护理人员没有告诉你的。。。调查结果与猫猫互动家庭视频的比较

IF 2.2 2区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Morgane J.R. Van Belle , Noema Gajdoš Kmecová , Frank A.M. Tuyttens , Christel P.H. Moons , Daniel S. Mills , Tiny C.B.M. De Keuster
{"title":"护理人员没有告诉你的。。。调查结果与猫猫互动家庭视频的比较","authors":"Morgane J.R. Van Belle ,&nbsp;Noema Gajdoš Kmecová ,&nbsp;Frank A.M. Tuyttens ,&nbsp;Christel P.H. Moons ,&nbsp;Daniel S. Mills ,&nbsp;Tiny C.B.M. De Keuster","doi":"10.1016/j.applanim.2023.105993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Domestic cats<span> are increasingly popular as companion animals, but behavioural problems are often reported, especially in multicat households. Social tension is a common stressor, so understanding intercat interactions and their dynamics is crucial. Nevertheless, direct research in the home setting is rare. As caregivers witness their cats’ behaviour on a daily basis, they are a potentially important source of information, but might be unreliable and subject to bias. This study examined the reliability of caregiver reporting by comparing survey answers with behaviours observed in home videos collected after the survey was completed. The occurrence of five cat-cat interactions (head rubbing, allogrooming, sleeping in physical contact with each other, tail up greetings and social play) was examined in 42 two-cat households using 210 survey answers and 775 videos. The percentage of false negative survey responses for behaviours observed in the videos was conservatively estimated (cFN) at 8%, with 22.9% of the negative answers being falsely negative (FOR – False Omission Rate) and 77.1% truly negative (NPV – Negative Predictive Value). Broad false negatives (bFN), which included uncertain responses as negative reports, were 9.5% of the survey responses with a FOR of 75% and NPV of 25% in this context. Highest values were obtained for head rubbing (cFN: 10.5%, bFN: 14.3%) and allogrooming (cFN: 9.8%; bFN: 11.9%). When focusing on individual cat caregivers, 14 out of 42 caregivers (33.3%) failed to reliably report the occurrence of at least one of the surveyed cat-cat interactions. For interactions that were seen on camera, 23.8% of caregivers (10/42) responded that their cats did not show these interactions and 9.5% (4/42) reported uncertainty about whether it ever occurred. These results should be considered a lower estimate of the magnitude of errors (false negatives) in caregiver reports, and their implications need to be considered in both research that depends on caregiver report, and clinical assessments within behavioural medicine. Many cat-cat interactions, and in particular head rubbing and allogrooming, will be underreported when relying exclusively on caregiver reporting.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":8222,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Behaviour Science","volume":"265 ","pages":"Article 105993"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What caregivers don’t tell you ... A comparison between survey responses and home videos of cat-cat interactions\",\"authors\":\"Morgane J.R. Van Belle ,&nbsp;Noema Gajdoš Kmecová ,&nbsp;Frank A.M. Tuyttens ,&nbsp;Christel P.H. Moons ,&nbsp;Daniel S. Mills ,&nbsp;Tiny C.B.M. De Keuster\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.applanim.2023.105993\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Domestic cats<span> are increasingly popular as companion animals, but behavioural problems are often reported, especially in multicat households. Social tension is a common stressor, so understanding intercat interactions and their dynamics is crucial. Nevertheless, direct research in the home setting is rare. As caregivers witness their cats’ behaviour on a daily basis, they are a potentially important source of information, but might be unreliable and subject to bias. This study examined the reliability of caregiver reporting by comparing survey answers with behaviours observed in home videos collected after the survey was completed. The occurrence of five cat-cat interactions (head rubbing, allogrooming, sleeping in physical contact with each other, tail up greetings and social play) was examined in 42 two-cat households using 210 survey answers and 775 videos. The percentage of false negative survey responses for behaviours observed in the videos was conservatively estimated (cFN) at 8%, with 22.9% of the negative answers being falsely negative (FOR – False Omission Rate) and 77.1% truly negative (NPV – Negative Predictive Value). Broad false negatives (bFN), which included uncertain responses as negative reports, were 9.5% of the survey responses with a FOR of 75% and NPV of 25% in this context. Highest values were obtained for head rubbing (cFN: 10.5%, bFN: 14.3%) and allogrooming (cFN: 9.8%; bFN: 11.9%). When focusing on individual cat caregivers, 14 out of 42 caregivers (33.3%) failed to reliably report the occurrence of at least one of the surveyed cat-cat interactions. For interactions that were seen on camera, 23.8% of caregivers (10/42) responded that their cats did not show these interactions and 9.5% (4/42) reported uncertainty about whether it ever occurred. These results should be considered a lower estimate of the magnitude of errors (false negatives) in caregiver reports, and their implications need to be considered in both research that depends on caregiver report, and clinical assessments within behavioural medicine. Many cat-cat interactions, and in particular head rubbing and allogrooming, will be underreported when relying exclusively on caregiver reporting.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Animal Behaviour Science\",\"volume\":\"265 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105993\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Animal Behaviour Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016815912300165X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Animal Behaviour Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016815912300165X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

