Assessment of lameness prevalence and severity requires visual evaluation of thelocomotion of a cow. Welfare schemes including locomotion assessments are increasingly being adopted, and more farmers and their veterinarians might implement a locomotion-scoring routine together. However, high within-observer agreement is a prerequisite for obtaining valid mobility scorings, and within-observer agreement cannot be estimated in a barn, because the gait of cows is dynamic and may change between 2 occasions. The objective of this study was to estimate the within-observer agreement according to the observers' educational background and experience with cattle, based on video recordings with very diverse types of gait. Groups of farmers, bovine veterinarians, first- and fourth-year veterinary students, researchers, and cattle-inexperienced sensory assessors evaluated mobility using a 5-point mobility score system developed specifically for walking cows (n=102 observers). The evaluation sessions were similar for all groups, lasted 75 min, and were organized as follows: introduction, test A, short training session, break, and test B. In total, video recordings of 22 cows were displayed twice in a random order (11 cows in each test × 2 replicates). Data were analyzed applying kappa coefficient, logistic regression, and testing for random effects of observers. The crude estimates of 95% confidence interval for weighted kappa in test A and B ranged, respectively, from 0.76 to 0.80 and 0.70 to 0.75. When adjusting for the fixed effects of video sample and gait scoring preferences, the probability of assigning the same mobility score twice to the same cow varied from 55% (sensory assessors) to 72% (fourth-year veterinary students). The random effect of the individual observers was negligible. That is, in general observers could categorize the mobility characteristics of cows quite well. Observers who preferred to assess the attributes back arch or the overall mobility score (based on uneven gait) had the highest agreement, respectively, 69 or 68%. The training session seemed insufficient to improve agreement. Nonetheless, even novice observers were able to achieve perfect agreement up to 60% of the 22 scorings with merely the experience obtained during the study (introduction and training session). The relatively small differences between groups, together with a high agreement, demonstrate that the new system is easy to follow compared with previously described scoring systems. The mobility score achieves sufficiently high within-observer repeatability to allow between-observer agreement estimates, which are reliable compared with other more-complex scoring systems. Consequently, the new scoring scale seems feasible for on-farm applications as a tool to monitor mobility within and between cows, for communication between farmers and veterinarians with diverse educational background, and for lamenessbenchmarking of herds.
