The Equine Quality of Movement Score: How reliable is it?

A.G. Bowen , G. Tabor , R. Labens , M. Douglas , H. Randle
{"title":"The Equine Quality of Movement Score: How reliable is it?","authors":"A.G. Bowen ,&nbsp;G. Tabor ,&nbsp;R. Labens ,&nbsp;M. Douglas ,&nbsp;H. Randle","doi":"10.1016/j.eqre.2025.100023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Visually assessing equine quality of movement in the field is a routine part of performance management and rehabilitation procedures. To improve this subjective process, an outcome measure to grade quality of movement has been developed. The Equine Quality of Movement Score (EQoMS) is a battery of 30 standardised in-hand movement tests with a paired word and number grading system and directives to guide scoring based on key features. Six assessors (3 equine physiotherapists and 3 specialist equine veterinarians) scored video footage of 20 horses performing these movement tests. Videos were presented for scoring in a randomised order over two rounds with a 2-week gap in between. Intra-rater reliability was excellent (Spearman’s rho = 0.95, <em>P</em> = &lt;0.001), and inter-rater reliability using ranked scores was moderately strong (Spearman’s rho = 0.66–0.95, <em>P</em> = &lt;0.001). Assessors agreed on the relative quality of movement but disagreed on the absolute magnitude of movement quality. The assessors' free-text comments indicated a bias towards making negative comments. Reflecting the EQoMS directives, different features were commented on for different gaits, figures of movement and surfaces. Differences in terminology were found in the comments made by specialist equine veterinarians and equine physiotherapists, with the latter avoiding directly commenting on lameness. The variation in scores and comments emphasises the subjective nature of movement quality. Even when given the same training and directives to guide scoring, individual assessors' weighting of qualitative and quantitative elements was different. Further refinement is required to improve agreement on characteristics of equine movement, and the reliability of the EQoMS.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100781,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Equine Rehabilitation","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100023"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Equine Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949905425000052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Visually assessing equine quality of movement in the field is a routine part of performance management and rehabilitation procedures. To improve this subjective process, an outcome measure to grade quality of movement has been developed. The Equine Quality of Movement Score (EQoMS) is a battery of 30 standardised in-hand movement tests with a paired word and number grading system and directives to guide scoring based on key features. Six assessors (3 equine physiotherapists and 3 specialist equine veterinarians) scored video footage of 20 horses performing these movement tests. Videos were presented for scoring in a randomised order over two rounds with a 2-week gap in between. Intra-rater reliability was excellent (Spearman’s rho = 0.95, P = <0.001), and inter-rater reliability using ranked scores was moderately strong (Spearman’s rho = 0.66–0.95, P = <0.001). Assessors agreed on the relative quality of movement but disagreed on the absolute magnitude of movement quality. The assessors' free-text comments indicated a bias towards making negative comments. Reflecting the EQoMS directives, different features were commented on for different gaits, figures of movement and surfaces. Differences in terminology were found in the comments made by specialist equine veterinarians and equine physiotherapists, with the latter avoiding directly commenting on lameness. The variation in scores and comments emphasises the subjective nature of movement quality. Even when given the same training and directives to guide scoring, individual assessors' weighting of qualitative and quantitative elements was different. Further refinement is required to improve agreement on characteristics of equine movement, and the reliability of the EQoMS.
马的运动质量评分:它有多可靠?
视觉评估马在野外的运动质量是表现管理和康复程序的常规部分。为了改进这一主观过程,开发了一种评价运动质量的结果测量方法。马运动质量评分(EQoMS)是一组30个标准化的手部运动测试,带有配对的单词和数字评分系统,以及基于关键特征指导评分的指令。6名评估员(3名马物理治疗师和3名马兽医专家)对20匹马进行这些运动测试的视频片段进行评分。视频以随机顺序在两轮中进行评分,中间间隔两周。评分者内信度极好(Spearman 's rho = 0.95, P = <0.001),使用排名分数的评分者间信度中等强(Spearman 's rho = 0.66-0.95, P = <0.001)。评估者对运动的相对质量意见一致,但对运动质量的绝对大小意见不一。评价者的自由文本评论表明他们倾向于做出负面评论。反映EQoMS指令,不同的特征被评论为不同的步态,运动图形和表面。专家马兽医和马物理治疗师在评论中发现了术语上的差异,后者避免直接评论跛足。分数和评论的变化强调了运动质量的主观性。即使给予相同的培训和指导评分的指令,单个评估者对定性和定量元素的权重也是不同的。需要进一步改进以提高对马运动特征的一致性,以及EQoMS的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信