An initial examination of the psychometric properties of the Diagnostic Instrument for Social and Communication Disorders (DISCO-11) in a clinical sample of children with a diagnosis of Autism spectrum disorder.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnostic interview for social and communication disorders (DISCO - 11; Wing 2006), is a semi-structured, interview-based instrument used in the diagnosis of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This paper explores the psychometric properties of the DISCO-11 used in a specialist Paediatric clinical setting. Two key research questions were examined; (1) Does the factor structure of the DISCO-11 reflect the diagnostic and statistical manual 5th edition (DSM-5, American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) dyad of impairment in ASD? (2) Is there evidence of diagnostic stability over time using the DISCO? METHODS: Review assessments of 65 children with ASD were carried out using standardised measures including the DISCO-11 and the autism diagnostic observation schedule. RESULTS: The results revealed two factors resembling the DSM-5 algorithms, as used in DISCO-11, which were named as social-communication, and restricted and repetitive behaviours. The reliability, for the overall DISCO score was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.78). The social communication and social interaction subscale showed good reliability (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.77) as did the restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests or activities subscale (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.74). Acceptable internal reliability was found for the overall DISCO score and the subscales of social communication and social interaction and the restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests or activities. Test-retest showed good stability of diagnosis over time. DISCUSSION: This study supports that the DISCO-11 shows potential as a valid and reliable instrument that can be used both for clinical and research purposes.

Cancer symptom scale preferences: does one size fit all?

OBJECTIVES: Patients with advanced cancer do not report all symptoms, so assessment is best done systematically. However, for such patients, completion rates of some symptom instruments are <50%. Symptoms can be quantified by various scales including the Categorical Response Scale (CRS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Patient preferences for CRS, NRS and VAS in symptom assessment and their clinical utility in 3 cancer symptoms: pain, tiredness and appetite loss were determined. METHODS: A prospective survey was conducted involving cancer admissions to a 36-bed palliative care unit. RESULTS: 100 inpatients were recruited, aged 38-93 years (x̅ =71 years; SD=11.6), with median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scores of 2 (range 0-4). VAS was the least preferred measure. 52% of patients choose the same scale for all 3 symptoms and 44% for 2, with 4% choosing a different individual scale per symptom. There was moderate agreement between participant scale preference and observer determined ease of scale completion (loss of appetite: κ=0.36; pain: κ=0.49; tiredness: κ=0.45). Participants preferred CRS for appetite loss (48%) and tiredness (40%) and NRS for pain (44%). CONCLUSIONS: VAS was the least favoured scale and should be used cautiously in this population. Most participants had a scale preference with high intrapatient consistency between scales. CRS was preferred for appetite loss and tiredness and NRS for pain. Consideration should be given to individualised cancer symptom assessment according to patient scale preference.