The development and assessment of temperament tests for adult companion dogs

By K. D. Taylor, Daniel Mills. 2006

170 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract Temperament tests have been created by a range of organizations and individuals in order to assess useful, predictable behavioral tendencies in working dogs and, increasingly, in companion dogs. For the latter group, such tests may help to select suitable pets from rescue centers or to identify those already in the population that are, or are likely to be, unsuitable as pets (e.g., those with behavior problems involving aggression). Unfortunately, many of these tests seem to have been developed without a systematic scientific approach. Perhaps as a result there are few reports of these tests in the scientific literature and even fewer that fully report their reliability and specific aspects of validity. This pattern is unfortunate, because the outcome of tests for companion dogs may have the potential to affect their welfare and survival. This paper attempts to encourage a more scientific approach to the development, conduct, and evaluation of temperament tests for adult companion dogs. Five key measures of the quality of a temperament test (purpose, standardization, reliability, validity, and practicality) are identified and explained in detail. Methods for the assessment of these qualities are given together with discussion of their limitations.

Subfields: Genetics, Small Animals, Speech and Hearing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e6440e6a122fe05bcecbb7763363550677e1272a

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. Daniel Mills
3. C. Clark
4. N. Rooney
5. L. Batt
6. J. Baguley
7. H. Wright
8. M. Batt

In Small Animals

1. Daniel Mills
2. C. Clark
3. N. Rooney
4. Rupert Palme
5. R. Casey
6. L. Batt
7. J. Baguley
8. H. Wright

In Speech and Hearing

1. C. Clark
2. N. Rooney
3. R. Casey

Citations in the corpus

• Minimizing fear and anxiety in working dogs: A review (2016, background): “…dog tests the predictive value cannot actually be calculated, as dogs which ‘fail’ initial testing do not enter training and so no data is available on how these dogs would have performed compared to those that passed, and hence criterion validity cannot be ascertained (Taylor and Mills, 2006).”
• Salivary cortisol and behavior in therapy dogs during animal-assisted interventions: A pilot study (2014, background): “Intraobserver reliability calculations refer to the rating consistency in a single observer who records behavioral sequences and is usually assessed by comparing the same observer’s reports from a recording of the same sequence viewed on 2 or more separate occasions (Taylor and Mills, 2006; Martin a”
• Factors associated with success in guide dog training (2008, background): “Taylor and Mills (2006) added that such validation was best achieved by comparing test results with a definitive measure or outcome.”
• Are there differences between behavioral measurement methods? A comparison of the predictive validity of two ratings methods in a working dog program (2012, unknown): “Still, establishing both interand intra-rater reliability (Taylor and Mills, 2006) would broaden the level of inference of any further research in the SAF program.”
• Development and Validation of a Psychometric Tool forAssessing Impulsivity in the Domestic Dog ( Canis familiaris) (2011, background): “…& Forkman, 2002; Svartberg, Tapper, Temrin, Radesäter, & Thorman, 2005), which may otherwise be referred to as ‘temperament’ (Serpell & Hsu, 2001; Taylor & Mills, 2006), ‘character’ (Ruefenacht, Gebhardt-Heinrich, Miyake & Gaillard, 2002) and ‘emotional predispositions’ (Sheppard & Mills,…”