Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29634747›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Personality traits in companion dogs-Results from the VIDOPET.

Borbála Turcsán, Lisa Wallis, Zsófia Virányi, Friederike Range, Corsin A Müller, Ludwig Huber, Stefanie Riemer

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Why do dogs wag their tails?Biology letters · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Reliability and Validity of a Dog Personality and Unwanted Behavior Survey.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Where Do We Stand in the Domestic Dog (Frontiers in psychology · 2020
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Borbála TurcsánClever Dog Lab, Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0197-5243
Lisa WallisClever Dog Lab, Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Zsófia VirányiClever Dog Lab, Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Friederike RangeClever Dog Lab, Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Corsin A MüllerClever Dog Lab, Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ludwig HuberClever Dog Lab, Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Stefanie RiemerClever Dog Lab, Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · ATEötvös Loránd University · HUUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 24840
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individual behavioural differences in pet dogs are of great interest from a basic and applied research perspective. Most existing dog personality tests have specific (practical) goals in mind and so focused only on a limited aspect of dogs' personality, such as identifying problematic (aggressive or fearful) behaviours, assessing suitability as working dogs, or improving the results of adoption. Here we aimed to create a comprehensive test of personality in pet dogs that goes beyond traditional practical evaluations by exposing pet dogs to a range of situations they might encounter in everyday life. The Vienna Dog Personality Test (VIDOPET) consists of 15 subtests and was performed on 217 pet dogs. A two-step data reduction procedure (principal component analysis on each subtest followed by an exploratory factor analysis on the subtest components) yielded five factors: Sociability-obedience, Activity-independence, Novelty seeking, Problem orientation, and Frustration tolerance. A comprehensive evaluation of reliability and validity measures demonstrated excellent inter- and intra-observer reliability and adequate internal consistency of all factors. Moreover the test showed good temporal consistency when re-testing a subsample of dogs after an average of 3.8 years-a considerably longer test-retest interval than assessed for any other dog personality test, to our knowledge. The construct validity of the test was investigated by analysing the correlations between the results of video coding and video rating methods and the owners' assessment via a dog personality questionnaire. The results demonstrated good convergent as well as discriminant validity. To conclude, the VIDOPET is not only a highly reliable and valid tool for measuring dog personality, but also the first test to show consistent behavioural traits related to problem solving ability and frustration tolerance in pet dogs.

Indexed as

PersonalityVideo RecordingAnimalsBehavior, AnimalDogsFemaleMalePetsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29634747
PMCPMC5892901
OpenAlexW2797485730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.