Diana R

Thanks so much for that. I stupidly didn't think to check it beforehand!

Hi all, I'm a lurker on DOL, but met some lovely DOLers who brought their dogs along to participate in my main research project last year. I'm now looking for willing dog owners, who are happy to donate 20 mins or so to filling out a survey about the behaviour and personality of their dog. The purpose of this survey is to compare several existing assessments that are currently being used to assess dog behaviour and personality. Feel free to ask any questions you may have - I'll pop back in to answer them regularly. If you have owned your dog for at least 6 months, are their legal guardian and would be happy to help out, please follow the link and fill out the survey for me. For those who participated last year, thank you again and if you would like to fill this out too, please do so. There is some repetition between this survey and the one you filled out when you visited, but as all data (from both) is either anonymous or de-identified, I can't reuse that information for this survey. I'm not sure how to attach a copy of the participant information statement directly to this post. If I can work out how to do it, I'll pop it up here but otherwise if you are interested can you please email me and I'll send you a copy directly. Anyone that is happy to share the link, please feel free to do so as well - I need as many participants as I can get, so that I can get a good feel for the strengths and weaknesses of the questionnaires included. Qualtrics link here: http://latrobepsy.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bdVGemz8CVbt2x7 My email: [email protected] In case this comes up again, my projects are completely unrelated to the funding given to another LTU canine project by the South Australian government and this research is not affiliated with the government or any private body at all. Many thanks :) Edited to fix the link!

One of our Honours students used these for his project last year. He compared the results of the ABS and Premier ones and found no appreciable differences in accuracy, although the ABS ones are supposed to be more accurate in multi-dog households as the mic faces in, instead of out. Most councils he was working with already had their own, but the ones he bought were ordered online and were a similar price to the link Sway put up.

Every weekday is, but they don't normally do dogs on weekends so if the 8th day is a Saturday or Sunday, they are held over until Monday morning. Cats are also processed on admission (as per CoP) so incomings are done every day.

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Group/AnimPersInst/Animal%20Personality%20PDFs/B/Barnard%20et%20al,%202012.pdf Abstract "Temperament tests are widely accepted as instruments for profiling behavioral variability in dogs, and they are applied in numerous areas of investigation (e.g. suitability for adoption or for breeding). During testing, to elicit a dog’s reaction toward novel stimuli and predict its behavior in everyday life, model devices such as a child-like doll, or a fake dog, are often employed. However, the reliability of these devices to accurately stimulate dogs’ reactions to children or dogs, is unknown and perhaps overestimated. This may be a particular concern in the case of aggressive behavior toward humans, a significant public health issue. The aim of this study was to: (1) evaluate the correlation between dogs’ reactions to these devices, and owners’ reports of their dog’s aggression history (using the C-BARQ©); (2) compare reactions toward the devices of dogs with and without histories of aggression. Subjects were selected among those visiting for behavioral consultation at the Veterinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and previously categorized as aggressive toward unfamiliar children, conspecifics, or as non-aggressive dogs (control). The test consisted of different components: an unfamiliar female tester approaching the dog; the presentation of a child-like doll, an ambiguous object, and a fake plastic dog. All tests were videotaped and durations of behaviors were later analyzed on the basis of a specified ethogram. Dogs’ reactions were compared to C-BARQ scores, and interesting correlations emerged for ‘dog directed aggression/fear’ (R = 0.48, P = 0.004), and ‘stranger-directed aggression’ (R = 0.58, P < 0.001) factors. Dogs differed in their reactions toward the devices: the child-like doll and the fake dog elicited more social behaviors than the ambiguous object used as a control stimulus. Issues concerning the reliability of these tools to assess canine temperament are discussed." Discussion "The analysis of the C-BARQ factors (‘stranger-directed aggression’, ‘stranger-directed fear’, ‘dog-directed aggression/ fear’, and ‘non-social fear’) and of the supplementary ‘child-directed aggression’ items, revealed that CHILDAG dogs were the only subjects that were aggressive toward children (H34,2 = 22.05, P < 0.001, Fig. 1a). Post hoc multiple comparison confirmed that CHILD-AG dogs received significantly higher scores in the ‘child-directed aggression’ items compared to both DAG (Z = 3.19, P = 0.004) and CONTROL dogs (Z = 3.37, P = 0.002). Furthermore, the Kruskal–Wallis test highlighted significant difference for the C-BARQ factors ‘stranger-directed aggression’ (H34,2 = 10.71, P = 0.005; Fig. 1b) and ‘strangerdirected fear’ (H34,2 = 8.76, P = 0.012; Fig. 1c). Based on post hoc comparisons CHILD-AG dogs were significantly more aggressive (Z = 3.21, P = 0.004) and more fearful (Z = 2.74, P = 0.018) toward unfamiliar persons than CONTROL dogs. Additionally, CHILD-AG and DOGAG subjects were significantly more fearful/aggressive toward conspecifics than CONTROL dogs (H34,2 = 16.88, P < 0.001; post hoc comparisons, CONTROL vs. CHIL-AG: Z = 3.20, P = 0.004; CONTROL vs. DOG-AG: Z = 3.82, P < 0.001; Fig. 1d). Aggressive reactions toward the doll device correlated significantly with the scores for the ‘child-directed aggression’ supplementary questions (R = 0.57, P < 0.001) and with the ‘stranger-directed aggression’ C-BARQ factor (R = 0.58, P < 0.001)."

