Development of a fixed list of descriptors for the qualitative behavioural assessment of shelter dogs

The shelter environment may have a severe impact on the quality of life of dogs, and there is thus a need to develop valid tools to assess their welfare. These tools should be sensitive not only to the animals’ physical health but also to their mental health, including the assessment of positive and negative emotions. Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) is an integrative ‘whole animal’ measure that captures the expressive quality of an animal’s demeanour, using descriptors such as ‘relaxed’, ‘anxious’, and ‘playful’. In this study, for the first time, we developed and tested a fixed-list of qualitative QBA descriptors for application to dogs living in kennels. A list of 20 QBA descriptors was developed based on literature search and an expert opinion survey. Inter-observer reliability was investigated by asking 11 observers to use these descriptors to score 13 video clips of kennelled dogs. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to extract four main dimensions together explaining 70.9% of the total variation between clips. PC1 characterised curious/playful/excitable, sociable demeanour, PC2 ranged from comfortable/relaxed to anxious/nervous/stressed expression, PC3 described fearful demeanour, and PC4 characterized bored/depressed demeanour. Observers’ agreement on the ranking of video clips on these four expressive dimensions was good (Kendall’s W: 0.60-0.80). ANOVA showed a significant effect of observer on mean clip score on all PCs (p<0.05) due to a few observers scoring differently from the rest of the group. These results indicate the potential of the proposed list of QBA terms for sheltered dogs to serve as a non-invasive, easy-to-use assessment tool. However, the observers’ effect on mean scores points towards the need for adequate observer training. The QBA scoring tool can be integrated with existing welfare assessment protocols for shelter dogs and strengthen the power of those protocols to assess and evaluate the animals’ experience in shelters.

Behaviour Assessment (QBA) is an integrative 'whole animal' measure that captures the expressive quality

23
of an animal's demeanour, using descriptors such as 'relaxed ', 'anxious', and 'playful'. In  clip score on all PCs (p<0.05) due to a few observers scoring differently from the rest of the group. These 34 results indicate the potential of the proposed list of QBA terms for sheltered dogs to serve as a non-invasive, 35 easy-to-use assessment tool. However, the observers' effect on mean scores points towards the need for 36 adequate observer training. The QBA scoring tool can be integrated with existing welfare assessment 37 protocols for shelter dogs and strengthen the power of those protocols to assess and evaluate the animals' 38 experience in shelters.

42
Kennel dog welfare is a concern affecting thousands of animals all around the world held in temporary or 43 permanent confinement for a variety of reasons [1,2]. There is evidence that shelter environments may have 44 a severe impact on the quality of life of dogs [3,4]. This is likely due to factors such as social isolation and 45 novel surroundings [5], especially if these are protracted over long periods of time [6]. For this reason, there has been an increasing interest by the scientific community to develop validated tools to assess the welfare of sheltered dogs [3,7].
All procedures were performed in full accordance with Italian legal regulations and the guidelines for the 105 treatments of animals in behavioural research and teaching of the Association for the Study of Animal

107
No IRB approval was sought for the use of students as observers, but they provided informed signed consent 108 to participate in the study and they were fully informed about the purpose and background of the study.

136
For each descriptor, we provided a brief semantic characterisation and asked the experts to score that term on 137 the basis of four brief statements using a likert-scale from 1 to 5, where 1 corresponded to 'not at all', and 5 138 to 'completely' (Table 2). Experts also had the possibility to add comments in a free space if wanted.

139
Furthermore, at the end of the survey the experts could suggest a maximum of three terms that, in their 140 opinion, were missing but that they considered important to describe the emotional state of sheltered dogs.

