Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:39:11.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do you see the same cat that I see? Inter- and intra-observer reliability for Qualitative Behaviour Assessment as temperament indicator in domestic cats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

IC Travnik ,
DS Machado  and
AC Sant’Anna
IC Travnik
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Comportamento e Biologia Animal, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, 36.036-330, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil Núcleo de Estudos em Etologia e Bem-estar Animal, Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, 36.036-330, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
DS Machado
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Comportamento e Biologia Animal, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, 36.036-330, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil Núcleo de Estudos em Etologia e Bem-estar Animal, Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, 36.036-330, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
AC Sant’Anna*
Affiliation:
Núcleo de Estudos em Etologia e Bem-estar Animal, Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, 36.036-330, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazil
*
* Contact for correspondence: aline.santanna@ufjf.edu.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) is used to assess animals’ emotional expressions and its potential for serving as an indicator of temperament has been explored. This method is open to assessors’ interpretation and it is therefore necessary to evaluate the observers’ reliability for different species and contexts. We aimed to assess the intra- and inter-observer reliability of QBA as an indicator of cat (Felis catus) temperament. The QBA was applied by 19 observers with divergent profiles of contact with cats (cat owners vs non-owners) and experience in behavioural assessment (experienced vs inexperienced). Forty-two, 12-min videos were assessed, composed of footage of four behavioural tests: unfamiliar person, novel object, conspecific reaction, and food offering tests. By using Principal Component Analysis, we found three principal components (PC) that were considered the main dimensions of cat temperament. According to Kendall's coefficient of concordance, intra-observer reliability was high to very high in PC1 (0.80-0.90) and moderate to high in PC2 and PC3 (0.50-0.82). Inter-observer reliability for the 19 observers was high in PC1 (0.71) and low in PC2 and PC3 (0.21-0.29). The individual concordances with the gold observer (defined based on greater experience with the QBA) ranged from moderate to high. We concluded that QBA could be a reliable tool to assess cat temperament, given the high values of intra- and inter-observer reliabilities in PC1, which is the dimension that most explains the behavioural variations in the cats’ temperament. The same did not occur for PC2 and PC3, showing that reliability varied among the different dimensions and observers.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourcompanion animalspersonalityrating methodshelter cats
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , August 2022 , pp. 319 - 327
Copyright
© 2022 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Arahori, M, Chijiiwa, H, Takagi, S, Bucher, B, Abe, H, Inoue-Murayama, M and Fujita, K 2017 Microsatellite polymorphisms adjacent to the oxytocin receptor gene in domestic cats: Association with personality? Frontiers in Psychology 8: 2165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arena, L, Wemelsfelder, F, Messori, S, Ferri, N and Barnard, SJB 2019 Development of a fixed list of descriptors for the qual-itative behavioural assessment of shelter dogs. PLoS ONE 14(10): e0212652. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokkers, E, de Vries, M, Antonissen, I and de Boer, I 2012 Inter- and intra-observer reliability of experienced and inexperi-enced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 21: 307–318. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceballos, MC, Góis, KCR, Sant’Anna, AC, Wemelsfelder, F and da Costa, MP 2021 Reliability of qualitative behavior assess-ment (QBA) versus methods with predefined behavioral cate-gories to evaluate maternal protective behavior in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, T, Pluske, JR and Fleming, PAJ 2016 Are observer ratings influenced by prescription? A comparison of free choice pro-filing and fixed list methods of qualitative behavioural assessment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 177: 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.01.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz-Lundahl, S, Hellestveit, S, Stubsjøen, SM, Phythian, C, Oppermann Moe, R and Muri, KJA 2019 Intra-and inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behaviour Assessments of housed sheep in Norway. Animals 9: 569. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9080569CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dwyer, C, Ruiz, R, Beltran de Heredia, I, Canali, E, Barbieri, S and Zanella, A 2015 AWIN welfare assessment protocol for sheep. https://air.unimi.it/bitstream/2434/269114/2/AWINProtocolSheep.pdfGoogle Scholar
