Indian Journal of Palliative Care
Open access journal 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users online: 152  
     Home | About | Feedback | Login 
  Current Issue Back Issues Editorial Board Authors and Reviewers How to Subscribe Advertise with us Contact Us Analgesic Prescription  
  Navigate Here 
 Resource Links
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (265 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this Article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded21    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Table of Contents 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 51-52


Department of Palliative Medicine, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication31-Jan-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Arunangshu Ghoshal
Department of Palliative Medicine, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/IJPC.IJPC_176_18

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Ghoshal A. Commentary. Indian J Palliat Care 2019;25:51-2

How to cite this URL:
Ghoshal A. Commentary. Indian J Palliat Care [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Jan 26];25:51-2. Available from:

The article entitled “Validity and Reliability of 11-face Faces Pain Scale in the Iranian Elderly Community with Chronic Pain” raises many important issues regarding measurement and implementation problems associated with various self-report scales designed to assess pain in older people.

A recent systematic review states that the prevalence of any type of pain among older people ranged widely from a low of 0% to a high of 93%.[1] The world is facing a huge increase in the older population, and the WHO predicts that by 2050, 80% of older people will be living in low- and middle-income countries.[2] This brings an anticipated increase in the prevalence of chronic pain and with this comes the challenge of assessment of pain in many varied settings.

Different patterns and sites of pain can be seen in men and women; age differences suggest that pain prevalence increases with age up to 85 years and then decreases. The available studies on barriers and attitudes to pain management point toward an adherence to biomedically orientated beliefs about pain, concern among clinicians in relation to activity recommendations, and a negative orientation in general toward patients with chronic painful conditions. Pain assessment is hampered by many communication issues, including cognitive ability and sociocultural factors. Although subjective, patient self-report is the most valid and reliable indicator of pain and it may be necessary to ask questions about pain in different ways to elicit a response.[3] Pain scales should be utilized alongside the clinical skills of the member of the multidisciplinary team and a clinical assessment should be carried out. The most common self-report assessment tools for pain include Multidimensional Pain Inventory, McGill Pain Questionnaire, pain rating index, Brief Pain Inventory (and in some cases: InterRAI (collaborative network of researchers) long-term care facilities, the standardized evaluation of pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and items from short form 36). Physician recorded diagnosis, structured interviews, body map diagrams, simple checklists, multiple choice questions, and Likert scales designed specifically for the research can also be used to assess pain.[1] The numerical rating scale or verbal descriptors can be used with people who have mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment. For people with severe cognitive impairment Pain in Advanced Dementia and Doloplus-2 are recommended. Strong associations have been seen between pain and depressed mood with each being a risk factor for the other. In addition, loneliness and social isolation have been associated with an increased risk of pain. Clinicians should be cognizant of this.

Here, the authors introduce an 11-point FPS which was pretested for reliability and validity in Korean language. This tool enables older people to rate their pain on a continuous scale by adjusting the facial expression (shape of mouth and eyes) to indicate their pain intensity.

The authors' statements concerning the usability of an 11-point continuous faces scale, namely, reliability and validity in the Iranian population can be agreed upon. However, here the authors have emphasized a presumed direct correspondence between pain intensity and the amount of curvature of the mouth and diameter of the eyes. In doing so, they seem to have ignored a basic rule of psychophysics. They assumed that physically equal changes (intervals) in facial expression are perceptually equal intervals. Subtle changes in one dimension may be highly meaningful whereas large changes in another dimension may not. For example, a 50% change in the physical curvature of the mouth does not necessarily correspond to a 50% change in the perceived amplitude or meaning of that change. The methods needed to select perceptually equal intervals on any physical dimension are psychophysical methods, as outlined by Hicks et al.[4] This approach has been well established since the work of Fechner, published in 1860, who demonstrated that variation in mental events could be measured in relation to variation in physical events.[5] Moreover, here, eye closure is assumed to reflect greater pain. Although eye closure is a typical feature of the pain face in very young infants, adults are less likely to fully close their eyes during a painful experience. Thus, the assumption that the degree of eye closure, from fully opened to fully closed, corresponds proportionally with pain intensity seems problematic. However, using other valid facial indices of pain, namely, brow furrow, mouth stretch, and increasing nasolabial furrow have enriched the tool.[6]

Do we need a new, improved, 11-point Faces Pain Scale? In my opinion, yes. It has been discussed and many organizations have recommended[7] about creating a new faces scale taking advantage of everything that has been learned about this way of measuring pain since the first of these numerous scales[8] were published in the 1980s. This article is a step in this direction and hopefully will coordinate the efforts with those of the other groups around the world who are working on this topic.


I would like to thank the authors of “Validity and Reliability of 11-face Faces Pain Scale in the Iranian Elderly Community with Chronic Pain.”

  References Top

Schofield P, Abdulla A. Pain assessment in the older population: What the literature says. Age Ageing 2018;47:324-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
Ageing and Health; 2010. Available from: [Last accessed on 2018 Sep 30].  Back to cited text no. 2
Pautex S, Herrmann FR, Michon A, Giannakopoulos P, Gold G. Psychometric properties of the doloplus-2 observational pain assessment scale and comparison to self-assessment in hospitalized elderly. Clin J Pain 2007;23:774-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
Hicks CL, von Baeyer CL, Spafford PA, van Korlaar I, Goodenough B. The faces pain scale-revised: Toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain 2001;93:173-83.  Back to cited text no. 4
Fechner G. Elemente der Psychophysik; 1860. p. 572. Available from: [Last accessed on 2018 Sep 30].  Back to cited text no. 5
Koole SL, Kuhl J, Jostmann NB, Finkenauer C. Self-regulation in interpersonal relationships: The case of action versus state orientation. In: Vohs KD, Finkel EJ, editots. S and Relationships: C Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes. NYGP. PsycNET Record Display – PsycNET; 2006. p. 360-83. Available from: [Last accessed on 2018 Sep 30].  Back to cited text no. 6
O'Rourke D. The measurement of pain in infants, children, and adolescents: From policy to practice. Phys Ther 2004;84:560-70.  Back to cited text no. 7
Von Baeyer CL. Children's self-report of pain intensity: What we know, where we are headed. Pain Research and Management. Vol. 14. Hindawi Limited; 2009. p. 39-45. Available from: [Last accessed on 2018 Sep 30].  Back to cited text no. 8


Print this article  Email this article
Online since 1st October '05
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow