Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34069942›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Evaluation of Inter-Observer Reliability of Animal Welfare Indicators: Which Is the Best Index to Use?

Mauro Giammarino, Silvana Mattiello, Monica Battini, Piero Quatto, Luca Maria Battaglini, Ana C L Vieira, George Stilwell, Manuela Renna

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mauro GiammarinoDepartment of Prevention, Asl TO3, Veterinary Service, Area Animal Sanity, 10045 Piossasco, Italy.
Silvana MattielloDepartment of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences-Production, Landscape, Agroenergy, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1885-949X
Monica BattiniDepartment of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences-Production, Landscape, Agroenergy, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6134-7759
Piero QuattoDepartment of Economics, Management and Statistics, University of Milan-Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6679-7169
Luca Maria BattagliniDepartment of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2136-3826
Ana C L VieiraCentre for Management Studies of Instituto Superior Técnico (CEG-IST), University of Lisbon, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal.
George StilwellDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3733-3223
Manuela RennaDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4296-7589
University of Lisbon · PTUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Turin · ITUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

agreement indexanimal-based measuredichotomous categorical indicatorinter-rater reliability

Identifiers

PMID34069942
PMCPMC8157558
OpenAlexW3163331534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.