Ordinal or visual analogue scales for assessing aspects of broiler chicken welfare?

IF 1.4 3区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-05 DOI:10.1080/10888705.2022.2105648
Ana Paula O Souza, Frank A M Tuyttens, Cesar A Taconeli, Jennifer C Biscarra, Carla F M Molento
{"title":"Ordinal or visual analogue scales for assessing aspects of broiler chicken welfare?","authors":"Ana Paula O Souza, Frank A M Tuyttens, Cesar A Taconeli, Jennifer C Biscarra, Carla F M Molento","doi":"10.1080/10888705.2022.2105648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When the gradation of animal welfare is scored through ordinal scales and equidistant tags are used, empirical data between tags tend to be non-equidistant. Ordinal rate scales (ORS) and visual analogue scales (VAS) were tested for the assessment of contact dermatitis on breast and abdominal areas (CD), footpad dermatitis (FP), hock burns (HB) and bird soiling (BS) in broiler chickens. Calculations regarding the inter-rater reliability, the correlation between VAS and ORS and amongst the welfare indicators measured with both scales, and the equidistance of ORS categories in relation to values measured using VAS, were made. A total of 1,303 broiler chickens from 10 flocks was assessed on-farm by three raters using both scales. Inter-rater reliabilities of CD and HB were higher when using VAS compared with ORS, but FP was lower. Correlations between scales varied between 0.90-0.97 and 0.77-0.95 (P<0.001), considering mean and individual values. Low-to-moderate correlations were observed between the four indicators using the scales. Tags on VAS that best represented ORS were non-equidistant. Results suggest both scales were reliable assessing the selected broiler chicken welfare indicators.</p>","PeriodicalId":56277,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2022.2105648","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When the gradation of animal welfare is scored through ordinal scales and equidistant tags are used, empirical data between tags tend to be non-equidistant. Ordinal rate scales (ORS) and visual analogue scales (VAS) were tested for the assessment of contact dermatitis on breast and abdominal areas (CD), footpad dermatitis (FP), hock burns (HB) and bird soiling (BS) in broiler chickens. Calculations regarding the inter-rater reliability, the correlation between VAS and ORS and amongst the welfare indicators measured with both scales, and the equidistance of ORS categories in relation to values measured using VAS, were made. A total of 1,303 broiler chickens from 10 flocks was assessed on-farm by three raters using both scales. Inter-rater reliabilities of CD and HB were higher when using VAS compared with ORS, but FP was lower. Correlations between scales varied between 0.90-0.97 and 0.77-0.95 (P<0.001), considering mean and individual values. Low-to-moderate correlations were observed between the four indicators using the scales. Tags on VAS that best represented ORS were non-equidistant. Results suggest both scales were reliable assessing the selected broiler chicken welfare indicators.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估肉鸡福利各方面的标准量表还是视觉类比量表?
当通过序数标尺对动物福利进行分级并使用等距标签时,标签之间的经验数据往往是非等距的。对肉鸡乳房和腹部接触性皮炎(CD)、脚垫皮炎(FP)、跗关节灼伤(HB)和鸟类脏污(BS)进行了序数率量表(ORS)和视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估测试。对评分者之间的可靠性、VAS与ORS之间的相关性、两种量表测量的福利指标之间的相关性以及ORS类别与VAS测量值之间的等距性进行了计算。三位评分员使用这两种量表对来自 10 个鸡场的 1303 只肉鸡进行了评估。与 ORS 相比,使用 VAS 时 CD 和 HB 的评分者间可靠性更高,但 FP 更低。量表之间的相关性介于 0.90-0.97 和 0.77-0.95 之间(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
52
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (JAAWS) publishes articles on methods of experimentation, husbandry, and care that demonstrably enhance the welfare of nonhuman animals in various settings. For administrative purposes, manuscripts are categorized into the following four content areas: welfare issues arising in laboratory, farm, companion animal, and wildlife/zoo settings. Manuscripts of up to 7,000 words are accepted that present new empirical data or a reevaluation of available data, conceptual or theoretical analysis, or demonstrations relating to some issue of animal welfare science. JAAWS also publishes brief research reports of up to 3,500 words that consist of (1) pilot studies, (2) descriptions of innovative practices, (3) studies of interest to a particular region, or (4) studies done by scholars who are new to the field or new to academic publishing. In addition, JAAWS publishes book reviews and literature reviews by invitation only.
期刊最新文献
Both Ends of the Leash: Animals in Australian Residential Aged Care Facilities, Views of Experienced Animal Trainers/handlers Working in Residential Aged Care Facilities. Sociodemographic factors and dog ownership practices that perpetuate the roaming of owned dogs in selected urban and rural settings in Uganda. Effects of different husbandry systems and attitudes of cattle farmers on the behavior and welfare of cattle in Germany. Attitudes and Behaviours Towards Cats and Barriers to Stray Cat Management in Bulgaria. Local People Standings on Existing Farm Animal Welfare Legislation in the BRIC Countries and the USA. Comparison with Western European Legislation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1