Abstract Different measures reflecting the cows’ behavioural responses towards humans are used for the assessment of the human–animal relationship (HAR). Besides the established avoidance distance (AD), different handling tests, such as the tolerance to tactile interaction (TTI), release behaviour after restraint (RB), and qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA) during a human–animal interaction are used. However, uncertainties still exist regarding the measures’ validity, vulnerability to confounders or risks of observer bias. These aspects are addressed in the current study. AD, TTI, RB, and QBA were investigated on a research farm regarding (1) their relationships with an expected HAR improvement due to rewarding human-animal contact (here: manual provision of concentrate), (2) potential confounding effects of lactation status (before/after calving), (3) or an expectedly aversive event of claw trimming, and (4) the occurrence of expectation bias. Concerning objectives 1–3, different samples of cows (n = 13–29 out of 102 in total) were assessed repeatedly and differences in behaviour before and after manual concentrate provision, calving, and claw trimming were analysed using paired Wilcoxon tests; for the latter blinded videos were used. For objective 4, both for non-blinded live and blinded video assessments it was tested separately, whether assessments before and after claw trimming differed. After a 6-days period of manual concentrate provision, cows had lower ADs (p = 0.013, n = 27), responded less fearfully in TTI (p = 0.045, n = 27) and QBA (p = 0.026, n = 14), and by tendency in RB (p = 0.052, n = 27), supporting the measures´ construct validity, i.e. that all of them reflect changes in the relationship to humans after the cows experienced rewarding routine interactions. Neither blinded assessments before and one day after claw trimming (p = 0.489–1.0, n = 29), nor assessments before and after calving (p = 0.244–1.0, n = 13) differed significantly, suggesting that single routine procedures and physiological changes around calving do not confound assessments. Numerically, in non-blinded QBA after claw trimming cows were assessed less fearful than in blinded, possibly because the observer tried to avoid bias. Nevertheless, non-blinded live assessments did not yield any significant differences between HAR measures before and after claw trimming (paired Wilcoxon: p = 0.151–1.0, n = 15–29).

中文翻译：

---

评估奶牛对人类反应的行为测量的有效性方面

摘要 反映奶牛对人类行为反应的不同措施用于评估人与动物的关系（HAR）。除了既定的回避距离 (AD) 之外，还使用了不同的处理测试，例如触觉交互耐受性 (TTI)、约束后释放行为 (RB) 和人与动物交互期间的定性行为评估 (QBA)。然而，这些措施的有效性、对混杂因素的脆弱性或观察者偏见的风险仍然存在不确定性。这些方面在当前的研究中得到了解决。AD、TTI、RB 和 QBA 在一个研究农场接受了关于 (1) 由于奖励人与动物接触而预期 HAR 改善的关系（此处：手动提供浓缩物），(2) 泌乳状态（产前/产后）的潜在混杂影响，(3) 或预期的剪爪事件，以及 (4) 预期偏差的发生。关于目标 1-3，对不同的奶牛样本（总共 102 头奶牛中的 n = 13-29）进行了反复评估，并使用配对 Wilcoxon 检验分析了手动提供浓缩液、产犊和修剪爪子前后的行为差异；对于后者，使用了盲视频。对于目标 4，对于非盲实时和盲视频评估，它分别进行了测试，无论在爪修剪之前和之后的评估是否不同。在 6 天的手动浓缩供应期后，奶牛的 ADs 较低（p = 0.013，n = 27），在 TTI（p = 0.045，n = 27）和 QBA（p = 0.026，n = 14）中反应较不恐惧，并根据 RB 的趋势（p = 0.052，n = 27），支持这些措施的结构效度，即所有这些都反映了奶牛经历了有益的日常互动后与人类关系的变化。剪爪前后的盲法评估 (p = 0.489–1.0, n = 29) 和产犊前后的评估 (p = 0.244–1.0, n = 13) 都没有显着差异，表明单一的常规程序和生理变化围绕产犊不要混淆评估。从数字上看，在非盲 QBA 中，剪爪后奶牛的恐惧程度低于盲法，这可能是因为观察者试图避免偏见。尽管如此，非盲实时评估在爪修剪前后 HAR 测量之间没有产生任何显着差异（配对 Wilcoxon：p = 0.151-1.0，n = 15-29）。所有这些都反映了奶牛经历了有益的日常互动后与人类关系的变化。剪爪前后的盲法评估 (p = 0.489–1.0, n = 29) 和产犊前后的评估 (p = 0.244–1.0, n = 13) 都没有显着差异，表明单一的常规程序和生理变化围绕产犊不要混淆评估。从数字上看，在非盲 QBA 中，剪爪后奶牛的恐惧程度低于盲法，这可能是因为观察者试图避免偏见。尽管如此，非盲实时评估在爪修剪前后 HAR 测量之间没有产生任何显着差异（配对 Wilcoxon：p = 0.151-1.0，n = 15-29）。所有这些都反映了奶牛经历了有益的日常互动后与人类关系的变化。剪爪前后的盲法评估 (p = 0.489–1.0, n = 29) 和产犊前后的评估 (p = 0.244–1.0, n = 13) 都没有显着差异，表明单一的常规程序和生理变化围绕产犊不要混淆评估。从数字上看，在非盲 QBA 中，剪爪后奶牛的恐惧程度低于盲法，这可能是因为观察者试图避免偏见。尽管如此，非盲实时评估在爪修剪前后 HAR 测量之间没有产生任何显着差异（配对 Wilcoxon：p = 0.151-1.0，n = 15-29）。剪爪前后的盲法评估 (p = 0.489–1.0, n = 29) 和产犊前后的评估 (p = 0.244–1.0, n = 13) 都没有显着差异，表明单一的常规程序和生理变化围绕产犊不要混淆评估。从数字上看，在非盲 QBA 中，剪爪后奶牛的恐惧程度低于盲法，这可能是因为观察者试图避免偏见。然而，非盲实时评估在爪修剪前后 HAR 测量之间没有产生任何显着差异（配对 Wilcoxon：p = 0.151-1.0，n = 15-29）。剪爪前后的盲法评估 (p = 0.489–1.0, n = 29) 和产犊前后的评估 (p = 0.244–1.0, n = 13) 都没有显着差异，表明单一的常规程序和生理变化围绕产犊不要混淆评估。从数字上看，在非盲 QBA 中，剪爪后奶牛的恐惧程度低于盲法，这可能是因为观察者试图避免偏见。尽管如此，非盲实时评估在爪修剪前后 HAR 测量之间没有产生任何显着差异（配对 Wilcoxon：p = 0.151-1.0，n = 15-29）。表明围绕产犊的单一常规程序和生理变化不会混淆评估。从数字上看，在非盲 QBA 中，剪爪后奶牛的恐惧程度低于盲法，这可能是因为观察者试图避免偏见。尽管如此，非盲实时评估在爪修剪前后 HAR 测量之间没有产生任何显着差异（配对 Wilcoxon：p = 0.151-1.0，n = 15-29）。表明围绕产犊的单一常规程序和生理变化不会混淆评估。从数字上看，在非盲 QBA 中，剪爪后奶牛的恐惧程度低于盲法，这可能是因为观察者试图避免偏见。尽管如此，非盲实时评估在爪修剪前后 HAR 测量之间没有产生任何显着差异（配对 Wilcoxon：p = 0.151-1.0，n = 15-29）。