During this session, participants were asked to verbally rate pain intensity using a numerical scale (0 10) and to describe the type of pain they experienced using the McGill pain questionnaire (Melzack and Torgerson, 1971).
Hanako reacts to mistakes by verbally expressing pain, rolling her eyes or even simulating a vomiting reflex, thanks to the touch sensors in her mouth.
As those with more severe intellectual disabilities are not always able to verbally communicate their pain to carers, their pain experience may not always be recognised and reported.
Throughout the experiment, adults were asked to verbally state a pain score following each individual stimulus using a pain scoring system where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst pain imaginable.
Participants were asked to verbally rate any pain they felt in their knee on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable).
Exclusion criteria were as follows: not able to communicate verbally about their pain; too sedated to respond to questions; emergent or unstable acute pain (as patients were required to be stable on an analgesic protocol).
Again, subjects rated the magnitude of pain verbally on a numerical rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (non-painful) to 10 (worst imaginable pain).
Adults were asked to verbally report their pain intensity and, using the McGill Pain questionnaire (Melzack and Torgerson, 1971), to describe the quality of the pain they experienced.
Subjects kept their eyes open and rated perceived pain verbally (NRS 0 10) after each stimulation to prevent LEP-amplitude decrease by distraction and drowsiness [12, 60, 61].
A one-group, pretest, posttest design was chosen, which used 100-mm Visual Analog Scales (VAS) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire MPQQ) ranked numerically and verbally to measure pain levels; the pretest served as the control.
