Reliability of observer ratings: Qualitative behaviour assessments of shelter dogs using a fixed list of descriptors

Stubsjøen, Solveig Marie; Moe, Randi Oppermann; Bruland, Kristin; Lien, Tuva; Muri, Karianne

doi:10.1016/j.vas.2020.100145

Cited by 12 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The anchoring points for the principal components were similar to the anchoring points in Part I (Fig. 2), and comparable to the previous study [9]. The first component (PC1) in both parts of the study reflects the dogs' mood, while the second component (PC2) appears to be related to arousal.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…In a previous study, Stubsjøen et al [9] found a high inter-observer reliability when observers used a fixed list of descriptors to assess videos of shelter dogs. To evaluate the robustness of this finding, we replicated the study by using the same fixed list of descriptors and video recordings to reassess inter-observer reliability.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the test day, the nine students were trained using the same procedure as in the previous study [9]. The video recordings of dogs were obtained from a shelter in southern Hungary, in which about 250 dogs were kept [9]. The animals were stray dogs or brought in from private homes for animal welfare reasons.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After the introduction (~ 1 h), the students were first shown three test videos and thereafter encouraged to discuss their interpretation of the dogs' behavioural expressions and to compare their scoring results. Subsequently, the fixed list of 20 qualitative descriptors, which included definitions of each, was used by the observers (Part Ia: n = 9 observers, Part Ib: n = 3 observers) to score the 12 videos [9] (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Can shelter dog observers score behavioural expressions consistently over time?

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A substantial number of dogs live in animal shelters worldwide. Stressors within the shelter environment can compromise their welfare, and scientific evaluations of feasible welfare assessment methods are therefore needed. Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) is a “whole-animal” approach used to assess welfare by observing animals’ expressive behaviour. To investigate whether observers can score dogs’ behavioural expressions consistently over time, this study replicated and extended previous research, by evaluating intra- and inter-observer reliability of QBA based on video recordings of shelter dogs. In Part I, nine veterinary nurse students received theoretical and practical training, and then scored 12 2 min video recordings of shelter dogs using a fixed list of behavioural descriptors. Three of the students undertook further practice and calibration using direct observations of dog behaviour in a local shelter. In Part II, the videos from Part I were scored by these three observers a second time, 15 months later. QBA data were analysed using principal component analysis (PCA), and reliability was assessed using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W). In Part I, the inter-observer reliability was high for both components (0.78 for PC1 and 0.85 for PC2). In Part II, the inter-observer reliability was very high and moderate for PC1 and PC2, respectively (0.90 for PC1 and 0.65 for PC2). The intra-observer reliability was high for both components (W ≥ 0.86). Our results indicate that the fixed list of behavioural descriptors for shelter dogs can be used reliably when assessing videos, and that observers can score dogs’ behavioural expressions consistently after a break of 15 months following the initial assessment. Nevertheless, the reduction in inter-observer-reliability of PC2 in Part II can indicate that some retraining and calibration may be required to avoid observer drift.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can shelter dog observers score behavioural expressions consistently over time?

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After listening to each meow (participants could replay each sound ad libitum), participants were asked to choose one out of three possible contexts in which the vocalization was emitted (i.e., waiting for food, isolation, brushing), to indicate the emotional state of the meowing cat in terms of valence (positive vs. negative), and to give a score on a 7-point Likert scale to 11 descriptors of the possible emotional state: agitated/anxious, aggressive/angry, frustrated, restless/nervous, frightened, suffering, friendly, calm/relaxed, happy, curious, and playful. This procedure was based on previous research using qualitative behavior assessment in companion animals (dogs) [ 80 ] and reminds sociolinguistic researchers to investigate attitudes toward different aspects of language [ 81 , 82 ]. Between the proposed sounds, a 5-second pink noise sample was reproduced in order to avoid direct comparison.…”

Section: Materials and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s in a Meow? A Study on Human Classification and Interpretation of Domestic Cat Vocalizations

Prato-Previde

Cannas

Palestrini

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the domestic cat (Felis catus) is probably the most widespread companion animal in the world and interacts in a complex and multifaceted way with humans, the human–cat relationship and reciprocal communication have received far less attention compared, for example, to the human–dog relationship. Only a limited number of studies have considered what people understand of cats’ human-directed vocal signals during daily cat–owner interactions. The aim of the current study was to investigate to what extent adult humans recognize cat vocalizations, namely meows, emitted in three different contexts: waiting for food, isolation, and brushing. A second aim was to evaluate whether the level of human empathy toward animals and cats and the participant’s gender would positively influence the recognition of cat vocalizations. Finally, some insights on which acoustic features are relevant for the main investigation are provided as a serendipitous result. Two hundred twenty-five adult participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire designed to assess their knowledge of cats and to evaluate their empathy toward animals (Animal Empathy Scale). In addition, participants had to listen to six cat meows recorded in three different contexts and specify the context in which they were emitted and their emotional valence. Less than half of the participants were able to associate cats’ vocalizations with the correct context in which they were emitted; the best recognized meow was that emitted while waiting for food. Female participants and cat owners showed a higher ability to correctly classify the vocalizations emitted by cats during brushing and isolation. A high level of empathy toward cats was significantly associated with a better recognition of meows emitted during isolation. Regarding the emotional valence of meows, it emerged that cat vocalizations emitted during isolation are perceived by people as the most negative, whereas those emitted during brushing are perceived as most positive. Overall, it emerged that, although meowing is mainly a human-directed vocalization and in principle represents a useful tool for cats to communicate emotional states to their owners, humans are not particularly able to extract precise information from cats’ vocalizations and show a limited capacity of discrimination based mainly on their experience with cats and influenced by empathy toward them.

show abstract