Using a Delphi method to estimate the relevance of indicators for the assessment of shelter dog welfare

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Animal Welfare Pub Date : 2022-08-31 DOI:10.7120/09627286.31.3.007
GV Berteselli, S. Messori, L. Arena, L. Smith, P. Dalla Villa, F. De Massis
{"title":"Using a Delphi method to estimate the relevance of indicators for the assessment of shelter dog welfare","authors":"GV Berteselli, S. Messori, L. Arena, L. Smith, P. Dalla Villa, F. De Massis","doi":"10.7120/09627286.31.3.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European regulatory framework lacks standardisation as regards the minimum requirements for shelter facilities, making defining welfare standards for dogs challenging. Dog (Canis familiaris) welfare assessments should consist of a comprehensive set of measurements that allow\n the calculation of an overall 'welfare score.' The Shelter Quality protocol was developed for the purpose of assessing shelter dog welfare. The study aims to establish a standardised system for evaluating shelter dog welfare by obtaining agreement from experts on the weighting of different\n measures contributing to an overall welfare score. The Delphi technique is a widely used method for establishing consensus among experts. Two Delphi procedures were implemented and we compared their effectiveness in achieving expert consensus by evaluating rounds' numbers required to reach\n consensus and the response and attrition rates. Expert consensus was achieved in Delphi 1 when the standard deviation in the expert weightings was ≤ 5. This was achieved easily for the welfare score weightings of the four principles: 'Good feeding', 'Good housing', 'Good Health', and 'Appropriate\n behaviour.' Animal-based measures were found to reach consensus more quickly than resource-based measures. In Delphi 2, we used the coefficient of variation to determine consensus. No statistical differences were found between the two Delphi methods for attrition rate, response rate or number\n of participants. Continuing rounds until a consensus is reached is recommended as this method balances time and participant fatigue. A standardised scoring system is provided, using a single overall score of welfare that can be used to compare welfare standards between shelters.","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.31.3.007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The European regulatory framework lacks standardisation as regards the minimum requirements for shelter facilities, making defining welfare standards for dogs challenging. Dog (Canis familiaris) welfare assessments should consist of a comprehensive set of measurements that allow the calculation of an overall 'welfare score.' The Shelter Quality protocol was developed for the purpose of assessing shelter dog welfare. The study aims to establish a standardised system for evaluating shelter dog welfare by obtaining agreement from experts on the weighting of different measures contributing to an overall welfare score. The Delphi technique is a widely used method for establishing consensus among experts. Two Delphi procedures were implemented and we compared their effectiveness in achieving expert consensus by evaluating rounds' numbers required to reach consensus and the response and attrition rates. Expert consensus was achieved in Delphi 1 when the standard deviation in the expert weightings was ≤ 5. This was achieved easily for the welfare score weightings of the four principles: 'Good feeding', 'Good housing', 'Good Health', and 'Appropriate behaviour.' Animal-based measures were found to reach consensus more quickly than resource-based measures. In Delphi 2, we used the coefficient of variation to determine consensus. No statistical differences were found between the two Delphi methods for attrition rate, response rate or number of participants. Continuing rounds until a consensus is reached is recommended as this method balances time and participant fatigue. A standardised scoring system is provided, using a single overall score of welfare that can be used to compare welfare standards between shelters.
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
采用德尔菲法对收容所犬福利评价指标的相关性进行估计
欧洲的监管框架在收容所设施的最低要求方面缺乏标准化,这使得确定狗的福利标准具有挑战性。狗(Canis familiaris)的福利评估应该包括一套全面的测量方法,以便计算出总体的“福利分数”。制定收容所质量协议的目的是评估收容所狗的福利。这项研究旨在建立一个标准化的系统来评估收容所狗的福利,通过获得专家对不同措施的权重的一致意见,从而形成一个整体的福利评分。德尔菲法是一种广泛应用于专家之间建立共识的方法。我们实施了两种德尔菲程序,并通过评估达成共识所需的轮数、响应率和损耗率来比较它们在达成专家共识方面的有效性。当专家权重的标准差≤5时,在德尔菲1中获得专家共识。这很容易实现的福利得分加权的四个原则:“良好的饮食”,“良好的住房”,“良好的健康”和“适当的行为”。研究发现,以动物为基础的措施比以资源为基础的措施更快达成共识。在德尔菲2中,我们使用变异系数来确定共识。两种德尔菲方法在流失率、反应率和参与者数量上没有统计学差异。建议继续进行轮次直到达成共识,因为这种方法可以平衡时间和参与者疲劳。提供了一个标准化的评分系统,使用单一的福利总分,可用于比较庇护所之间的福利标准。
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
Animal Welfare
Animal Welfare 农林科学-动物学
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Animal Welfare is an international scientific and technical journal. It publishes the results of peer-reviewed scientific research, technical studies and reviews relating to the welfare of kept animals (eg on farms, in laboratories, zoos and as companions) and of those in the wild whose welfare is compromised by human activities. Papers on related ethical, social, and legal issues and interdisciplinary papers will also be considered for publication. Studies that are derivative or which replicate existing publications will only be considered if they are adequately justified. Papers will only be considered if they bring new knowledge (for research papers), new perspectives (for reviews) or develop new techniques. Papers must have the potential to improve animal welfare, and the way in which they achieve this, or are likely to do so, must be clearly specified in the section on Animal welfare implications.
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of bonobo emotional expressivity across observer groups and zoo housing environments. Human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions in animals under human care: A summary of stakeholder and researcher perceptions and future directions. Does tail docking prevent Cochliomyia hominivorax myiasis in sheep? A six-year retrospective cohort study. Standard methods for marking caudate amphibians do not impair animal welfare over the short term: An experimental approach. Why are some people in the UK reluctant to seek support for their pets?
×
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