Evans, R, Lyons, M, Brewer, G and Tucci, S 2019 The purrfect match: The influence of personality on owner satisfaction with their domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus). Personality Individual Differences 138: 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finka, LR, Ward, J, Farnworth, MJ and Mills, DS 2019 Owner personality and the wellbeing of their cats share parallels with the parent-child relationship. PLoS ONE 14: e0211862. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211862CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukimoto, N, Howat-Rodrigues, AB and Mendonça-Furtado, OJ 2019 Modified meet your Match® Feline-ality TM validity assessment: An exploratory factor analysis of a sample of domestic cats in a Brazilian shelter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 215: 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.03.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukimoto, N, Melo, D, Palme, R, Zanella, AJ and Mendonça-Furtado, OJ 2020 Are cats less stressed in homes than in shelters? A study of personality and faecal cortisol metabolites. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gartner, MC 2015 Pet personality: A review. Journal Personality Individual Differences 75: 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gartner, MC and Weiss, A 2013 Personality in felids: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourkow, N and Fraser, D 2006 The effect of housing and han-dling practices on the welfare, behaviour and selection of domes-tic cats (Felis silvestris catus) by adopters in an animal shelter. Animal Welfare 15: 371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosso, L, Battini, M, Wemelsfelder, F, Barbieri, S, Minero, M, Dalla Costa, E and Mattiello, S 2016 On-farm Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of dairy goats in different housing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 180: 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.04.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ha, D and Ha, J 2017 A subjective domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus) temperament assessment results in six independent dimensions. Behavioural Processes 141: 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.03.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaler, J, Wassink, GJ and Green, LE 2009 The inter- and intra-observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. The Veterinary Journal 180: 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.12.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manly, JFM 2008 Métodos Estatísticos Multivariados: Uma Introdução, 3ª Edição. Bookman: Porto Alegre, Brazil. [Title translation: Multivariate statistical methods: An introduction]Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, Third Edition p 176. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phythian, C, Michalopoulou, E, Duncan, J and Wemelsfelder, F 2013 Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144: 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochlitz, I 2000 Feline welfare issues. In: Turner, DC and Bateson, P (eds) The Domestic Cat: The Biology of its Behaviour pp 207–226. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Salonen, M, Vapalahti, K, Tiira, K, Mäki-Tanila, A and Lohi, H 2019 Breed differences of heritable behaviour traits in cats. Scientific Reports 9: 7949. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44324-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stubsjøen, SM, Moe, RO, Bruland, K, Lien, T and Muri, K 2020 Reliability of observer ratings: Qualitative behaviour assessments of shelter dogs using a fixed list of descriptors. Veterinary and Animal Science 10: 100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vas.2020.100145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travnik, IC and Sant’Anna, AC 2021 Do you see the same cat that I see? Relationships between Qualitative Behaviour Assessment and indicators traditionally used to assess tempera-ment in domestic cats. Animal Welfare 30: 211–223. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.30.2.211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J, Dale, A, Waran, N, Farnworth, M, Clarke, N and Wemelsfelder, F 2010 The assessment of emotional expression in dogs using a free choice profiling methodology. Animal Welfare 19: 75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedl, M, Bauer, B, Gracey, D, Grabmayer, C, Spielauer, E, Day, J and Kotrschal, K 2011 Factors influencing the temporal patterns of dyadic behaviours and interactions between domestic cats and their owners. Behavioural Processes 86: 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.09.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, E, Gramann, S, Drain, N, Dolan, E and Slater, M 2015 Modification of the feline-ality™ assessment and the ability to pre-dict adopted cats’ behaviours in their new homes. Animals 5: 71–88. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5010071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands. http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/media/1088/cattle_proto-col_without_veal_calves.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67(3): 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00093-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TE, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001 Assessing the ‘whole animal’: A free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative assess-ment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Science 51: 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647001300004763Google Scholar