The Importance of Documenting

The enrichment process does not stop once the enrichment is given to an animal. Instead, the response that the animal shows to that enrichment provides vital information about the success of the initiative in encouraging the behavioral goal intended, and about how that enrichment should be used in the future. The documentation and evaluation process should provide information that can be used to fine-tune the way enrichment is used, to ensure that the best care is given to your animals. This is also information that can be shared with other people on your team, between different teams, and between institutions, and that goes well beyond the “I think the enrichment worked” approach. Documenting enrichment can seem like a daunting task. You may hear, "We don’t have time to document enrichment." But, if we use the veterinary care or nutrition analogy, we know we always document the effect that medications have on animals, and whether they are consuming the food that they are provided.

Methods of Documenting

Documentation is the day-to-day process of collecting information about the way that animals interact with enrichment – information such as who used the enrichment, when, for how long, and with what intensity. Documentation is an integral part of any enrichment program, not only confirming what enrichment was given to which animals on any particular day, but also providing information that can be used to answer specific questions we might have about the way that animals interact with the enrichment.

There are many different ways to document enrichment use, ranging from not very work intensive to very work intensive, including:

• Recording ‘noteworthy events’ (e.g., when the animals were seen to interact with enrichment in an interesting, unusual, inappropriate, or unsafe manner) is a form of documentation that can be easily done by animal care staff as part of their daily routine. This is not a work-intensive method of documentation, and will often be the most common type of documentation used. Recording noteworthy events can be done in a variety of different ways, from writing down a description of what is seen on a daily keeper report, to drawing a diagram, taking a photo or recording some video. All of these are great methods of documenting.
  
• Question-specific methods of documentation, which can be developed to answer more specific questions (such as who uses the enrichment, or how do they use the enrichment) using very straightforward methods of documentation. Although these will require more time than simply recording noteworthy events, they will also provide more specific answers to your questions. There are many different types of these semi-intensive documentation methods (such as using 1-5 scales – see below) that can be custom-made to fit your question and the limitations that your data collectors face (e.g., limited time, visibility, etc.).
  
• Traditional animal behavior measuring techniques (see reference list), which can be used to answer very specific or complex questions. If the goal of the enrichment was to decrease stereotypic behavior and increase foraging behavior, then creating an activity budget (% of time the animal spends performing each of its behaviors) might be the best way to answer this. This is a very time-intensive process.

Validity and Consistency

In all aspects of documentation it is important to develop specific questions before collecting any information. The questions that you ask determine the type of documentation that you will use, and also help you to look for a particular answer when it comes to the Evaluating component of the SPIDER framework. It is also important to consider the validity and consistency of any measures used.

• Validity deals with how closely the information collected really matches what happened in reality. See the reference section for more information about consistency and validity.
  
• Consistency involves the way in which different people collect the same type of information (or the way in which a single person collects information over time).

Some methods of documentation are not as valid as others. If noteworthy events are recorded as part of a keeper’s normal daily routine (e.g., the keeper sees the animals briefly several times during the day), there will be a significant proportion of the day when the keeper is not watching the animal. Noteworthy events based on a small proportion of the day are not necessarily a valid representation of what the animal did all day. Noteworthy events can, however, be used either to answer very broad questions (e.g., did anyone interact with the enrichment), or to develop more specific questions that can be answered using more intensive methods of documentation.

Collecting information in an inconsistent manner can decrease the validity of even very intensive methods of documentation. If two keepers using a 1-5 scale to document interaction with enrichment score the same observation with a different value, then there is no consistency. Without consistency any information collected will lack validity, and will make it hard to properly evaluate that information, or to answer any questions.

1-5 Scale

There are some general tools already designed to answer certain types of question here at Disney’s Animal Programs. These tools consist of three 1-5 scales (described below), which provide a useful and easy way to collect information about specific types of enrichment use. However, the way in which these 1-5 scales are used is just as important as the scales themselves. Every effort should be made to use these tools in a consistent manner in order to collect the most valid and usable information as possible.

1) Direct Evidence (keeper observes animal and assess its level of interaction with enrichment initiative) :

1 = no observed interaction with enrichment;

2 = animal orients towards enrichment, but does not physically contact enrichment;

3 = 1-5 visits/minutes of interaction;

4 = 5-10 visits/minutes of interaction;

5 = greater than 10 visits/minutes of interaction.


This 1-5 scale is useful for assessing the degree to which an animal interacts with an enrichment initiative (either novel or familiar) for a specific period of time. This scale can be used to assess how an animal’s interest in a particular enrichment changes over time. Important points to note will be that the animals’ response to the enrichment may vary depending on the time of day that the animals are observed and the scale used, as well as how long the observation period is. Both of these factors should be made as consistent as possible. For example, all keepers assessing a gorilla’s use of a puzzle feeder should come to an agreement as to when and for how long their observations should take place (e.g., 15 minutes when the gorillas are first let out on exhibit).