I don't expect the test to be used by breeders at all (I'm not sure where you got that idea from either) and would hope that anyone interested in breeding did have a excellent working knowledge of both the temperament of their dogs and the requirements of the homes they are putting them in, I was just responding to your concern and comments about all dogs becoming 'MacDogs' by explaining my opinion on the matter. My comment about the 'don't breed for pets' notion is about the ANKC Code of Conduct, as that's what it says unless it has changed since I last read it and is still a very common opinion that I come across fairly regularly when talking to purebreed enthusiasts... it seemed relevant to the discussion on the typical pet dog that most people want. W&H - I can't see us ever agreeing on this topic and that's all cool with me, as your as entitled to your own opinion just as much as I am. Given how quickly selection can act on temperament and the fairly large variations between what breeders select for, I'm not sure that I put as much faith in the breed standard as you do though - lots of pedigree dogs are not selected based on their performance in their historical job (which is how temperament was historically selected) but rather on what their breeder sees as 'correct' or desirable (which IMO isn't a bad thing if they are doing a great job at matching their dogs with their puppy buyers, but it does make for plenty of within breed variation in temperament type).

There is suspicion from a lot of people here about behaviour testing and its perceived use as a reason for euthanasia. Also there are people who believe that any type of dog behaviour can be handled with competent management and anyone who cannot do this has failed the dog. But there are also people here who use behaviour tests and foster assessment in an effort to find out all they can about the dogs they sell, and I don't see them criticizing here. Good luck with your work. Anything useful you discover can only help rehome more dogs. I completely understand both of the above points and to some degree, agree with them (or aspects of them) - in regards to the 'justification' for euthanasia, I think the pendulum has been on it's way to swinging in the other direction for a while now (save everything at all costs because preservation of life, irrespective of quality, is paramount). My hope is that the 'big swing' will drag the choice few that live in the dark ages closer towards centre, and we'll be able to get some rational, mainstream dialogue happening about it soon... we shall see though (and thanks - here's hoping we actually find something useful :) ). On the MacDogs point, given that a fairly large portion of the 'generic' pet dog owning population want a particular type of dog (fairly chilled, actively sociable but not easily excited or aroused, not too smart and just happy being 'there' without any great need for extensive training... 'boring' is a word I've used before myself :cool: ), I can't see the issue with breeders who also like that type of dog selecting for it, even if this means selecting for a different 'job' to what the breed did 150 years ago. People created a huge number of different breeds to fulfil roles 'back when', so I honestly can't understand why there is such a huge fuss over people doing the same now when the job is 'modern pet dog'. That doesn't mean that we can't also have other breeds that fulfil different roles (or the same role in a different way), with different temperaments, as long as we make sure we understand what the dogs need and choose wisely when selecting both breeding dogs and our next pet :D (and as my timid kelpie X and boofhead pedigree Rott will attest, we 'do' different here very well). I'm yet to fully understand the logic behind the 'purebred breeders shouldn't breed for the pet market' sentiment, when the vast majority of dogs are pets and humans created dogs to fulfil the roles we needed them too (which currently is usually as a suburban pet...) - is being 'just a pet' not considered a 'real job' by those some?

