Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:29:29.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability of categorical versus continuous scoring of welfare indicators: lameness in cows as a case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

FAM Tuyttens ,
M Sprenger ,
A Van Nuffel ,
W Maertens  and
S Van Dongen
FAM Tuyttens*
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Animal Sciences Unit, Animal Husbandry and Welfare, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
M Sprenger
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Animal Sciences Unit, Animal Husbandry and Welfare, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
A Van Nuffel
Affiliation:
Technology and Food Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Merelbeke, Belgium
W Maertens
Affiliation:
Technology and Food Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Merelbeke, Belgium
S Van Dongen
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: frank.tuyttens@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
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.

Many animal welfare traits vary on a continuous scale but are commonly scored using an ordinal scale with few categories. The rationale behind this practice is rarely stated but appears largely based on the debatable conviction that it increases data reliability. Using 54 observers of varying levels of expertise, inter-observer reliability (IOR) and user-satisfaction were compared between a 3-point ordinal scale (OS) and a continuous modified visual analogue scale with multiple anchors (VAS) for scoring lameness in dairy cattle from video. IOR was significantly better for the VAS than for the OS. IOR increased with self-reported level of expertise for the VAS, whereas for the OS it was highest for observers with a moderate level of expertise. The mean continuous scores and the mean categorical scores were highly correlated. Three times as many observers stated a preference for the VAS (n = 27) compared to the OS (n = 9) in investigating differences in lameness between herds. Contrary to common perception, these results illustrate that it is possible for a continuous cattle lameness score to be more reliable and to have greater user acceptability than a simple categorical scale. As continuous scales are also potentially more sensitive, and produce data more amenable to algebraic processing and more powerful parametric analyses, the scepticism against their application for assessing animal welfare traits should be reconsidered.

Keywords

animal welfarecattlediscrete scalegaitrepeatabilityvisual analogue scale
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 399 - 405
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Averbuch, M and Katzper, M 2004 Assessment of visual analogue versus categorical scale for measurements of osteoarthritis pain. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 44: 368–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borderas, TF, Fournier, A, Rushen, J and de Passill・, AMB 2008 Effect of lameness on dairy cows’ visits to automatic milking systems. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 88: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2007a Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods. Animal 1: 1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Perny, P, Butterworth, A, Capdeville, J, Van Reenen, CG and Veissier, I 2007b Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints. Animal 1: 1188–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, H and Kliebsch, U 1996 Dependence of weighted Kappa coefficients on the number of categories. Epidemiology 7: 199–202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brenninkmeyer, C, Dippel, S, March, S, Brinkmann, J, Winckler, C and Knierim, U 2007 reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16: 127–129Google Scholar
Briggs, M and Closs, JS 1999 A descriptive study of the use of visual analogue scales and verbal rating scales for the assessment of postoperative pain in orthopaedic patients. Journal of Pain Symptom Management 18: 438–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cambridge, AJ, Tobias, KM, Newberry, RC and Sarkar, DK 2000 Subjective and objective measurements of postoperative pain in cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 217: 685–690CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, SL, Moore, RA and McQuay, HJ 1997 The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres? Pain 72: 95–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Rosa, G, Tripalsi, C, Napolitano, F, Saltalamacchia, F, Grasso, F, Bisegna, V and Bordi, A 2003 Repeatability of some animal-related variables in dairy cows and buffaloes. Animal Welfare 12: 625–629Google Scholar
Efron and Tibshirani 1993 An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, USAGoogle Scholar
Engel, BG, Bruin, G, Andre, G and Buist, W 2003 Assessment of observer performance in a subjective scoring system: visual classification of the gait of cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 140: 317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanshawe, TR, Lynch, AG, Ellis, IO, Green, AR and Hanka, R 2008 Assessing agreement between multiple raters with missing rating information, applied to breast cancer tumour grading. PloS ONE 3: e2925CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flower, FC and Weary, DM 2006 Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 139–146CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, P and Jackson, R 1993 The analysis of ordinal agreement data: beyond weighted kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46: 1055–1062CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holton, LL, Scott, EM, Nolan, AM, Reid, J, Welsh, E and Flaherty, D 1998 Comparison of three methods used for assessment of pain in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 212: 61–66Google ScholarPubMed
Hudson, JT, Slater, MR, Taylor, L, Scott, HM and Kerwin, SC 2004 Assessing repeatability and validity of a visual analogue scale questionnaire for use in assessing pain and lameness in dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research 65: 1634–1643CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khorsan, R, Coulter, ID, Hawk, C and Choate, CG 2008 Measures in chiropractic research: choosing patient-based outcome assessments. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 31: 355–375CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreiman, J, Gerratt, BR, Kempster, GB, Erman, A and Berke, GS 1993 Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36: 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclure, M and Willett, WC 1987 Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. American Journal of Epidemiology 126: 161–169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manson, FJ and Leaver, JD 1988 The influence of concentrate amount on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Production 47: 185–190Google Scholar
March, S, Brinkmann, J and Winkler, C 2007 Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 16: 131–133Google Scholar
Sprecher, DJ, Hostetler, DE and Kaneene, JB 1997 A lameness scoring system that uses postures and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47: 1179–1187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Nuffel, A, Sprenger, M, Maertens, W and Tuyttens, FAM 2009 Cow gait scores and kinematic gait data. Animal Welfare 18: 433–439Google Scholar
Verbeke, G and Molenberghs, G 2000 Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data. Springer-Verlag: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Vieira, APGF, Lawrence, HP, Limeback, H, Sampaio, FC and Grynpas, M 2005 A visual analog scale for measuring dental fluorosis severity. Journal of the American Dental Association 136: 895–901CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welsh, EM, Gettinby, G and Nolan, AM 1993 Comparison of a visual analogue scale and a numerical rating scale for assessment of lameness, using sheep as a model. American Journal of Veterinary Research 54: 976–983Google Scholar
Wewers, ME and Lowe, NK 1990 A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing and Health 13: 227–236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williamson, A and Hoggart, B 2005 Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. Journal of Clinical Nursing 14: 798–804CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winckler, C and Willen, S 2001 the reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 30: 103–107Google Scholar