2) Indirect Evidence (keeper is unable to observe animal’s response to enrichment, and so uses indirect evidence of the animal’s use of enrichment, e.g., cardboard box all ripped up versus untouched):

1 = no evidence of interaction (e.g., pristine, untouched cardboard box);

2 = slight evidence of interaction (e.g., box moved slightly);

3 = moderate evidence of interaction (e.g., box moved and urine marked);

4 = significant evidence of interaction (e.g., marks on box (teeth/claws))

5 = substantial evidence of interaction (e.g., box ripped into pieces, and scattered around holding area).

The indirect scale is especially useful for assessing enrichment use that occurred during the night, or when the animals cannot be directly observed during the day. Only three criteria are defined for this 1-5 scale since it is difficult to specifically define what categories 2 and 4 will look like without taking into account the individual characteristics of the various enrichment initiatives provided. When using the indirect scale it is important to clearly define what 2 and 4 would look like for specific enrichment initiatives, where this is possible. This scale can be used to answer the question of whether or not any of the animals use the enrichment (for group housed species), or which animal uses the enrichment (for individual housed species – e.g., at night).

3) Goal Scale (keeper assesses whether the animal uses the enrichment for the intended goal):

1 = actively avoids enrichment item;

2 = interacts inappropriately (e.g., dangerously, aggressively);

3 = interacts tentatively with item (e.g., brief contact with no specific behavioral response);

4 = interacts appropriately but not with goal behaviors (e.g., uses foraging material for nesting);

5 = interacts appropriately with intended goal behaviors.

This scale is useful to assess any interaction with enrichment that is observed by the keepers. Each enrichment initiative provided to the animals should be provided for a reason, with a goal to promote a certain type of species-appropriate behavior. This scale can help to document how closely the animal’s response to the enrichment meets the intended goal. Certain animals may use the enrichment in a way that is unrelated to the goal of the enrichment, but that is still appropriate, and so the initiative may still be of value as enrichment. In other cases, the animals’ responses may be inappropriate or dangerous, and action should be taken by the team to remove or modify the enrichment initiative. Once again, the consistency with which this 1-5 scale is used will affect the quality of the information collected.

Inter-observer Reliability

For all these scales, it is necessary for teams to discuss and clearly define what each of the scale criteria represents for a particular enrichment or subset of enrichment initiatives. It is important that each keeper scores the same behavioral responses in the same way (i.e., with the same numerical value) for the information collected to be useful. Inter-observer reliability should be re-assessed on a frequent basis (e.g., quarterly) to ensure that the team is still in agreement with the specific definitions from the 1-5 scales. A good way to assess inter-observer reliability is to videotape an animal’s use of enrichment, and ‘test’ each keeper on how he/she would score that animal’s use of the enrichment. Group discussions about why each person scored a ‘3’ versus a ‘4’ will likely enhance future inter-observer reliability.

Subjective Assessment Summary

It is perhaps unrealistic to have objective assessments that cover a substantial amount of the enrichment that is provided to the collection. In order to have a written record of information on a majority of the rotating items that are provided , we provide here a method of subjective assessment. This assessment can be used for any approved initiative as well as food, semi-permanent, permanent and prototype items. The assessment is composed of a series of questions that are listed below. It is recommended that the following summary questions be answered with a group of at least three people. Prior to filling out this assessment, teams need to consider the natural history of the species, the initiative, and number of offerings, length of time offered and the ease of observation. It is recommended that this assessment be reviewed yearly for each initiative . These assessments can most useful to when they are a part of routinely scheduled meetings.

1. As an estimate, how many times has this initiatives been offered?
2. Over how long of a time period?
3. Has this initiative been presented to groups of animals? Single species groups? Multi-species groups?
4. If provided to a group, describe which individuals, species, age, sex, status (dom/sub) have been seen to interact with the initiative. If provided to a large multi-species group (such as the aviary) just provide information that is most pertinent.
5. Is this initiative edible?
6. Generally when offered, how much of the item is consumed?
7. If not consumed, describe interaction.
8. Has this enrichment initiative been seen to encourage this goal behavior?
9. Has the initiative encouraged any behaviors not originally identified as goal behaviors?
10. What are these behaviors? Why?
11. Based on observations, is this initiative safe?
12. If not safe, why?
13. Are there any unusual or negative factors associated with this enrichment initiative? If yes, describe:
14. How much time does it take to: Develop? Implement? Remove/Clean? Maintain?
15. Do the benefits of this initiative outweigh the costs (time and money)?
16. In conclusion, how would you code this enrichment initiative in terms of its effectiveness? Codes:Unknown; Discontinue; Not recommended; Recommended; Highly recommended
17. Why did you select this rating?
18. How can the effectiveness of this initiative be improved?
19. Additional comments: