4.4 Article

Response biases in preschool children's ratings of pain in hypothetical situations

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 209-213

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2008.03.017

关键词

Child; Preschool; Response bias; Response set; Measurement

资金

  1. Canada Research Chair
  2. International Association for the Study of Pain, Sydney, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Response biases are systematic biases in responding to test items that are unrelated to the content of the items. Examples often reported in young children include choosing only the lowest or highest anchors of a scale, or choosing a left-to-right sequence of responses. We investigated th presence of response biases in young children's ratings of pain in hypothetical Situations, as a way of gauging their developing understanding of a pain scale over the preschool years. Children aged 3-5 years IN 185) rated items from the Charleston Pediatric Pain Pictures (CPPP) using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). Response biases were identified objectively by computer pattern identification. Anchor biases (choosing the lowest and highest pain faces) occurred in 16% of children. Left-right or right-left sequences occurred in 35%. Monte Carlo simulation established that such patterns occur infrequently by chance (<3% for anchor biases; <6% for sequence biases). Response biases were identified more often ill Younger than older children. These results reveal that response biases are common in children under 5 years. Clinicians should consider self-report pain ratings from preschoolers with caution, seek complementary observational assessment, and investigate discrepancies between self-report and observational estimates of pain. Simplified forms, instructions, and methods of administration for self-report scales should be developed and validated for use with 3- and 4-year-olds. (C) 2008 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据