# Evaluation of the Factorial Structures of the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) in France

Audrey Besegher, Nancy Rebout, Dalila Bovet, Sarah Jeannin, Thierry

Bedossa, James Serpell, Sara Hoummady

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Audrey Besegher, Nancy Rebout, Dalila Bovet, Sarah Jeannin, Thierry Bedossa, et al. Evaluation of the Factorial Structures of the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) in France. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2025, 292, pp.106816. 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106816. hal-05249036

HAL Id: hal-05249036

https://hal.science/hal-05249036v1

Submitted on 1 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Evaluation of the factorial structures of the canine behavioral assessment and research questionnaire (C-BARQ) in France

Audrey Besegher<sup>a,b,*</sup> <sup>10</sup>, Nancy Rebout<sup>c</sup>, Dalila Bovet<sup>a</sup>, Sarah Jeannin<sup>a</sup>, Thierry Bedossa<sup>b</sup>, James A. Serpell<sup>d</sup>, Sara Hoummady<sup>c</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Behaviour

Canine

C-BARQ

Factor analysis

Questionnaire

## ABSTRACT

This study aimed to evaluate the factorial structure of the French version of the C-BARQ by analyzing the behaviour of 246 dogs, based on responses from 248 participants, in order to confirm its potential applicability in France. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified 13 primary factors comprising 63 items, explaining 54.1 % of the total variance and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed a good fit with the original US model. The French version of the C-BARQ mirrors the core structure of other validated versions, confirming its cross-cultural robustness, while also highlighting certain specificities. The emergence of the combined factor "Stranger-directed aggression/fear" suggests that non-expert respondents may have difficulty distinguishing between these two dimensions. Two new factors—"Passerby-directed aggression" and "Compulsive-like behaviour"—emerged, likely reflecting the characteristics of the study sample and the inclusion of the full set of items. Other notable differences include the clustering of certain attachment-related items with those related to energy, forming a new factor labeled "Social excitability/energy," as well as the absence of the "Dog rivalry" factor due to insufficient responses. Overall, the results indicate that the French version of the C-BARQ is a valid tool for assessing canine behaviour. However, cultural, contextual, and demographic differences should be considered when interpreting the findings. This study paves the way for future research on the factors influencing perceptions of canine behaviour and on the adaptation of psychometric instruments across cultural contexts.

## 1. Introduction

Terms such as “personality”, “temperament”, or “character” are commonly used to describe consistent inter-individual variations in animal behaviour (Jones and Gosling, 2005; Ledger and Baxter, 1997; Ruefenacht et al., 2002). These behaviours are generally stable over time and across situations (Diederich and Giffroy, 2006; Fauchère, 2021). In this study, the terms “personality” and “behavioral traits” were used, as “personality” offers a more rigorous and comprehensive theoretical framework for describing individual differences in dogs, and allows for reliable comparisons both within and across species (MacKay

and Haskell, 2015).

Assessing canine personality has several practical benefits. It notably supports better matching between dogs and prospective owners, particularly in shelters, by taking into account their respective lifestyles and personalities, a process shown to influence adoption outcomes and reduce the likelihood of returns or abandonment (Clay et al., 2020a, 2020b). Personality assessments also help tailor care and behavioral interventions to a dog’s specific needs, thereby improving welfare. Certain behavioral traits, such as aggression, are also linked to a higher risk of incidents like biting (Duffy et al., 2008). Early identification of such traits enables preventive strategies that benefit both animal and

**Abbreviations:** C-BARQ, Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire; EFA, Exploratory Factor Analysis; CFA, Confirmatory Factor Analysis; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; KMO, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin; CRMSR, Comparative Root Mean Square Residual; SENECA, Sample size Estimation using Necessary Conditions Analysis.

* Corresponding author at: Laboratoire Ethologie Développement Cognition, Université Paris Nanterre, 200 avenue de la République, Nanterre 92000, France.

E-mail address: audrey.besegher@parisnanterre.fr (A. Besegher).

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Laboratoire Ethologie Développement Cognition, Université Paris Nanterre, 200 avenue de la République, Nanterre 92000, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Agir pour la Vie Animale- Association Agir pour la Vie Animale- 40 Le Quesnoy, Cuy-Saint-Fiacre 76220, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> UniLaSalle, Université d'Artois, IDEALISS, ULR 7519, Mont-Saint-Aignan 76130, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Department of Clinical Sciences & Advanced Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3900 Delancey Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6010, USA</footnote>
public safety. Finally, in working dogs, personality profiling helps match individuals to tasks they are genuinely suited for, preventing unrealistic demands on dogs whose traits do not align with specific roles. This increases both the likelihood of success and the animal's welfare (Fratkin et al., 2013).

Researchers have developed behavioral tests to assess the behavioral traits of dogs (Jones and Gosling, 2005; Netto and Planta, 1997; Pérez-Guisado et al., 2008; Sforzini et al., 2009; Svartberg, 2002; Svartberg et al., 2005). While these tests provide objective behavioral data, they come with limitations. It can be risky for reactive or fearful animals, especially when exposed to stressful situations. Moreover, they are often conducted in artificial environments, which may not reflect natural behavior observed at home or in shelters. These tests also require significant time, expertise, and resources, and may target only specific aspects of personality. For instance, the Netto and Planta test (1997) focuses solely on aggressiveness.

In contrast, questionnaires such as the C-BARQ "Canine-Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire" (Hsu and Serpell, 2003), or the MCPQ "Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire" (Ley et al., 2009), represent two distinct approaches to assessing canine behaviour, and offer a more flexible alternative. These can be completed by dog owners, who, despite lacking formal training, observe their animals daily and can identify recurring behavioral traits. These tools require no special equipment or situation. While responses may be subjective, long-term observation across familiar contexts increases the temporal reliability of results. While behavioral tests remain valuable, questionnaires have become increasingly popular for collecting data on canine behavior.

