Personality and performance in military working dogs: Reliability and predictive validity of behavioral tests

By D. Sinn, Samuel D. Gosling, Stewart Hilliard. 2010

136 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Quantification and description of individual differences in behavior, or personality differences, is now well-established in the working dog literature. What is less well-known is the predictive relationship between particular dog behavioral traits (if any) and important working outcomes. Here we evaluate the validity of a dog behavioral test instrument given to military working dogs (MWDs) from the 341st Training Squadron, USA Department of Defense (DoD); the test instrument has been used historically to select dogs to be trained for deployment. A 15-item instrument was applied on three separate occasions prior to training in patrol and detection tasks, after which dogs were given patrol-only, detection-only, or dual-certification status. On average, inter-rater reliability for all 15 items was high (mean = 0.77), but within this overall pattern, some behavioral items showed lower inter-rater reliability at some time points ( 0.50) across shorter test intervals, but decreased with increasing test interval (<0.40). Principal components analysis revealed four underlying dimensions that summarized test behavior, termed here ‘object focus’, ‘sharpness’, ‘human focus’, and ‘search focus’. These four aggregate behavioral traits also had the same pattern of short-, but not long-term test–retest reliability as that observed for single item behaviors. Prediction of certification outcomes using an independent test data set revealed that certification outcomes could not be predicted by breed, sex, or early test behaviors. However, prediction was improved by models that included two aggregate behavioral trait scores and three single item behaviors measured at the final test period, with 1 unit increases in these scores resulting in 1.7–2.8 increased odds of successful dual- and patrol-only certification outcomes. No improvements to odor-detection certification outcomes were made by any model. While only modest model improvements in prediction error were made by using behavioral parameters (2–7%), model predictions were based on data from dogs that had successfully completed all three test periods only, and therefore did not include data from dogs that were rejected during testing or training due to behavioral or medical reasons. Thus, future improvements to predictive models may be more substantial using independent predictors with less restrictions in range. Reports of the reliability and validity estimates of behavioral instruments currently used to select MWDs are scarce, and we discuss these results in terms of improving the efficiency by which working dog programs may select dogs for patrol and odor-detection duties using behavioral pre-screening instruments.

Subfields: Genetics, Small Animals, Speech and Hearing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/da25f3b0320fbed75de0b6c3f78497ddec9796e7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Genetics

1. R. Casey
2. Nathalie Bjällerhag
3. Per Jensen
4. Pernilla Foyer
5. C. Clark
6. N. Rooney
7. E. Wilsson
8. L. Mehrkam

In Small Animals

1. Nathalie Bjällerhag
2. Per Jensen
3. Pernilla Foyer
4. C. Clark
5. N. Rooney
6. R. Casey
7. E. Wilsson
8. L. Mehrkam

In Speech and Hearing

1. Nathalie Bjällerhag
2. C. Clark
3. N. Rooney
4. R. Casey
5. Per Jensen
6. Pernilla Foyer
7. E. Wilsson

Citations in the corpus

• Minimizing fear and anxiety in working dogs: A review (2016, background): “Tests routinely performed to select US military dogs, including tests for environmental and gun shyness, have been shown to have limited predictive validity when compared to later certification outcomes (Sinn et al., 2010).”
• Are there differences between behavioral measurement methods? A comparison of the predictive validity of two ratings methods in a working dog program (2012, unknown): “It is also worth noting that, while not guaranteed, reports indicate that inter-rater reliability estimates for most measured behaviors are acceptable/high in most dog studies (Rooney et al., 2007; Sinn et al., 2010) as well as in other animals (Gosling and Vazire, 2002).”
• Behavioral differences among breeds of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris): Current status of the science (2014, background): “Breed-type had no predictive validity on working dog certification among German Shepherd Dogs, Belgian Malinois, and Dutch Shepherds (Sinn et al., 2010).”
• Behaviour and experiences of dogs during the first year of life predict the outcome in a later temperament test (2014, methodology): “assistance, calls for optimized methods of evaluation and training (Sinn et al., 2010).”