The global functioning evaluation: Kennedy Axis V compared with WHODAS 2.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to compare psychometric properties and clinical utility of Kennedy Axis V (K Axis) and 12-items version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), a comparable version of the 36-items one included in DSM-5, comparing them with other significant instruments for the assessment of personality. A sample of 25 clinical inpatients of a therapeutic community in Northern Italy was assessed with different tools: K Axis, WHODAS 2.0, IPO, SCL-90-R and SIPP-118. K Axis showed low internal consistency, unlike WHODAS 2.0. Moreover, significant correlations were found between both WHODAS 2.0 and K Axis and IPO and SIPP-118. However, no significant correlations emerged between K Axis and WHODAS 2.0. Even if further investigation will be needed, such as the increase of the sample and the update of the WHODAS version, K Axis and WHODAS 2.0 has proven to be useful tools for the evaluation of global functioning; however, while WHODAS is more consistent from a psychometric point of view, K Axis presents a multidimensional view of the functioning of the patient.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".