Call For Participants: Canine Temperament Testing

[Diana R]

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.

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.

[Diana R]

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.

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 :-)

[Diana R]

Isn't that the whole point of the study though? What we currently have is a pretty lacklustre, patchy "system" whereby many great dogs that would suit many homes never get there, because they behave a certain way in a pound environment.

In recognition of the fact that the temperament tests that are currently used by pounds and shelters aren't able to take into account the fact that timidity (or whatever) isn't necessarily an insurmountable problem, or a factor that makes a dog unrehomeable.. this study seeks to enable various other things to be taken into consideration.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. This goes a much greater way toward taking into account different breed characteristics and tendencies than anything that exists for pounds to use so far. Of course it's not perfect. And of course it won't take into account the particular breed attributes and differences. But it's better than what we have now. Argue all you want about how other things would be better - but someone here is actually doing something. I for one think it's great, was really pleased to help, and can't wait to see the results.

And as for the key problem being people who dump their pets at pounds - well, yes. But recognising that that's something to tackle doesn't mean there shouldn't be better ways of dealing with the result of that. Which is dogs at pounds. Which are often assessed poorly, because assessment tools available and/or widely used are crap.

It's like saying what we really need to do is stop war, and anything less than stopping war is a waste of time. Go stop war if you want, but don't jump on the people who are plugging away at their own piece.

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

[Diana R]

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.

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.

My main concern is it being used as part of a drift to a "McDogs" culture, where only a certain sort of bland and (to me) boring temperament is considered valid. Some of us are very attached to our somewhat less than mainstream breeds and their idiosyncracies. I'll admit it was the media article that raised my concerns, before that I looked at it as an interesting piece of research. But that article put quite another, somewhat worrying, slant on it. I dont think that is your fault at all, it is just reflective of a failure of trust between some of the the dog community and government legislators more generally.

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?

[Diva]

Being a pet is a real job, but we don't all have the same needs or wants in pets. Others can eat all the big macs they want, as long as they don't try to regulate me into eating them as well.

I personally don't care if someone breeds primarily for the pet market , not if the quality of care is there and they are honest about what they are breeding, and if you got that from my post I don't see how. It is curious that it is an issue you raise though, I didn't realise you expect this test to be used by breeders. I thought that was just the S.A. proposal. The pedigree purebred breeders I know already have a pretty good handle on temperament without a standardised all breeds testing regime. They tend to know their breeds, their lines, and their individual dogs in some depth.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Diva

[WoofnHoof]

Like I said its all well and good to try and standardize temp testing, but in the case of the Heinz 57 where you can't tell what breeds have contributed you have no baseline and I don't believe that behaviorism is the holy grail of future predictor that many others seem to think it is. In a pure breed you already have a baseline model of what the dogs temperament is most likely to be, it's set out in the breed standard. In a Heinz 57 you are relying solely on behaviour in a shelter which IMO has far too many mitigating factors to be any kind of reliable predictor of future behaviour.

But hey it's your research do whatever you want, I get it working with dogs is much more fun than working with owners who dump dogs. If it helps rehome dogs better then more power to you.

[Cosmolo]

That's a bit harsh isn't it WnH?

Personally i don't think it's about predictive value. It's a snapshot of that dog at that time to give you a baseline to allow you to make the most appropriate matches. We want the best possible snapshot.

[Diana R]

Being a pet is a real job, but we don't all have the same needs or wants in pets. Others can eat all the big macs they want, as long as they don't try to regulate me into eating them as well.

I personally don't care if someone breeds primarily for the pet market , not if the quality of care is there and they are honest about what they are breeding, and if you got that from my post I don't see how. It is curious that it is an issue you raise though, I didn't realise you expect this test to be used by breeders. I thought that was just the S.A. proposal. The pedigree purebred breeders I know already have a pretty good handle on temperament without a standardised all breeds testing regime. They tend to know their breeds, their lines, and their individual dogs in some depth.

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).

[WoofnHoof]

You might be right Cosmo. I guess I'm just tired of the real problem of ignorant and irresponsible owners being continually bypassed. None of this shelter research stops dogs being dumped there in the first place does it? Sure it might stop a few rebounds but that's kind of like ignoring the elephant in the room.

Temp tests and ideal dog surveys are all about putting the responsibility on the animal to behave according to this arbitrary set of rules, the penalty for non compliance is death. People need to learn that animals will be animals, they don't always follow our plans or meet our expectations, they don't always behave in the same way, setting up a dog as having xxx temperament sets the owner up for disappointment and the dog up for failure IMHO.

I don't know I just feel we live in a time where we have to make everything idiot proof because people won't be told, but you just can't do that with animals.

[Kirislin]

You might be right Cosmo. I guess I'm just tired of the real problem of ignorant and irresponsible owners being continually bypassed. None of this shelter research stops dogs being dumped there in the first place does it? Sure it might stop a few rebounds but that's kind of like ignoring the elephant in the room.

