Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:03:09.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the inter- and intra-observer repeatability of three gait-scoring scales for sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2014

E. Nalon ,
D. Maes ,
S. Van Dongen ,
M. M. J. van Riet ,
G. P. J. Janssens ,
S. Millet  and
F. A. M. Tuyttens
E. Nalon*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, Reproduction and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium Animal Sciences Unit, ILVO (Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
D. Maes
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, Reproduction and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
S. Van Dongen
Affiliation:
Department of Evolutionary Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Antwerp University, Middelheimcampus, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium
M. M. J. van Riet
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, ILVO (Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium Department of Nutrition, Genetics and Ethology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
G. P. J. Janssens
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Genetics and Ethology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
S. Millet
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, ILVO (Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
F. A. M. Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, ILVO (Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium Department of Nutrition, Genetics and Ethology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Most gait-scoring scales for pigs have a limited number of categories, supposedly to improve repeatability. However, reducing the number of categories could lead to loss of information if the observers’ discriminative capacities are underused. With a recently estimated within-herd prevalence of sow lameness of 8.8% to 16.9% in the European Union and the associated losses, the availability of reliable tools for the timely detection of initial cases warrants attention. This study investigated the intra- and inter-observer repeatability (intra-OR and inter-OR) of three gait-scoring scales for sows: a continuous ‘tagged’ visual analogue scale (tVAS, measured in mm), a 5-point and a 2-point ordinal scale (5P and 2P), all with the same descriptors. Veterinary medicine students (n=108) were trained to use the scales and then asked to score 90 videos (30 per scale) of sows with normal and abnormal gait. Thirty-six videos were shown once and 18 were randomly shown three times, of which one mirrored horizontally. The students’ opinions on the scales were also collected. Intra- and inter-OR were higher with the tVAS than the 2P scale (inter-OR: 0.73 v. 0.60; P<0.05. Intra-OR: 0.80 v. 0.67; P<0.05). Intra-OR was higher with the 5P (0.81) than the 2P scale (0.67; P<0.05). For all three scales, repeatabilities were lower (P<0.05) for non-lame sows (gait score of ⩽45 mm on the tVAS) than for sows showing some signs of lameness (gait score>45 mm). Video order (first 45 v. last 45 clips), mirroring, users’ opinions on the scales, and previous declared experience in handling pigs or scoring lameness in other species had no effect on repeatabilities. Correlations between the students’ and experts’ scores were high (tVAS=0.92; 5P=0.91; 2P=0.88) but the association for the 2P was not linear and the frequency distribution showed lower correlations for a group of students. This study confirms recent evidence that it is possible to design high-resolution gait-scoring scales that do not reduce observer repeatability. Visual gait-scoring scales with fewer than five categories are likely to entail loss of information on lameness in individual sows.

Keywords

continuous scalelocomotion scoreinter-rater agreementlamenesssow
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , April 2014 , pp. 650 - 659
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Averbuch, M and Katzper, M 2004. Assessment of visual analog versus categorical scale for measurement of osteoarthritis pain. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 44, 368–372.Google Scholar
BPEX 2013. Real Welfare for Red Tractor. Measures for on farm assessment (finishers). Retrieved January 8, 2014, from http://smartstore.bpex.org.uk/articles/dodownload.asp?a=smartstore.bpex.org.uk.26.3.2013.16.13.6.pdf&i=302866 Google Scholar
Brenninkmeyer, C, Dippel, S, March, S, Brinkmann, J, Winckler, C and Knierim, U 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16, 127–129.Google Scholar
Channon, AJ, Walker, AM, Pfau, T, Sheldon, IM and Wilson, AM 2009. Variability of Manson and Leaver locomotion scores assigned to dairy cows by different observers. Veterinary Record 164, 388–392.Google Scholar
D’Eath, RB 2012. Repeated locomotion scoring of a sow herd to measure lameness: consistency over time, the effect of sow characteristics and inter-observer reliability. Animal Welfare 21, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, B, Bruin, G, Andre, G and Buist, W 2003. Assessment of observer performance in a subjective scoring system: visual classification of the gait of cows. The Journal of Agricultural Science 140, 317–333.Google Scholar
Flower, FC and Weary, DM 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 139–146.Google Scholar
Global Animal Partnership 2009. Global Animal Partnership 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards for Pigs. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from http://www.globalanimalpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/5-Step-Animal-Welfare-Rating-Standards-for-Pigs.pdf Google Scholar
Grégoire, J, Bergeron, R, D'Allaire, S, Meunier-Salaün, M-C and Devillers, N 2013. Assessment of lameness in sows using gait, footprints, postural behaviour and foot lesion analysis. Animal 7, 1163–1173.Google Scholar
Heinonen, M, Peltoniemi, O and Valros, A 2013. Impact of lameness and claw lesions in sows on welfare, health and production. Livestock Science 156, 2–9.Google Scholar
Heinonen, M, Oravainen, J, Orro, T, Seppä-Lassila, L, Ala-Kurikka, E, Virolainen, J, Tast, A and Peltoniemi, OAT 2006. Lameness and fertility of sows and gilts in randomly selected loose-housed herds in Finland. The Veterinary Record 159, 383–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hjermstad, MJ, Fayers, PM, Haugen, DF, Caraceni, A, Hanks, GW, Loge, JH, Fainsinger, R, Aass, N and Kaasa, S 2011. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 41, 1073–1093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KilBride, AL, Gillman, CE and Green, LE 2009. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of lameness in finishing pigs, gilts and pregnant sows and associations with limb lesions and floor types on commercial farms in England. Animal Welfare 18, 215–224.Google Scholar
Lansing, RW, Moosavi, SH and Banzett, RB 2003. Measurement of dyspnea: word labeled visual analog scale v. verbal ordinal scale. Respiratory Physiology and Neurobiology 134, 77–83.Google Scholar
Main, DCJ, Clegg, J, Spatz, A and Green, LE 2000. Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Veterinary Record 147, 574–576.Google Scholar
Menzies-Gow, NJ, Stevens, KB, Sepulveda, MF, Jarvis, N and Marr, CM 2010. Repeatability and reproducibility of the grading system for equine laminitis. Veterinary Record 167, 52–55.Google Scholar
Nalon, E, Conte, S, Maes, D, Tuyttens, FAM and Devillers, N 2013. Assessment of lameness and claw lesions in sows. Livestock Science 156, 10–23.Google Scholar
O’Callaghan, K 2002. Lameness and associated pain in cattle – challenging traditional perceptions. In Practice 24, 212–219.Google Scholar
Pluym, L, Van Nuffel, A and Maes, D 2013. Treatment and prevention of lameness with special emphasis on claw disorders in group-housed sows. Livestock Science 156, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portney, LG and Watkins, MP 2000. Foundations of clinical research: application to practice, 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2012. RSPCA Welfare Standards for Pigs. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232729716304&mode=prd Google Scholar
Streiner, DL 2013. A guide for the statistically perplexed: selected readings for clinical researchers. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Streiner, DL and Norman, GR 2008. Health measurement scales: a practical guide for their development and use, 4th edition. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Sprenger, M, Van Nuffel, A, Maertens, W and Van Dongen, S 2009. Reliability of categorical versus continuous scoring of welfare indicators: lameness in cows as a case study. Animal Welfare 18, 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viñuela-Fernández, I, Jones, E, Chase-Topping, ME and Price, J 2011. Comparison of subjective scoring systems used to evaluate equine laminitis. The Veterinary Journal 188, 171–177.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs (Sows and Piglets, Growing and Finishing Pigs). Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Welsh, EM, Gettinby, G and Nolan, AM 1993. Comparison of a visual analogue scale and a numerical rating scale for assessment of lameness, using sheep as a model. American Journal of Veterinary Research 54, 976–983.Google Scholar
Willgert, K 2011. The economic and welfare impact of lameness in sows in England. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/TheeconomicandwelfareimpactoflamenessinsowsinEngland.pdf Google Scholar
ZinPro Corp 2009. FeetFirst Locomotion Scoring Version 1.0.Google Scholar