Thank you too :) (and please say hi to the girls for me :D )

Well, no, it's not. It's about using a single approach so that there are limited external variables that may influence the results. Like I said before, a standardised test needn't ignore breed. It could mean the individual tests within a behaviour assessment are carried out in a way that doesn't vary from dog to dog. Breed can be accounted for in the statistical analysis afterwards if there is enough information to do so. A standardised approach would mean the same things are measured in the same way using the same scale so comparisons can be made. This does not mean comparisons between breeds would be assumed meaningful. That is something you find out later in analysing the results. Ideally a standardised test would be well supported by science before it was adopted, but this isn't always the case. Standardisation does not necessarily equal loss of information or smoothing over details. That's all in the design. It does mean the ability to make comparisons and test for validity. This is useful. Thank you :-)

Well, no, it's not. It's about using a single approach so that there are limited external variables that may influence the results. Like I said before, a standardised test needn't ignore breed. It could mean the individual tests within a behaviour assessment are carried out in a way that doesn't vary from dog to dog. Breed can be accounted for in the statistical analysis afterwards if there is enough information to do so. A standardised approach would mean the same things are measured in the same way using the same scale so comparisons can be made. This does not mean comparisons between breeds would be assumed meaningful. That is something you find out later in analysing the results. Ideally a standardised test would be well supported by science before it was adopted, but this isn't always the case. Standardisation does not necessarily equal loss of information or smoothing over details. That's all in the design. It does mean the ability to make comparisons and test for validity. This is useful. It's useful - to academics. If you think that such a test would be used wisely and or well, instead of the more likely scenario that Woof has posited, then you need to get out of the university. The real world, Corvus, is about what's easiest and cheapest. I've nursed in a large shelter, worked as professional dog trainer (including doing behavioural rehab and post adoptive training) and have taught in companion animal welfare to our undergrads (including looking at our AW legislation, current pound and shelter system and many, many alternatives) - and this was all BEFORE I started this project and immersed myself in the literature (even more than I had before). I'm pretty confident in my belief that I have a sound enough understanding of the 'real world' to understand the needs of the people and dogs in the welfare system. I can't (and won't) speak for all people that work in rescue/welfare, but I can say with 100% confidence that there are many people in 'on the ground' positions that do what they do with the dog's best interests at heart and that they (along with myself), believe that understanding a dog's temperament is pretty vital when making decisions on a dog's future. Beyond the importance of having an effective system for the dogs and adopters, there are a number of staff and volunteer welfare issues that arise out of the current lack of standardisation in the way we assess temperament in pound and shelter dogs - again, having been there and done that using a 'system' (if it could be called that) that I had absolutely no confidence in, I'm unfortunately rather familiar with those as well.

Define 'gameness' - if we are on the same wavelength when talking about gameness, I don't consider it a trait of it's own accord, but rather a certain 'collection' of underlying temperament traits that results in the behaviour that we see as 'gameness'. Basically, I would say a dog that has moderate to low emotional reactivity, a very proactive 'coping strategy', few social and non social fears (and a good rebound) and some marked degree of chase proneness (aka prey drive or tendency towards strong predatory behaviours) is what most people would refer to as gameness (i.e. the dog thinks on it's feet, is comfortable using force when pressed, is 'balanced' in how it responds to environmental stimuli and shows relatively strong predatory tendencies). Bearing in mind that we've done no analysis as yet and I'm just commenting on what I've seen during the tests we've done so far (so when we've done the analysis this could all mean nothing), the only thing listed above that we don't seem to getting a fairly clear picture of during the tests is chase prone-ness/predatory tendancies, as there seems to be issues with arousal/stress levels inhibiting the dogs responses to prey stimuli. I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your comment further on about dog aggression and gameness, as I'm reading it as you implying that they are mutually exclusive (i.e. that a game dog which reacts inappropriately and aggressively towards other dogs is not dog aggressive or potentially lacking in social skills because it's game)?

