Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Brief Communication
Case Report
Case Series
Conference Abstract
Conference Editorial
Conference Proceedings
Current Issue
Editorial Commentary
General Medicine, Case Report
IAPCONKochi 2019 Conference Proceedings
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Narrative Review
Original Article
Palliative Medicine, Letter to the Editor
Personal Reflection
Position Paper
Position Statement
Practitioner Section
REPUBLICATION: Special Article (Guidelines)
Review Article
Short Communication
Short Report
Special Editorial
Special Review
Systematic Review
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

25 (
); 51-52


Department of Palliative Medicine, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Address for correspondence: Dr. Arunangshu Ghoshal, Department of Palliative Medicine, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra, India. E-mail:

Read COMMENTARY-ARTICLE associated with this -


This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher; therefore Scientific Scholar has no control over the quality or content of this article.

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.”


  1. , , . Pain assessment in the older population: What the literature says. Age Ageing. 2018;47:324-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , . 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , . The faces pain scale-revised: Toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain. 2001;93:173-83.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , . Self-regulation in interpersonal relationships: The case of action versus state orientation. In: , , eds. S and Relationships: C Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes. NYGP. PsycNET Record Display – PsycNET. Available from: . p. 360-83.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , . The measurement of pain in infants, children, and adolescents: From policy to practice. Phys Ther. 2004;84:560-70.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , . Children's self-report of pain intensity: What we know, where we are headed. Pain Research and Management. . Hindawi Limited. 14:39-45. Available from:
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views

    PDF downloads
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    Show Sections