title: Interobserver reliability of the 'Welfare Quality(®) Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs'.
abstract: The present paper focuses on evaluating the interobserver reliability of the 'Welfare Quality(®) Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs'. The protocol for growing pigs mainly consists of a Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA), direct behaviour observations (BO) carried out by instantaneous scan sampling and checks for different individual parameters (IP), e.g. presence of tail biting, wounds and bursitis. Three trained observers collected the data by performing 29 combined assessments, which were done at the same time and on the same animals; but they were carried out completely independent of each other. The findings were compared by the calculation of Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients (RS), Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), Smallest Detectable Changes (SDC) and Limits of Agreements (LoA). There was no agreement found concerning the adjectives belonging to the QBA (e.g. active: RS: 0.50, ICC: 0.30, SDC: 0.38, LoA: -0.05 to 0.45; fearful: RS: 0.06, ICC: 0.0, SDC: 0.26, LoA: -0.20 to 0.30). In contrast, the BO showed good agreement (e.g. social behaviour: RS: 0.45, ICC: 0.50, SDC: 0.09, LoA: -0.09 to 0.03 use of enrichment material: RS: 0.75, ICC: 0.68, SDC: 0.06, LoA: -0.03 to 0.03). Overall, observers agreed well in the IP, e.g. tail biting (RS: 0.52, ICC: 0.88; SDC: 0.05, LoA: -0.01 to 0.02) and wounds (RS: 0.43, ICC: 0.59, SDC: 0.10, LoA: -0.09 to 0.10). The parameter bursitis showed great differences (RS: 0.10, ICC: 0.0, SDC: 0.35, LoA: -0.37 to 0.40), which can be explained by difficulties in the assessment when the animals moved around quickly or their legs were soiled. In conclusion, the interobserver reliability was good in the BO and most IP, but not for the parameter bursitis and the QBA.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany.
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Czycholl
authors.affiliation: Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich Loeffler Institut, Doernbergstr. 25/27, 29223 Celle, Germany.
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Kniese
authors.affiliation: Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany.
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Büttner
authors.affiliation: Field Station for Epidemiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Buescheler Str. 9, 49456 Bakum, Germany.
authors.forename: E Grosse
authors.initials: EG
authors.lastname: Beilage
authors.affiliation: Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich Loeffler Institut, Doernbergstr. 25/27, 29223 Celle, Germany.
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Schrader
authors.affiliation: Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany.
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Krieter
keywords: Animal welfare assessment; Animal-based; Interobserver reliability; Pig; Welfare Quality®