I have to get up again and I will come back tonight, but this work has been done (and continues to be looked at) - and a key part of addressing this is making sure that owners (who have realistic expectations of what dog ownership is about) end up with a dog that will meet those expectations - owners with dogs that meet their expectations have better bonds with their dogs and will invest more resources into their care... I will be back :-)

To me standardisation is about getting rid of individual differences to get statistically signficant results, since matching dogs to owners can really only work on a case by case basis I fail to see the relevance or practical application of a standardised test for dogs from a wide range of breeds and backgrounds. I think we're still having the same crossed purposes here - in the VAST majority of dog bite cases, the only consistent factors that seem to have some type of 'causal' effect are those related to owner behaviours, so the idea that a temp test of any type, on any dog, in any situation, will somehow 'proof' a dog against biting in the future is flawed. That said, there are factors associated with temperament that will make a dog more likely to be stressed/aroused and therefore react 'badly' in particular situations - for example, a dog with a very passive coping style, who is also very emotionally reactive and has a poor recovery (i.e. he becomes stressed easily, doesn't outwardly show overt signs of that stress and stays stressed for extended periods of time) would be a very bad choice to go into a home with novice owners with small, noisy children - even if he never bites and the owners hardly ever recognise how uncomfortable he is because he sits quietly and melts down (which means they are more likely to stress him even further inadvertantly, meaning he is more likely to bite at some stage...), it's a welfare issue for the dog. I'm failing to see us being able to recognise this and place the dog accordingly is a bad thing. For those that are concerned that this test will be used by shelters simply to justify euthanasia, without another decade research following on from this, in which a wide variety of dogs that have been tested are followed and their 'aggression records' and temp results are analysed, they can't. Even if they did do that, I can save you the time and tell you that the results will most likely show the same results that every other investigation into dog bites shows - that owner behaviour is the most influential factor. That doesn't mean that we should rehome every dog, o even that we shouldn't pay attention to aggressive responses that dogs show in the shelter environment - we just need to work out a way to help shelter staff (who are often poorly trained and have hugely varied levels of experience) to gather more info about the dog before making any decisions.

I think you may have commented again since this W&H, but to address these points - I'm still not clear on whether you are concerned about a standard test (i.e. a set of stimuli that's used in a particular way to elicit responses which give us some info about the dog) or a standard pass/fail assessment based on that info? I completely agree that a standardised pass/fail test isn't a suitable way to assess the suitability of a wide variety of dogs given that they all fulfil very different needs and roles. I can see lots of useful things about a standard set of stimuli and a method for reliably gathering info about a dog though. Sure, there are lots of people that don't research the dogs they subsequently purchase and end up in trouble, and in the case of those people that purchase purebred dogs with known histories, they have no one but themselves to blame when predictable issues arise. However, there are also lots of people who come into shelters and have a fairly decent idea of what type of dog they would like (a chilled out socialite that would do well in an urban setting or an intelligent, energetic dog that they can compete in sports with) and at the moment, we don't have a reliable way (that's consistently been shown to work) to help them decide which dog would suit them best - this is what we are trying to address. I honestly would have thought that the purebred fraternity would have the best understanding of why knowledge of a dog's temperament is so important for a new owner, as that's pretty much the whole basis behind purebreds.

Hi Kirislin, thank you :) I've had a number of people contact me after seeing it on DOL, so I must thank the OP as well. I'm not sure if it was someone from here, but the link to the Adelaide story was sent to my main supervisor over the weekend too and he is currently following it up with them - he had the same initial thoughts that I (and by the looks of it, possibly Corvus) had, that they may have got their wires crossed and it's something to do with Pauleen Bennett's work (though if Tammy didn't know about it, I also doubt that...). I'll go through the posts one by one now (sorry I haven't been back sooner - my OH was taken to emergency last night with burns to his face and hands, so I went straight there after we finished up yesterday and we've just gotten home again from the hospital).

