliability (8 hr) =.83 | Well-established |
| Questionnaire and Diaries | ||||
| Headache Diary (Richardson, McGrath, Cunningham, & Humphreys, 1983) | Likert scale used to assess intensity of headache pain four times a day. Scale can be behavioral or subjective | 8–17 | Concordance (weighted κ) =.18–1.0 | Approaching well-established |
| Pain Diary (Hunfeld et al., 2001; Hunfeld et al., 2002) | Visual analogue scale assessing intensity of current pain three times a day | 12–18 (parent proxy 5–11) | Test-retest reliability =.88–.98 Concurrent validity =.46–.84 Convergent validity =.03–.56 | Approaching well-established |
| Abu-Saad Pediatric Pain Assessment Tool (PPAT; Abu-Saad, Kroonen, & Halfens, 1990) | Self-report multidimensional questionnaire of pain using 32 sensory, affective, and evaluative word descriptors, and a 10 cm scale that measures present and worst pain. | 5–17 | Internal consistency =.83 Cross-informant correlations =.28–.92 for child, parent, nurse, physician present and worse pain Concurrent validity =.94–.97 (10 cm);.45–.51 (NWD) other pain measures; Ns 10 cm and Headache Diary Convergent validity =.50–4.50 Discriminant validity =.14–.26 | Approaching well-established |
| Varni-Thompson Pediatric Pain Questionnaire (PPQ; Varni & Thompson, 1985) | Questionnaire that assesses chronic pain intensity, location, sensory, evaluative, and affective qualities of pain via self-report and parent / physician proxy-report. Used with a variety of populations (e.g., JRA, SCD, fibromyalgia). | 5–18 | Test-Retest reliability =.29–.41 Inter-rater correlations =.40–.85 VAS predictive of disability estimates (p <.05) Convergent Validity =.27–.68 with disease status;.06–.45 with psychological functioning | Well-established |
| Behavioral Observation | ||||
| Procedure Behavioral Rating Scale (PBRS; Katz, Kellerman, & Siegel, 1980) | Observational measure of behavioral distress (pain, anxiety, and fear) during painful medical procedures. Thirteen operationally defined behaviors. | 0–18 | Inter-rater reliability =.81–.94 Convergent validity =.33–.68 | Approaching well-established |
| Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress (OSBD; Jay, Ozolins, Elliott, & Caldwell, 1983; OSBD-R, Elliott, Jay, & Woody, 1987) | Observational measure of pain during acute medical procedures. Originally consisted of 11 behaviors that indicate distress, but has been revised to include eight. | 2–20 | Internal consistency =.68–.72 Concurrent validity =.20–.76 Inter-rater reliability = 80–91% | Well-established |
| Child–Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale (CAMPIS; Blount et al., 1989; CAMPIS-R; Blount et al., 1997) | Observational measure used to assess child pain during acute medical procedures. Child coping and parent / medical staff behaviors are also assessed. | 2–13 | Inter-rater reliability =.65–.92 for the different scales;.90 for distress (κ) | Well-established |
| Procedure Behavior Checklist (PBCL; LeBaron, & Zeltzer, 1984) | Observational measure of pain and anxiety during invasive medical procedures. Eight operationally defined behaviors rated on occurrence and intensity (scale 1–5) | 3–18 | Inter-rater reliability = 72–94% Convergent validity =.42–.74 | Well-established |
| Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS; McGrath, Johnson, Goodman, Dunn, & Chapman, 1985) | Observational measure of postoperative pain in children. | 1–12 | Inter-rater reliability = 95% Concurrent validity =.35–.85 | Well-established |
| COMFORT Scale (Ambuel, Hamlett, Marx, & Blumer, 1992) | Observer rated measure for use in intensive care environments. Includes eight behaviorally anchored rating scales. | 0–18 | Inter-rater reliability =.51–.93 (κ) Concurrent validity =.26–.90 Internal consistency =.90–.92 | Well-established |
| Child Facial Coding System (CFCS; Chambers, Cassidy, McGrath, Gilbert, Craig, 1996). | Observational measure of facial expressions during painful medical procedures. Thirteen facial actions coded for frequency or intensity | 2–5 | Inter-rater reliability =.75–.83 Concurrent validity =.28–.73 | Approaching well-established |
| Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP; Stevens, Johnston, Petryshen, & Taddio, 1996) | Observational measure of acute pain in premature infants. Seven indicators of pain | Preterm infants | Internal consistency =.59–.76 Inter-rater reliability =.95–.97 | Well-established |
Note: *The psychometrics are from a number of sources found via psycINFO and MEDLINE searches conducted between 2003–2007. For an overview of the measure including the relevant references, please contact the corresponding author.