141
This expert opinion was used to refine our original list by deleting and/or adding terms, in order to eliminate 142 synonyms, select the terms most relevant to describing shelter dog emotional state, and ensure that terms 143 were easy to understand.  The SurveyMonkey ® software automatically generated a matrix with the average scores assigned by the 150 experts to each term. We then calculated the mean scores of each of the four statements for all terms (Table   151 2). To decide whether to keep or delete a term, we used those total mean scores to establish thresholds for each statement: to be considered for inclusion, a term had to receive a mean score of 3 or more in statements 153 1, #3 and #4, and less than 3 in statement 2. Furthermore, we summarised and classified the negative 154 comments provided by the experts as 'prone to anthropomorphism'; 'too generic'; 'too similar to other 155 terms'; 'is not an emotional state'. We put aside inapplicable comments such as those repeating the same 156 concept expressed in the statement (e.g. "not useful to assess animal welfare"), those referring to the 157 definition given by the authors (e.g. "I would include 'interest' in the definition") and comments without 158 justification (e.g. "I suggest to delete this term from the list").

159
Finally, we defined inclusion/exclusion criteria in order to refine our list.

160
As exclusion criteria, we established that a descriptor would be excluded from the list if it had at least:

162
-one insufficient score and one negative comment 163 -no insufficient scores, but three or more negative comments.

167
The final list of terms resulting from the previous steps was subsequently used to test for inter-observer

179
To trigger different responses, dogs were recorded during three different scenarios common in a shelter 180 environment: under normal conditions with no external intervention, in the presence of an unknown person, and in presence of a familiar person. The unfamiliar person was one of two researchers (one female and one 182 male), while the familiar person was a shelter operator available at the time of recording. The unfamiliar 183 person followed a simple protocol, approaching the fence of the kennel and standing one metre from the 184 fence ignoring the dogs (1 min) and subsequently talking gently to the dog moving a hand slowly along the 185 fence (1 min). Shelter operators were asked to enter the kennel and interact with the dog/s for 2 minutes.

186
The 13 recorded clips were cut (using the Avidemux 2.6.8 programme) to obtain clips of 1.5 minutes average 187 length during which all dog/s in the kennel were visible at all time.

195
Before starting the assessment of the video clips, approximately 1 hour was dedicated to an introduction with 196 the goal of explaining the aim of the study and the operative procedures. A brief characterisation of each 197 term was provided and, where necessary, terms were discussed further among the observers.

198
Observers were told that the study had the aim of investigating whether observers can agree in using a fixed 199 list of QBA terms to assess emotional expressivity in shelter dogs. Emotional expressivity was defined as an meaning the expressive quality indicated by the term was entirely absent in that dog or group of dogs, 206 whereas the right end represented the maximum score (125 mm), meaning that the expressive quality 207 indicated by the term was strongly dominant in that dog or group of dogs. Observers were asked to avoid 208 talking during the session.

209
Once instructions had ended, observers watched the 13 clips projected onto a lecture hall screen and, after  On the basis of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, nine terms were deleted from the list: boisterous, aloof, 243 timorous, tranquil, serene, apathetic (all had at least two insufficient scores, and some also had negative 244 comments), affectionate, self-confident (one insufficient score and at least one negative comment), happy (at 245 least three negative comments). We evaluated the additional terms suggested by the panel of experts, and we 246 added interested, depressed and aggressive (each one, suggested three times) and reactive (suggested twice).

247
Finally, the term uncomfortable was replaced by the positive form comfortable.

248
As a result, the final list was composed of 20 terms. (  Table 6 shows the loadings of each descriptor on the four principal components (PC). PC1 was characterized 265 by positive terms curious/attention-seeking/playful/excited/sociable/interested and explorative; PC2 266 characterized dogs as ranging from comfortable/relaxed to anxious/nervous/stressed. Figure 1 shows the 20

267
QBA descriptors plotted along these first two PCs. PC3 was characterized by the terms fearful/hesitant/wary, 268 and finally, PC4 by the terms depressed/bored. Figure 2 shows the 20 QBA descriptors plotted along PC3 269 and PC4.   The Kendall W values for individual descriptors were all significantly different from chance (p<0.001), but 292 only 8 terms reached values higher than 0.60, while the term 'depressed' showed a particularly low value 293 (Table 7). to compare how these terms are used for scoring, significantly improves the reliability of such terms [25,43].

370
Thus, any future practical application of the QBA term list for shelter dog welfare proposed in this study 371 should provide ample training (including field assessments), until consistently high agreement between 372 observers can be reached.

373
In recent efforts to promote the expression of positive emotions in captive/domestic animals (e.g.