Temp tests and ideal dog surveys are all about putting the responsibility on the animal to behave according to this arbitrary set of rules, the penalty for non compliance is death. People need to learn that animals will be animals, they don't always follow our plans or meet our expectations, they don't always behave in the same way, setting up a dog as having xxx temperament sets the owner up for disappointment and the dog up for failure IMHO.

I don't know I just feel we live in a time where we have to make everything idiot proof because people won't be told, but you just can't do that with animals.

Just imagine if we temperament tested humans. I'm sure alot would fail.

[WoofnHoof]

Just imagine if we temperament tested humans. I'm sure alot would fail.

They did there was a huge behaviourism movement in psychology 50 years ago with Skinner et al, it has been largely dropped from human psychology but it seems to have been taken up with gusto by the animal world.

[megan_]

None of this shelter research stops dogs being dumped there in the first place does it?

Matching the right dog with the right owner does help stop dogs being dumped - shelter & pound dogs get put back into the system too.

I'm pretty sure that a 100% perfect temp test doesn't exist, but anything that helps make us better at aligning both the dogs and owner's needs is a step in the right direction.

[tdierikx]

Strays that end up in shelters/pounds don't come with any history, and often their time allotment there is very short. How on earth can a temperament test or behavioural test possibly indicate what that dog will/could do under any particular circumstance in the future? The test would have to be so magnificently thorough that it would be virtually unworkable in a shelter/pound environment.

I have 4 dogs, and have no illusions as to which ones would surely "fail" any temperament/behaviour test in a pound/shelter environment - and the one who isn't fazed in that sort of environment would most likely be deemed unrehomable due to her mobility disability anyways. All 4 are very well behaved and friendly with other animals and people when out in a public setting however.... and I think they are perfect pets for me... *grin*

T.

[Sheridan]

Sorry, Diana R, but you cannot classify by group. A bedlington is as different to a cesky to a staffy. Yes, they're terriers, but a dog that only goes to earth is going to have a different temperament to a dog that does multiple tasks. How, for example, do you measure gameness?

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 note that you didn't address my comment about classifying by group. Breeds within groups are different.

I don't know that the part I've bolded above makes sense. Seems a bit circular?

My main concern is it being used as part of a drift to a "McDogs" culture, where only a certain sort of bland and (to me) boring temperament is considered valid. Some of us are very attached to our somewhat less than mainstream breeds and their idiosyncracies. I'll admit it was the media article that raised my concerns, before that I looked at it as an interesting piece of research. But that article put quite another, somewhat worrying, slant on it. I dont think that is your fault at all, it is just reflective of a failure of trust between some of the the dog community and government legislators more generally.

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?

Well, what I'm getting from that is that you prefer or at least, are aiming for the McDog. How awful. My dogs are pets. Why would you suggest that dogs that don't fit the ideal McDog are not pets? What a strange thing to imply. Having a McDog would drive me mad. You may like dumb dogs but some of us actually like the clever and excitable dogs rather than timid dogs.

That's a bit harsh isn't it WnH?

Personally i don't think it's about predictive value. It's a snapshot of that dog at that time to give you a baseline to allow you to make the most appropriate matches. We want the best possible snapshot.

People in pounds don't match dogs to people. When does this ever happen?

Like I said its all well and good to try and standardize temp testing, but in the case of the Heinz 57 where you can't tell what breeds have contributed you have no baseline and I don't believe that behaviorism is the holy grail of future predictor that many others seem to think it is. In a pure breed you already have a baseline model of what the dogs temperament is most likely to be, it's set out in the breed standard. In a Heinz 57 you are relying solely on behaviour in a shelter which IMO has far too many mitigating factors to be any kind of reliable predictor of future behaviour.

But hey it's your research do whatever you want, I get it working with dogs is much more fun than working with owners who dump dogs. If it helps rehome dogs better then more power to you.

Except you know people in pounds don't have the time or the resources to think outside the box and everyone in rescue keeps saying that you can't tell a dog's true personality in a pound situation. Doing something about shite owners is too hard and academia is all about the next grant.

Being a pet is a real job, but we don't all have the same needs or wants in pets. Others can eat all the big macs they want, as long as they don't try to regulate me into eating them as well.

I personally don't care if someone breeds primarily for the pet market , not if the quality of care is there and they are honest about what they are breeding, and if you got that from my post I don't see how. It is curious that it is an issue you raise though, I didn't realise you expect this test to be used by breeders. I thought that was just the S.A. proposal. The pedigree purebred breeders I know already have a pretty good handle on temperament without a standardised all breeds testing regime. They tend to know their breeds, their lines, and their individual dogs in some depth.

I don't think breeding for the pet market is entirely bad either because the vast majority of dogs are pets not show dogs and not breeding dogs. That said any breeder who aims at the McDog is failing their breed.

[raineth]

We do have temperament tests for people - they are called personality tests.

They are not pass/fail and I don't think the point of this test is pass/fail either. The point of this research is to develop a test that reliably and validly determines features of dogs' temperaments so that they can be best matched to appropriate homes.

