FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / An Indication of Reliability of the Two-Level Approach of th...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2018; 8(1); 7; doi: 10.3390/ani8010007

An Indication of Reliability of the Two-Level Approach of the AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Horses.

Abstract: To enhance feasibility, the Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) assessment protocol for horses consists of two levels: the first is a visual inspection of a sample of horses performed from a distance, the second a close-up inspection of all horses. The aim was to analyse whether information would be lost if only the first level were performed. In this study, 112 first and 112 second level assessments carried out on a subsequent day by one observer were compared by calculating the Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient (RS), Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), Smallest Detectable Changes (SDC) and Limits of Agreements (LoA). Most indicators demonstrated sufficient reliability between the two levels. Exceptions were the Horse Grimace Scale, the Avoidance Distance Test and the Voluntary Human Approach Test (e.g., Voluntary Human Approach Test: RS: 0.38, ICC: 0.38, SDC: 0.21, LoA: -0.25-0.17), which could, however, be also interpreted as a lack of test-retest reliability. Further disagreement was found for the indicator consistency of manure (RS: 0.31, ICC: 0.38, SDC: 0.36, LoA: -0.38-0.36). For these indicators, an adaptation of the first level would be beneficial. Overall, in this study, the division into two levels was reliable and might therewith have the potential to enhance feasibility in other welfare assessment schemes.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-01-05 PubMed ID: 29303962PubMed Central: PMC5789302DOI: 10.3390/ani8010007Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article assesses the reliability of the two-tier method of the Animal Welfare Indicator (AWIN) protocol for assessing horse welfare. It looks at how well distant visual inspections compare to close-up inspections of all horses in representing welfare conditions.

Study Aims

The article’s goals were to understand how effective the AWIN protocol’s two-level approach is, particularly the first level, which involves a distant visual inspection of a selected sample of horses. Mainly, the researchers aimed to find out if any essential data would be missed if only the first level were executed.

Methodology

  • Researchers executed 112 first level assessments and 112 second level assessments on subsequent days by the same observer.
  • They used statistical tools like the Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient (RS), the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), the Smallest Detectable Changes (SDC), and the Limits of Agreements (LoA) to compare these assessments.

Findings of the Study

  • The study discovered that most AWIN indicators demonstrated satisfactory reliability between the first-level and second-level assessments.
  • Some exceptions such as the Horse Grimace Scale, the Avoidance Distance Test, and the Voluntary Human Approach Test showed less correlation between the two levels. This could indicate a lack of test-retest reliability.
  • Discrepancies were also discovered in the indicator “consistency of manure”, indicating potential areas for improvement in the first-level assessment.

Conclusion

The paper concludes that the two-level division in the AWIN welfare assessment protocol works reliably for most indicators. This reliability could enhance the feasibility of implementing this two-tier approach in other welfare assessment schemes. Some indicators indeed reveal insufficient reliability, suggesting potential modifications to the first-level assessment for better reliability and accuracy.

Cite This Article

APA
Czycholl I, Büttner K, Klingbeil P, Krieter J. (2018). An Indication of Reliability of the Two-Level Approach of the AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Horses. Animals (Basel), 8(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8010007

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 8
Issue: 1
PII: 7

Researcher Affiliations

Czycholl, Irena
  • Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Olshausenstraße 40, 24118 Kiel, Germany. iczycholl@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de.
Büttner, Kathrin
  • Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Olshausenstraße 40, 24118 Kiel, Germany. kbuettner@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de.
Klingbeil, Philipp
  • Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Olshausenstraße 40, 24118 Kiel, Germany. pklingbeil@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de.
Krieter, Joachim
  • Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Olshausenstraße 40, 24118 Kiel, Germany. jkrieter@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

This article includes 39 references
  1. Fraser D. Assessing animal welfare: different philosophies, different scientific approaches.. Zoo Biol 2009 Nov;28(6):507-18.
    doi: 10.1002/zoo.20253pubmed: 19434682google scholar: lookup
  2. Main DC, Webster F, Green LE. Animal welfare assessment in farm assurance schemes.. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Anim. Sci. 2001;51:108–113.
    doi: 10.1080/090647001316923171google scholar: lookup
  3. Webster J. The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: theory into practice.. Rev Sci Tech 2005 Aug;24(2):723-34.
    doi: 10.20506/rst.24.2.1602pubmed: 16358522google scholar: lookup
  4. Welfare Quality®. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Wageningen Academic Publishers; Wageningen, The Netherlands: 2009.
  5. Welfare Quality®. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs. Welfare Quality® Consortium Lelystad. Wageningen Academic Publishers; Wageningen, The Netherlands: 2009.
  6. Welfare Quality®. Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Wageningen Academic Publishers; Wageningen, The Netherlands: 2009.
  7. Blokhuis H, Miele M, Veissier I, Jones B. The Welfare Quality® vision, in Improving Farm Animal Welfare. Springer; Wageningen, The Netherlands: 2013. pp. 71–89.
  8. Rousing T, Bonde M, Sorensen JT. Aggregating welfare indicators into an operational welfare assessment system: A bottom-up approach.. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Anim. Sci. 2001;51:53–57.
  9. Animal Welfare Indicators. AWIN welfare assessment protocol for turkeys.. AWIN 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_Turkeys_2015google scholar: lookup
  10. Animal Welfare Indicators. AWIN welfare assessment protocol for sheep.. AWIN 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_Sheep_2015google scholar: lookup
  11. Animal Welfare Indicators. AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses.. AWIN 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_Horses_2015google scholar: lookup
  12. Animal Welfare Indicators. AWIN welfare assessment protocol for goats.. AWIN 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_Goats_2015google scholar: lookup
  13. Animal Welfare Indicators. AWIN welfare assessment protocol for donkeys.. AWIN 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_Donkeys_2015google scholar: lookup
  14. Botreau R, Winckler C, Velarde A, Butterworth A, Dalmau A, Keeling LJ, Veissier I. Integration of Data Collected on Farms or at Slaughter to Generate an Overall Assessment of Animal Welfare in Improving Farm Animal Welfare-Science and Society Working Together: The Welfare Quality Approach. Wageningen Academic Publishers; Wageningen, The Netherlands: 2013. pp. 147–173.
  15. Czycholl I, Kniese C, Büttner K, Beilage EG, Schrader L, Krieter J. Interobserver reliability of the 'Welfare Quality(®) Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs'.. Springerplus 2016;5(1):1114.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.4.447pmc: PMC4949198pubmed: 27478731google scholar: lookup
  16. Knierim U, Winckler C. On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: Validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach.. Anim. Welf. 2009;18:451–458.
  17. Velarde A, Geers R. On Farm Monitoring of Pig Welfare. Wageningen Academic Publishers; Wageningen, The Netherlands: 2007.
  18. Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMELV). Leitlinien zur Beurteilung von Pferdehaltungen unter Tierschutzgesichtspunkten, Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz. BMELV; Bonn, Germany: 2009.
  19. Dalla Costa E, Minero M, Lebelt D, Stucke D, Canali E, Leach MC. Development of the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS) as a pain assessment tool in horses undergoing routine castration.. PLoS One 2014;9(3):e92281.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092281pmc: PMC3960217pubmed: 24647606google scholar: lookup
  20. SAS Institute Inc.. SAS/STAT 9.4. User’s Guide. SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA: 2008.
  21. Winckler C, Willen S. The Reliability and Repeatability of a Lameness Scoring System for Use as an Indicator of Welfare in Dairy Cattle.. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Anim. Sci. 2001;51:103–107.
    doi: 10.1080/090647001316923162google scholar: lookup
  22. Dalmau A, Geverink NA, Van Nuffel A, van Steenbergen L, Van Reenen K, Hautekiet V, Vermeulen K, Velarde A, Tuyttens FA. Repeatability of lameness, fear and slipping scores to assess animal welfare upon arrival in pig slaughterhouses.. Animal 2010 May;4(5):804-9.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731110000066pubmed: 22444137google scholar: lookup
  23. Martin P, Bateson P. Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. 3rd ed. University of Cambridge; Cambridge, UK: 2007.
  24. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.. Psychol Bull 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8.
    doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420pubmed: 18839484google scholar: lookup
  25. Bartko JJ. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability.. Psychol Rep 1966 Aug;19(1):3-11.
    doi: 10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.3pubmed: 5942109google scholar: lookup
  26. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures.. J Clin Epidemiol 2006 Oct;59(10):1033-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.015pubmed: 16980142google scholar: lookup
  27. Wirtz M, Caspar F. Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität. 1st ed. Hogrefe; Goettingen, Germany: 2002.
  28. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.. Psychol. Methods. 1996;1:30–46.
    doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30google scholar: lookup
  29. Donoghue D, Stokes EK. How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale in elderly people.. J Rehabil Med 2009 Apr;41(5):343-6.
    doi: 10.2340/16501977-0337pubmed: 19363567google scholar: lookup
  30. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.. Lancet 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10.
    doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8pubmed: 2868172google scholar: lookup
  31. Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Lebelt D, Scholz P, Barbieri S, Canali E, Minero M. Initial outcomes of a harmonized approach to collect welfare data in sport and leisure horses.. Animal 2017 Feb;11(2):254-260.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731116001452pubmed: 27406177google scholar: lookup
  32. Forkman B, Boissy A, Meunier-Salaün MC, Canali E, Jones RB. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses.. Physiol Behav 2007 Oct 22;92(3):340-74.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.03.016pubmed: 18046784google scholar: lookup
  33. Hemsworth PH, Price EO, Borgwardt R. Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to humans and novel stimuli.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1996;50:43–56.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(96)01067-2google scholar: lookup
  34. Grimberg-Henrici CGE, Büttner K, Meyer C, Krieter J. Does housing influence maternal behaviour in sows?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;180:26–34.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.04.005google scholar: lookup
  35. Thatcher CD, Pleasant RS, Geor RJ, Elvinger F. Prevalence of overconditioning in mature horses in southwest Virginia during the summer.. J Vet Intern Med 2012 Nov-Dec;26(6):1413-8.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2012.00995.xpubmed: 22946995google scholar: lookup
  36. Wyse CA, McNie KA, Tannahill VJ, Murray JK, Love S. Prevalence of obesity in riding horses in Scotland.. Vet Rec 2008 May 3;162(18):590-1.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.162.18.590pubmed: 18453379google scholar: lookup
  37. Czycholl I, Kniese C, Büttner K, Beilage EG, Schrader L, Krieter J. Interobserver reliability of the 'Welfare Quality(®) Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs'.. Springerplus 2016;5(1):1114.
    doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-2785-1pmc: PMC4949198pubmed: 27478731google scholar: lookup
  38. Temple D, Manteca X, Dalmau A, Velarde A. Assessment of test-retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms.. Livest. Sci. 2013;151:35–45.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.10.012google scholar: lookup
  39. Kirchner MK, Schulze Westerath H, Knierim U, Tessitore E, Cozzi G, Pfeiffer C, Winckler C. Application of the Welfare Quality® assessment system on European beef bull farms.. Animal 2014 May;8(5):827-35.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731114000366pubmed: 24739354google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 8 times.
  1. Annan R, Trigg LE, Hockenhull J, Allen K, Butler D, Valenchon M, Mullan S. Racehorse welfare across a training season.. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:1208744.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1208744pubmed: 37448582google scholar: lookup
  2. Witt J, Krieter J, Wilder T, Czycholl I. Measuring welfare in rearing piglets: test-retest reliability of selected animal-based indicators.. J Anim Sci 2023 Jan 3;101.
    doi: 10.1093/jas/skad162pubmed: 37209717google scholar: lookup
  3. Harvey AM, Ramp D, Mellor DJ. Review of the Foundational Knowledge Required for Assessing Horse Welfare.. Animals (Basel) 2022 Dec 1;12(23).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12233385pubmed: 36496906google scholar: lookup
  4. Long M, Dürnberger C, Jenner F, Kelemen Z, Auer U, Grimm H. Quality of Life within Horse Welfare Assessment Tools: Informing Decisions for Chronically Ill and Geriatric Horses.. Animals (Basel) 2022 Jul 17;12(14).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12141822pubmed: 35883370google scholar: lookup
  5. Menchetti L, Dalla Costa E, Minero M, Padalino B. Development and Validation of a Test for the Classification of Horses as Broken or Unbroken.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Aug 4;11(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11082303pubmed: 34438758google scholar: lookup
  6. Harvey AM, Morton JM, Mellor DJ, Russell V, Chapple RS, Ramp D. Use of Remote Camera Traps to Evaluate Animal-Based Welfare Indicators in Individual Free-Roaming Wild Horses.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Jul 15;11(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11072101pubmed: 34359229google scholar: lookup
  7. Lesimple C. Indicators of Horse Welfare: State-of-the-Art.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Feb 13;10(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020294pubmed: 32069888google scholar: lookup
  8. Harvey AM, Beausoleil NJ, Ramp D, Mellor DJ. A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) as an Example.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jan 16;10(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10010148pubmed: 31963232google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.