家猫作为伴侣动物越来越受欢迎,但行为问题经常被报道,特别是在多猫家庭中。社会紧张是一种常见的压力源,因此理解相互作用及其动态至关重要。然而,在家庭环境中进行的直接研究很少。由于看护者每天都能看到他们的猫的行为,他们是一个潜在的重要信息来源,但可能是不可靠的,也会受到偏见的影响。本研究通过比较调查答案与调查完成后收集的家庭录像中观察到的行为,来检验照顾者报告的可靠性。研究人员利用210份调查问卷和775个视频,对42个有猫的家庭进行了五种猫与猫之间的互动(揉头、梳理毛发、睡觉时身体接触、竖起尾巴打招呼和社交游戏)。对于视频中观察到的行为,保守估计(cFN)假阴性调查回答的百分比为8%,其中22.9%的阴性回答为假阴性(for -虚假遗漏率),77.1%为真阴性(NPV -阴性预测值)。广义假阴性(bFN),包括不确定的回答作为负面报告,占调查回答的9.5%,在这种情况下,FOR为75%,NPV为25%。搓头(cFN: 10.5%, bFN: 14.3%)和异体修饰(cFN: 9.8%;bFN: 11.9%)。当关注单个猫看护者时,42名看护者中有14名(33.3%)未能可靠地报告至少一种被调查猫-猫互动的发生。对于在镜头上看到的互动,23.8%的看护者(10/42)回答说他们的猫没有表现出这些互动,9.5%(4/42)的人报告说不确定是否发生过这种互动。这些结果应该被认为是对护理人员报告中错误(假阴性)程度的较低估计,它们的含义需要在依赖于护理人员报告的研究和行为医学的临床评估中加以考虑。许多猫与猫之间的互动,特别是头部摩擦和异体梳理,如果只依赖于照顾者的报告,就会被低估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What caregivers don’t tell you ... A comparison between survey responses and home videos of cat-cat interactions

Domestic cats are increasingly popular as companion animals, but behavioural problems are often reported, especially in multicat households. Social tension is a common stressor, so understanding intercat interactions and their dynamics is crucial. Nevertheless, direct research in the home setting is rare. As caregivers witness their cats’ behaviour on a daily basis, they are a potentially important source of information, but might be unreliable and subject to bias. This study examined the reliability of caregiver reporting by comparing survey answers with behaviours observed in home videos collected after the survey was completed. The occurrence of five cat-cat interactions (head rubbing, allogrooming, sleeping in physical contact with each other, tail up greetings and social play) was examined in 42 two-cat households using 210 survey answers and 775 videos. The percentage of false negative survey responses for behaviours observed in the videos was conservatively estimated (cFN) at 8%, with 22.9% of the negative answers being falsely negative (FOR – False Omission Rate) and 77.1% truly negative (NPV – Negative Predictive Value). Broad false negatives (bFN), which included uncertain responses as negative reports, were 9.5% of the survey responses with a FOR of 75% and NPV of 25% in this context. Highest values were obtained for head rubbing (cFN: 10.5%, bFN: 14.3%) and allogrooming (cFN: 9.8%; bFN: 11.9%). When focusing on individual cat caregivers, 14 out of 42 caregivers (33.3%) failed to reliably report the occurrence of at least one of the surveyed cat-cat interactions. For interactions that were seen on camera, 23.8% of caregivers (10/42) responded that their cats did not show these interactions and 9.5% (4/42) reported uncertainty about whether it ever occurred. These results should be considered a lower estimate of the magnitude of errors (false negatives) in caregiver reports, and their implications need to be considered in both research that depends on caregiver report, and clinical assessments within behavioural medicine. Many cat-cat interactions, and in particular head rubbing and allogrooming, will be underreported when relying exclusively on caregiver reporting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Animal Behaviour Science
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 农林科学-行为科学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
21.70%
发文量
191
审稿时长
18.1 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal publishes relevant information on the behaviour of domesticated and utilized animals. Topics covered include: -Behaviour of farm, zoo and laboratory animals in relation to animal management and welfare -Behaviour of companion animals in relation to behavioural problems, for example, in relation to the training of dogs for different purposes, in relation to behavioural problems -Studies of the behaviour of wild animals when these studies are relevant from an applied perspective, for example in relation to wildlife management, pest management or nature conservation -Methodological studies within relevant fields The principal subjects are farm, companion and laboratory animals, including, of course, poultry. The journal also deals with the following animal subjects: -Those involved in any farming system, e.g. deer, rabbits and fur-bearing animals -Those in ANY form of confinement, e.g. zoos, safari parks and other forms of display -Feral animals, and any animal species which impinge on farming operations, e.g. as causes of loss or damage -Species used for hunting, recreation etc. may also be considered as acceptable subjects in some instances -Laboratory animals, if the material relates to their behavioural requirements
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信