Hi all, I'm not a regular DOL'er (but do a read the forums semi regularly in the wee hours of the morning when I'm finished for the day and can't sleep), but one of the lovely ladies that brought their dogs in (I think it was Maggie's mum :) ) let me know that the study info had been posted here and after reading the thread I just wanted to clear a few things up. I'll just take it from the top because there's a few Q's to answer. This project has nothing to do with the article posted above. I'm honestly not sure which study they are referring to because as far as I am aware, this project is the only one looking at dog behaviour (or dogs!) running out of the Melbourne campus of LTU - we don't have any external funding and the small amount of internal funding that we have is coming from the department (though I would love some external support as I'm currently funding about half of the work from my own pocket so that we can afford the equipment and there is so much more I would love to do, if we had the money to back us ). I must put in a plug for Sherel from Black Hawk here, as she (very fabulously) provided all the food for the project (both the dry and the cans, which she organised through Nature's Gift) :D To clear up the questions about the purpose of the work, the project is and always has been about the way dogs are currently assessed in shelter environments (both myself and one of my supervisors have first-hand experience in the companion animal welfare sector and this is something we have been working towards for a number of years) - as mentioned above, once the results (if they show anything useful) have been published we have no control over how they are used, but MY aim is to develop a reliable, valid tool that shelters and shelter staff can use to help them work out what types of homes a particular dog will do best in. Not only would the university HEC hang me for lying in a participant information statement (and rightly so), we have to declare all support we have for the project when we publish, so it wouldn't be too hard to catch me out in the lie... this project is going to take a number of years and several rounds of testing (which means the support and participation of lots of owners and their dogs!) to get full results - so it serves me no purpose to lie about what we are doing and upset everyone that I need support from :) Once we get through the screening, reliability and validation steps, all going well the plan is to trial the final, refined protocol on shelter dogs (through Animal Aid out in Coldstream, who we are already working with on several welfare-based research projects) and then follow up several months later with adoptive owners, to see if what we are seeing during the test holds true once the dogs have settled in to their new homes. Before all of that though, we need to look at a range of common stimuli (that are either currently being used in shelters at the moment or have shown some promise in previous research work) and see if we can make the picture that they show a little clearer by incorporating real time heart rate monitors with an assessment of behaviour. The rest of the measures we are taking are there to help us work out if what we are seeing is a true representation of the dog and to determine exactly what the heart rate monitors are showing during the test. In relation to breed specfic behaviours, we're looking not only at how the whole sample of dogs reacts to the tests, but also at how particular breed groups (i.e. sighthounds, livestock guardians, mastiffs etc.) respond in comparison to other dogs so that we can say what works well, or doesn't work, for those particular types of dog. I fully expect that there will be certain stimuli that elicit a response from some breeds/types of dog and not others - if they didn't we wouldn't be doing a very good job of identifying behavioural traits - the aim is purely to be able to identify those tests that work well, and which dogs they work well for, so that we can make sure that adoptive owners get what they are expecting when they come to a shelter for their next dog (meaning the dogs stay in their new homes and don't bounce back, which IMO should be the aim of any person or group involved in rescue). Lastly, the current protocol has three 'sections' - two of which involve handling and interactive subtests and one in which we play a number of pre-recorded sounds while the dog moves freely around the room (during which we can't interact with the dog, because we want to known how they respond to the sounds, not us :) ). We are there with the dogs the entire time monitoring the dogs (for the last 10 minutes we are standing with the owner just outside the door, while the monitors and cameras run, to see if the dogs will settle and how long it takes), but we can't have owners sitting in with us as it would affect the dogs' responses. I would love to have a two way window for the owners to sit behind (or even a screen attached to the main camera so that they could watch in real time), but unfortunately our funds just don't go that far. I've got to go and get some things done, but if anyone has questions feel free to post them or contact me via [email protected] and I'll do my best to answer them all