Inter-observer reliability testing of pig welfare outcome measures proposed for inclusion within farm assurance schemes

Veterinary Journal

Volumn 190, Issue 2, 2011, Pages

  Mullan, Siobhan ^a   Edwards, Sandra A ^b   Butterworth, Andrew ^a   Whay, Helen R ^a   Main, David C J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Farm assurance; Inter observer reliability; Pig

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL HOUSING; ANIMAL LAMENESS; ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; GOLD STANDARD; HOSPITALIZATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PIG FARMING; PREVALENCE; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKIN DEFECT; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; TAIL; UNITED KINGDOM; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMALS; GREAT BRITAIN; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SWINE; SWINE DISEASES;

ANIMALIA; SUIDAE;

EID: 82855161496     PISSN: 10900233     EISSN: 15322971     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.01.012     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. ABP, 2007. Assured British Pigs Certification Standards for Pigs. Cobham, UK.
2. Banskota B., Lewis J., Hossain M., Irvine A., Jones M.W. Estimation of the accuracy of joint mobility assessment in a group of health professionals. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 2008, 18:287-289.
3. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1999, 8:135-160.
4. Blokhuis, H.J., 2007. Welfare quality: context, progress and aims. In: Vessier, I., Forkman, B., Jones, B. (Eds.), Second Welfare Quality Stakeholder Conference. Springer, Berlin, pp. 9-12.
5. Brenninkmeyer C., Dippel S., March S., Brinkmann J., Winckler C., Knierim U. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 2007, 16:127-129.
6. Burfoot, A., Kay, R.M., Corning, S., 1995. A scoring method to assess damage caused by aggression between sows after mixing. British Society of Animal Science, Annual Meeting, London, pp. 196-197.
7. Burn C.C., Pritchard J.C., Whay H.R. Observer reliability for working equine welfare assessment: problems with high prevalences. Animal Welfare 2009, 18:177-187.
8. Byrt T. How good is that agreement?. Epidemiology 1996, 7:561.
9. Byrt T., Bishop J., Carlin J.B. Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1993, 46:423-429.
10. Channon A., Walker A., Pfau T., Sheldon I., Wilson A. Variability of Manson and Leaver locomotion scores assigned to dairy cows by different observers. Veterinary Record 2009, 164:388-392.
11. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1960, 20:37-46.
12. Courboulay, V., Meunier-Salaun, M.C., Edwards, S.A., Scott, K., Guy, J.H., 2006. On-farm Behavioural Measurements for Pigs: Evaluation of their Repeatability, Welfare Quality Reports No. 10: Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs.
13. Engel B., Bruin G., Andre G., Buist W. Assessment of observer performance in a subjective scoring system: visual classification of the gait of cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 2003, 140:317-333.
14. Geverink, N.A., Meuleman, M., van Nuffel, A., Van Steenbergen, L., Hautekiet, V., Vermeulen, K., Lammens, V., Geers, R., van Reenen, C.G., Tuyttens, F., 2009. Repeatability of a Lameness Score Measured on Farm. Welfare Quality Reports No. 10: Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs.
15. Gore S.M. Assessing clinical trials - between-observer variation. British Medical Journal 1981, 283:40-43.
16. GQA, 2007. Genesis Quality Assurance Certification Standards for Pigs. Burton-on-Trent, UK.
17. Harper R., Reeves B. Compliance with methodological standards when evaluating ophthalmic diagnostic tests. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1999, 40:1650-1657.
18. Hoehler F.K. Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2000, 53:499-503.
19. Landis J.R., Koch G.G. Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
20. Main D.C.J., Clegg J., Spatz A., Green L.E. Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Veterinary Record 2000, 147:574-576.
21. March S., Brinkmann J., Winkler C. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 2007, 16:131-133.
22. Napolitano F., Grasso F., Bordi A., Tripaldi C., Saltalamacchia F., Pacelli C., De Rosa G. On-farm welfare assessment in dairy cattle and buffaloes: evaluation of some animal-based parameters. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2005, 4:223-231.
23. Petersen H.H., Enoe C., Nielsen E.O. Observer agreement on pen level prevalence of clinical signs in finishing pigs. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2004, 64:147-156.
24. Pritchard J.C., Barr A.R.S., Whay H.R. Repeatability of a skin tent test for dehydration in working horses and donkeys. Animal Welfare 2007, 16:181-183.
25. Siegel S., Castellan N.J. Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences 1988, McGraw Hill College, New York.
26. Smulders D., Verbeke G., Mormede P., Geers R. Validation of a behavioral observation tool to assess pig welfare. Physiology and Behavior 2006, 89:438-447.
27. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations, 2007. Office of Public Sector Information, UK.
28. Van Balen F.A.M., Aarts A.M., De Melker R.A. Tympanometry by general practitioners: reliable?. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 1999, 48:117-123.
29. Waiblinger S., Mulleder C., Schmied C., Dembele I. Assessing the animals' relationship to humans in tied dairy cows: between-experimenter repeatability of measuring avoidance reactions. Animal Welfare 2007, 16:143-146.
30. Wemelsfelder, F., Millard, F., 2009. Qualitative Behaviour Assessment, Welfare Quality Reports No. 10: Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs.