225
Views
7
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Short Communications

Inter-observer agreement between two observers for bovine digital dermatitis identification in New Zealand using digital photographs

ORCID Icon &
Pages 143-147 | Received 14 Nov 2018, Accepted 11 Feb 2019, Published online: 07 Mar 2019
 

ABSTRACT

Aims: To assess the inter-observer agreement for detecting bovine digital dermatitis (BDD) lesions in digital colour photographs of the hind feet of cows, which had been taken while the animals were standing to be milked, between two trained observers.

Methods: Thirty-six photographs were selected from a total of 184 photographs held by the first author (R1), who had classified them as negative (n=11) or positive (n=25) for BDD. They were delivered to a technician (R2) who had previously visually inspected cattle for BDD lesions, and who then recorded the photographs as being either BDD-positive or BDD-negative. The percentage agreement between R1 and R2, and two other inter-observer agreement statistics, Cohen’s κ and Gwet’s first-order chance correction agreement coefficient (AC1), were calculated. The cumulative membership probabilities of Cohen’s κ and Gwet’s AC1 were then calculated for different benchmark ranges of κ.

Results: The percentage agreement between R1 and R2 was 33/36 (92%), Cohen’s κ was 0.80 (95% CI=0.57–1.0) and Gwet’s AC1 was 0.86 (95% CI=0.69–1.0). Based on the cumulative membership probabilities for Gwet’s AC1, there was 75% probability that the two observers had almost perfect agreement (κ≥0.81). For both Cohen’s κ and Gwet’s AC1, there was >95% probability that the two observers had at least substantial agreement (κ≥0.61).

Conclusions: The two trained observers had at least substantial agreement in identifying from a digital photograph as to whether BDD lesions were present or absent. Therefore results from the two could be used interchangeably.

Clinical Relevance: Visual assessment for BDD lesions in the milking parlour can be subjective. However a high agreement between these two trained BDD inspectors means BDD prevalence reported from different regions in New Zealand by these two can be directly compared.

Acknowledgements

Technician Megan Moss’s participation is gratefully acknowledged.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.