Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of the FLACC Scale, the MBPS and the Observer Applied Visual Analogue Scale Used to Assess Procedural Pain
Received 13 October 2020
Accepted for publication 4 February 2021
Published 31 March 2021 Volume 2021:14 Pages 881—892
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Michael A Überall
Dianne Crellin,1– 3 Denise Harrison,1,2,4 Nick Santamaria,1 Franz E Babl2,3,5
1Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 2Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 3Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 4Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 5Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Correspondence: Dianne Crellin
c/o Emergency Department, Royal Children’s Hospital, Flemington Road Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
Tel +61 39345 5331
Fax +61 9345 5983
Email [email protected]
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the psychometric data and feasibility and clinical utility of the Face Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability scale (FLACC), the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS) and the Visual Analogue Scale for observers (VASobs) used to assess procedural pain in infants and young children.
Patients and Methods: Twenty-six clinicians assessed videorecorded segments of 100 infants and young children who underwent a painful and/or distressing procedure in the emergency department using the FLACC scale, the MBPS and the VASobs pain and VASobs distress.
Results: VASobs pain scores were lowest across all procedures and phases of procedures (p < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability was lowest for VASobs pain scores (ICC 0.55). Sensitivity and specificity were highest for FLACC scores (94.9% and 72.5%, respectively) at the lowest cut-off score (pain score two). Observers changed their MBPS scores more often than they changed FLACC or VASobs scores, but FLACC scores were more often incomplete. Reviewers did not consider any scale of use for procedural pain measurement.
Conclusion: The reliability and sensitivity of the FLACC and MBPS were supported by study data but concerns about the capacity of these scales to distinguish between pain- and non-pain-related distress were raised. The VASobs cannot be recommended. Despite its limitations, the FLACC scale may be better suited than other scales for procedural pain measurement.
Keywords: pain measurement, infants, validity, reliability
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]