The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), a standardized protocol for observation of social and communicative behavior associated with autism, is described. The instrument consists of a series of structured and semistructured presses for interaction, accompanied by coding of specific target behaviors associated with particular tasks and by general ratings of the quality of behaviors. Interrater reliability for five raters exceeded weighted kappas of .55 for each item and each pair of raters for matched samples of 15 to 40 autistic and nonautistic, mildly mentally handicapped children (M IQ = 59) between the ages of 6 and 18 years. Test-retest reliability was adequate. Further analyses compared these groups to two additional samples of autistic and nonautistic subjects with normal intelligence (M IQ = 95), matched for sex and chronological age. Analyses yielded clear diagnostic differences in general ratings of social behavior, specific aspects of communication, and restricted or stereotypic behaviors and interests. Clinical guidelines for the diagnosis of autism in the draft version of ICD-10 were operationalized in terms of abnormalities on specific ADOS items. An algorithm based on these items was shown to have high reliability and discriminant validity.

A receptive developmental language disorder involves significant deficits in theory of mind, verbal short-term memory and phonological processing, together with substantial social adaptation difficulties and increased risk of psychiatric disorder in adult life. The theoretical and clinical implications of the findings are discussed.

This paper focuses on general social functioning in two groups of young men, one with autism and one with developmental receptive language disorders, who were first assessed at the ages of 7-8 years. At that time, although matched for nonverbal IQ (mean 92-93) and expressive language, the Language group showed significantly fewer social and behavioural problems. At follow-up, when aged on average, 23 to 24 years, the Autism group continued to show significantly more impairments in terms of stereotyped behaviour patterns, social relationships, jobs, and independence. However, problems in all these areas were also common in the Language group. Many still lived with their parents, few had close friends or permanent jobs, and ratings of social interaction indicated abnormalities in a number of different areas. On a composite measure of social competence only 10% of the Language group was assessed as having severe social difficulties compared to 74% of the Autism group. Nevertheless, 65% were rated as having moderate social problems and only 25% were rated as being of near/normal social functioning. Two individuals in the Language group, but none in the Autism group, had also developed a florid paranoid psychosis in late adolescence. As in the follow-up of cognitive and linguistic functioning (see Mawhood et al., 2000, this volume, pp. 547-559), discriminant function analysis, which had clearly distinguished between the groups as children, now showed much greater overlap between them. Regression analysis indicated that although early language ability appeared to be related to outcome in the Autism group, there was little association between any measures of childhood functioning and prognosis in the Language group. Theoretically, these findings have implications for our understanding of the nature of autism and other pervasive language disorders, and of the relationship between them. Practically, they demonstrate the very persistent problems experienced by individuals with developmental language disorders, and their need for much greater help and support than is presently available.

No abstract