Sheridan I believe you have often said that Kerries and Wheatens aren't for everyone, the home and the owner probably need certain features for a Kerry or Wheaten to be a good fit. Well no doubt it is the same to a certain extent for every dog; what if a mix-breed dog came through the shelter with temperament attributes similar to a Kerry? IT doesn't have the benefit of a breed that suggests it has these attributes. It would be good to identify its relatively quickly so that this dog can then be filtered to the right foster carer and then on to the right owner.

And for people who say they don't want a "Macdog" (which by the way is totally understandable from my perspective) then a good temperament test will also identify these dogs and enable them to be filtered to the right owners. It works both ways.

[Sheridan]

We do have temperament tests for people - they are called personality tests.

They are not pass/fail and I don't think the point of this test is pass/fail either. The point of this research is to develop a test that reliably and validly determines features of dogs' temperaments so that they can be best matched to appropriate homes.

Sheridan I believe you have often said that Kerries and Wheatens aren't for everyone, the home and the owner probably need certain features for a Kerry or Wheaten to be a good fit. Well no doubt it is the same to a certain extent for every dog; what if a mix-breed dog came through the shelter with temperament attributes similar to a Kerry? IT doesn't have the benefit of a breed that suggests it has these attributes. It would be good to identify its relatively quickly so that this dog can then be filtered to the right foster carer and then on to the right owner.

And for people who say they don't want a "Macdog" (which by the way is totally understandable from my perspective) then a good temperament test will also identify these dogs and enable them to be filtered to the right owners. It works both ways.

But they won't be filtered to the right owners. They'll be pts. Why are people continually saying 'Oh they'll be rehomed to the right owner?' If they are in a pound, they'll be pts. As was pointed out early in this thread, pounds don't have the resources.

[tarope]

Warning Warning Will Robinson, Beware of uni students with bloody clip boards especially in the Nanny state.

[Erny]

But they won't be filtered to the right owners. They'll be pts. Why are people continually saying 'Oh they'll be rehomed to the right owner?' If they are in a pound, they'll be pts. As was pointed out early in this thread, pounds don't have the resources.

I've been reading with interest and appreciate your informative replies, DianaR. But I can't help but think along the lines of Sheridan in respect to the above. Too many instances that I've been informed of where the dog was 'difficult' (for the shelter testers and for the dog in a foreign environment), the shelters are full or close to full and so these more 'difficult' dogs are pts to make way for the *cough* "MacDogs" to come through and be re-homed. This very much falls within the economical interests of the shelters who are paid for dogs that are pts and also paid for re-homes. Would the new temp testing that is being created open doors for dogs who would otherwise currently be pts, or are we running the risk of more doors being closed than there already is?

The faulty laws that Government have introduced (with the support of certain rather well-known orgs) in spite of their own acknowledgement of its faults and in spite of many who raised issues against the laws when they were still in 'proposal' stage, I think have caused a total mis-trust in agenda, and understandably so.

How can anyone trust that a shelter will not develop a blanketed and bias attitude to any dogs who fall outside the "MacDog" criteria? We're already experiencing this in Victoria where the criteria for "What is a PB" (based on asthetics) is being split more and more to the point of even being more ridiculous and grossly unfair than it was in the first place. Is it possible that these temp tests will actually take us unwittingly down that track, to open new laws that decree dogs who fall outside that criteria should be targeted as dogs not suitable for anyone anytime?

Edited February 6, 2013 by Erny

[Dame Aussie]

I don't really have an issue with the test, but I do agree with Sheridan.

I have worked in a pound and there is just not enough resources (time, space, money) to match dogs up with owners like is being suggested.

Unless we reduce the amount of dogs coming into pounds (which begins with the people who dump them as WnH has been saying), or make huge changes to the way most pounds are run, I don't see this having any effect on how many dogs are PTS.

[raineth]

We do have temperament tests for people - they are called personality tests.

They are not pass/fail and I don't think the point of this test is pass/fail either. The point of this research is to develop a test that reliably and validly determines features of dogs' temperaments so that they can be best matched to appropriate homes.

Sheridan I believe you have often said that Kerries and Wheatens aren't for everyone, the home and the owner probably need certain features for a Kerry or Wheaten to be a good fit. Well no doubt it is the same to a certain extent for every dog; what if a mix-breed dog came through the shelter with temperament attributes similar to a Kerry? IT doesn't have the benefit of a breed that suggests it has these attributes. It would be good to identify its relatively quickly so that this dog can then be filtered to the right foster carer and then on to the right owner.

And for people who say they don't want a "Macdog" (which by the way is totally understandable from my perspective) then a good temperament test will also identify these dogs and enable them to be filtered to the right owners. It works both ways.

But they won't be filtered to the right owners. They'll be pts. Why are people continually saying 'Oh they'll be rehomed to the right owner?' If they are in a pound, they'll be pts. As was pointed out early in this thread, pounds don't have the resources.

I don't know about that. I follow what goes in and out of my local pound and these decisions are made by rescue orgs and whether they have room. They seem to take everything as long as its not overtly aggressive and as long as there's room. My big black dog was even held over after his time was up in one of the busiest pounds in NSW even though he certainly didn't meet the criteria of an easily adoptable dog. So I don't necessarily think that the results of the temp test will just be a ticket to euthanasia.