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.

There was a significant positive relationship (r = 0.791, p < 0.01) between the group's Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ)/Developmental Quotient (DQ) at Time 1 and at Time 2. Results indicated a significant increase in FSIQ/DQ over time for the total group and for both the High Functioning (IQ ⩾ 70) and Low Functioning (IQ < 70) groups. Of the total samples, 32% showed a clinically significant change in FSIQ/DQ of 15 points or more from Time 1 to Time 2. When age at Time 1 was included as a covariate, no significant difference was identified for change in FSIQ over time. The practical implications of the findings are discussed.

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.

69 Background: Systematic assessment in cancer is conducted by a variety of instruments. Such assessment is important as comprehensive instruments detect more symptoms than casual clinical evaluation. In choosing assessment scales for polysymptomatic cancer patients one must consider the burden of assessment to ensure satisfactory completion rates. This study investigated patient preference and clinical utility of symptom assessment scales. Methods: A prospective survey was conducted in an Irish palliative medicine inpatient unit.Consecutive cancer admissions were recruited within 7 days. Patients’ preferences were elicited with regards to 3 symptom assessment scales; categorical response (CRS), numerical rating (NRS), and visual analogue (VAS), across 3 common symptoms; appetite loss, pain, and tiredness. Participants selected their preferred scale per symptom. We determined the clinical utility of each scale, defined by ease of completion as judged by an observer. Results: 100 participants wererecruited,aged 38-93 years (x̅ = 71 years; SD=11.6). Median European Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score was 2 (range 0-4). Participants preferred CRS for appetite loss (48%) and tiredness (40%), and NRS for pain (44%). VAS was consistently the least preferred measure. Scale preference was fully consistent across symptoms for 52% of patients, with just 4% choosing a different scale per symptom. There was moderate agreement between participant scale preference and ease of completion as determined by observer (Pain: K=0.486; Fatigue: K=0.452; Appetite loss K=0.364). Conclusions: (1) Most participants had a specific scale preference which was consistent across symptoms, (2) CRS was preferred overall, (3) Participants did not need to experience a symptom to have a preference, (4) VAS should be used with caution in hospice clinical care or research, (4) Symptom assessment scales should be carefully selected for clinical and research purposes.