"The selection index was developed into the Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP). The BLUP breeding strategy has been used successfully for genetic improvement, particularly in livestock, and has also been applied in closed colonies of dogs with substantial success."
While I am good at statistics, extrapolating a BLUP formula into a working model from a group of hip scores independently is a bit out of my league. I am guessing that is why the authors rolled it into what they call a "breeding value" score for this study.
The portion of the report that I was referencing is from page 5 of the actual study (not the abstract).
Our studies have shown the OFA score and the NA are highly genetically correlated while the DI and the DLS score are also highly genetically correlated but that the genetic correlations between these two groups of hip phenotypes are only moderate [13].
Therefore, selection pressure based on the OFA score will likely not result in as rapid gain as if selection pressure was also exerted
based on either the DI or the DLS score which have higher heritability [23].
In other words, using both types of information may lead to better selection, predictability and outcomes. Cooperation - what a concept!
It is not useful to question the motives of the scientists or their sponsors. Just be happy the studies are being done. Plus, keep in mind, whenever someone does a study, the first thing they need to do is to make a statement of what they are hoping to prove. It is NOT like, "Gee, I'll try this on a bunch of dogs and hope something comes up." A lot of studies are done hoping to prove something, only to learn the opposite of what they expected.
and the researchers/authors of any study report in the research publications the possible limitations of the study and all possible funding conflicts. Are any studies perfect? No, but they can still provide valuable information.