This study focuses on the problem of assessing inter-observer reliability (IOR) in the case of dichotomous categorical animal-based welfare indicators and the presence of two observers. Based on observations obtained from Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) project surveys conducted on nine dairy goat farms, and using udder asymmetry as an indicator, we compared the performance of the most popular agreement indexes available in the literature: Scott’s π, Cohen’s k, kPABAK, Holsti’s H, Krippendorff’s α, Hubert’s Γ, Janson and Vegelius’ J, Bangdiwala’s B, Andrés and Marzo’s ∆, and Gwet’s γ(AC1 ). Confidence intervals were calculated using closed formulas of variance estimates for π, k, kPABAK, H, α, Γ, J, ∆, and γ(AC1 ), while the bootstrap and exact bootstrap methods were used for all the indexes. All the indexes and closed formulas of variance estimates were calculated using Microsoft Excel. The bootstrap method was performed with R software, while the exact bootstrap method was performed with SAS software. k, π, and α exhibited a paradoxical behavior, showing unacceptably low values even in the presence of very high concordance rates. B and γ(AC1 ) showed values very close to the concordance rate, independently of its value. Both bootstrap and exact bootstrap methods turned out to be simpler compared to the implementation of closed variance formulas and provided effective confidence intervals for all the considered indexes. The best approach for measuring IOR in these cases is the use of B or γ(AC1 ), with bootstrap or exact bootstrap methods for confidence interval calculation.

Evaluation of inter-observer reliability of animal welfare indicators: Which is the best index to use?

Giammarino M.
First
;
Quatto P.;Battaglini L. M.;Renna M.
2021-01-01

Abstract

This study focuses on the problem of assessing inter-observer reliability (IOR) in the case of dichotomous categorical animal-based welfare indicators and the presence of two observers. Based on observations obtained from Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) project surveys conducted on nine dairy goat farms, and using udder asymmetry as an indicator, we compared the performance of the most popular agreement indexes available in the literature: Scott’s π, Cohen’s k, kPABAK, Holsti’s H, Krippendorff’s α, Hubert’s Γ, Janson and Vegelius’ J, Bangdiwala’s B, Andrés and Marzo’s ∆, and Gwet’s γ(AC1 ). Confidence intervals were calculated using closed formulas of variance estimates for π, k, kPABAK, H, α, Γ, J, ∆, and γ(AC1 ), while the bootstrap and exact bootstrap methods were used for all the indexes. All the indexes and closed formulas of variance estimates were calculated using Microsoft Excel. The bootstrap method was performed with R software, while the exact bootstrap method was performed with SAS software. k, π, and α exhibited a paradoxical behavior, showing unacceptably low values even in the presence of very high concordance rates. B and γ(AC1 ) showed values very close to the concordance rate, independently of its value. Both bootstrap and exact bootstrap methods turned out to be simpler compared to the implementation of closed variance formulas and provided effective confidence intervals for all the considered indexes. The best approach for measuring IOR in these cases is the use of B or γ(AC1 ), with bootstrap or exact bootstrap methods for confidence interval calculation.
2021
11
5: 1445
1
16
Agreement index; Animal-based measure; Dichotomous categorical indicator; Inter-rater reliability
Giammarino M.; Mattiello S.; Battini M.; Quatto P.; Battaglini L.M.; Vieira A.C.L.; Stilwell G.; Renna M.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Giammarino et al. 2021_ANIMALS.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 1.53 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.53 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1793111
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 10
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact