How many to sample? Statistical guidelines for monitoring animal welfare outcomes.

There is increasing scrutiny of the animal welfare impacts of all animal use activities, including agriculture, the keeping of companion animals, racing and entertainment, research and laboratory use, and wildlife management programs. A common objective of animal welfare monitoring is to quantify th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jordan O Hampton, Darryl I MacKenzie, David M Forsyth
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2019-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211417
id doaj-1337305d10a74486b0040b863b986fb3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1337305d10a74486b0040b863b986fb32021-03-03T20:55:31ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-01141e021141710.1371/journal.pone.0211417How many to sample? Statistical guidelines for monitoring animal welfare outcomes.Jordan O HamptonDarryl I MacKenzieDavid M ForsythThere is increasing scrutiny of the animal welfare impacts of all animal use activities, including agriculture, the keeping of companion animals, racing and entertainment, research and laboratory use, and wildlife management programs. A common objective of animal welfare monitoring is to quantify the frequency of adverse animal events (e.g., injuries or mortalities). The frequency of such events can be used to provide pass/fail grades for animal use activities relative to a defined threshold and to identify areas for improvement through research. A critical question in these situations is how many animals should be sampled? There are, however, few guidelines available for data collection or analysis, and consequently sample sizes can be highly variable. To address this question, we first evaluated the effect of sample size on precision and statistical power in reporting the frequency of adverse animal welfare outcomes. We next used these findings to assess the precision of published animal welfare investigations for a range of contentious animal use activities, including livestock transport, horse racing, and wildlife harvesting and capture. Finally, we evaluated the sample sizes required for comparing observed outcomes with specified standards through hypothesis testing. Our simulations revealed that the sample sizes required for reasonable levels of precision (i.e., proportional distance to the upper confidence interval limit (δ) of ≤ 0.50) are greater than those that have been commonly used for animal welfare assessments (i.e., >300). Larger sample sizes are required for adverse events with low frequency (i.e., <5%). For comparison with a required threshold standard, even larger samples sizes are required. We present guidelines, and an online calculator, for minimum sample sizes for use in future animal welfare assessments of animal management and research programs.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211417
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jordan O Hampton
Darryl I MacKenzie
David M Forsyth
spellingShingle Jordan O Hampton
Darryl I MacKenzie
David M Forsyth
How many to sample? Statistical guidelines for monitoring animal welfare outcomes.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Jordan O Hampton
Darryl I MacKenzie
David M Forsyth
author_sort Jordan O Hampton
title How many to sample? Statistical guidelines for monitoring animal welfare outcomes.
title_short How many to sample? Statistical guidelines for monitoring animal welfare outcomes.
title_full How many to sample? Statistical guidelines for monitoring animal welfare outcomes.
title_fullStr How many to sample? Statistical guidelines for monitoring animal welfare outcomes.
title_full_unstemmed How many to sample? Statistical guidelines for monitoring animal welfare outcomes.
title_sort how many to sample? statistical guidelines for monitoring animal welfare outcomes.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2019-01-01
description There is increasing scrutiny of the animal welfare impacts of all animal use activities, including agriculture, the keeping of companion animals, racing and entertainment, research and laboratory use, and wildlife management programs. A common objective of animal welfare monitoring is to quantify the frequency of adverse animal events (e.g., injuries or mortalities). The frequency of such events can be used to provide pass/fail grades for animal use activities relative to a defined threshold and to identify areas for improvement through research. A critical question in these situations is how many animals should be sampled? There are, however, few guidelines available for data collection or analysis, and consequently sample sizes can be highly variable. To address this question, we first evaluated the effect of sample size on precision and statistical power in reporting the frequency of adverse animal welfare outcomes. We next used these findings to assess the precision of published animal welfare investigations for a range of contentious animal use activities, including livestock transport, horse racing, and wildlife harvesting and capture. Finally, we evaluated the sample sizes required for comparing observed outcomes with specified standards through hypothesis testing. Our simulations revealed that the sample sizes required for reasonable levels of precision (i.e., proportional distance to the upper confidence interval limit (δ) of ≤ 0.50) are greater than those that have been commonly used for animal welfare assessments (i.e., >300). Larger sample sizes are required for adverse events with low frequency (i.e., <5%). For comparison with a required threshold standard, even larger samples sizes are required. We present guidelines, and an online calculator, for minimum sample sizes for use in future animal welfare assessments of animal management and research programs.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211417
work_keys_str_mv AT jordanohampton howmanytosamplestatisticalguidelinesformonitoringanimalwelfareoutcomes
AT darrylimackenzie howmanytosamplestatisticalguidelinesformonitoringanimalwelfareoutcomes
AT davidmforsyth howmanytosamplestatisticalguidelinesformonitoringanimalwelfareoutcomes
_version_ 1714819727324348416