Among survey tools, the C-BARQ© is an essential reference. Developed and validated by Yuying Hsu and James Serpell (2003), this standardized questionnaire is aimed at dog owners/guardians, handlers and professionals. Available online since 2005 (www.cbarq.org), it was originally designed to assess the prevalence and severity of "behavioral problems" in companion and working dogs. It is now also used to explore canine personality. The current version includes 100 questions to identify 14 distinct behavioral traits, and additional miscellaneous behaviours. To date, the authors' database includes nearly 50,000 dogs from over 300 different breeds and cross-breeds, making it one of the most widely used behavioral questionnaires globally (Duffy and Serpell, 2012).

It has been translated and validated (high degree of consistency in the underlying factor structure) in several languages and countries, including Sweden (Svartberg, 2005), the Netherlands (van den Berg et al., 2006), China (Hsu and Sun, 2010), Japan (Nagasawa et al., 2011), Iran (Naqa Tamimi et al., 2015), Mexico (González-Ramírez et al., 2017), Portugal (Canejo-Teixeira et al., 2018), Italy (Broseghini et al., 2023), and Thailand (Boonhoh et al., 2023). Nevertheless, due to the subjective nature of owner-reported data, the reliability and validity of questionnaires and their translation must be carefully evaluated. A translation does not automatically guarantee validity across cultures, as perceptions of dogs, behaviour interpretations/acceptance, training practices, and professional experience may differ (Broseghini et al., 2023). So it is essential to adapt and experimentally validate these tools in each new language or culture targeted.

To date, no study using the C-BARQ have been found in France. The aim of this study is to develop a full French translation of the questionnaire (100 items) and evaluate its psychometric properties. This will enable large-scale studies of canine behavior among French-speaking owners and facilitate the use of this tool by trainers and behaviorists in practical contexts. Given the C-BARQ's robustness and its successful use in various countries, we expect strong concordance between the French version and the original English version, despite potential cultural or linguistic differences.

# 2. Materials and methods

## 2.1. Questionnaire

The Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ), originally developed in English by Hsu and Serpell (2003), was used to assess dog owners' evaluations of their dogs, using a 5-point Likert-type response scale. Permission to use the C-BARQ was granted along with the most recent version of the questionnaire, which includes 100 items across 14 subscales (Duffy and Serpell, 2012), as well as a French translation (Serpell, personal communication, 2024). A revised version, developed by the authors in consultation with Prof. Serpell, was therefore used here. Details of the French C-BARQ are provided in Appendix S1. In addition to the 100 C-BARQ items, the French questionnaire also collected demographic information about the respondent (e.g., age, sex, education, dog-related job) and their dog (e.g., age, sex-/reproductive status, breed, size/weight).

## 2.2. Data collection

The French version of the questionnaire was distributed to French citizens who owned at least one dog. No additional inclusion criteria were defined. Respondents who owned multiple dogs were allowed to complete the questionnaire once per dog. The online questionnaire, formatted using Google Forms™, was shared during events in France, through the authors' professional and personal networks, as well as on social media. Data were collected between October 23 and December 10, 2024.

## 2.3. Statistical analysis

All analyses were carried out using R version 4.4.3 (R Core Team, 2025). The questionnaire data were initially examined to check for missing values. A minimum threshold of 25 % was applied both at the item and participant levels to ensure data quality and reliability (Broseghini et al., 2023). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics of the sample included in the study. To address missing data, multiple imputation was performed using the ordinal logistic regression method (polr) via the *mice* package (Buuren and Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011).

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using the imputed dataset with the *psych* package (William Revelle, 2025). Prior to performing the EFA, data adequacy was assessed using Bartlett's test of sphericity to verify the presence of significant correlations among variables, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index to evaluate the suitability of the data for factor analysis. KMO values ≥ 0.60 were considered acceptable (DeVellis, 2017). The number of factors to extract was determined using Kaiser's criterion (eigenvalues > 1) and visually confirmed by a parallel analysis in conjunction with a scree plot. EFA was performed using the minimum least squares method (*factoring method = ml*) with an orthogonal Varimax rotation to facilitate interpretation of item groupings (DeVellis, 2017). Items were assigned to the factors on which they exhibited the highest loadings (≥ 0.40). The factorial structure was evaluated based on the clarity of factor loadings and the proportion of total variance explained by each factor. The internal consistency of each extracted factor was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Alpha values ≥ 0.65 were considered indicative of acceptable reliability (DeVellis, 2017).

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using the imputed dataset. The CFA aimed to assess the fit of a previously identified factorial model from the study by Duffy and Serpell (2012) to the data from the French study. The analysis was performed using the *lavaan* package (Rosseel, 2012), with the Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator.

Model fit was assessed using several standard indices:
* The chi-square goodness-of-fit test (χ²), noting its sensitivity to sample size,

* The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), with values ≥ 0.90 considered indicative of excellent fit,

* The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), with values ≤ 0.08 considered acceptable and < 0.05 considered very good,

* The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), with values below 0.08 deemed desirable.

For all statistical analyses, a p-value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

# 3. Results

## 3.1. Study sample

A total of 248 responses to the questionnaire were collected. Items 32 ("Dog acts aggressively towards another (familiar) dog in your household"), 33 ("Dog acts aggressively when approached at a favorite resting/sleeping place by another (familiar) household dog"), 34 ("Dog acts aggressively when approached while eating by another (familiar) household dog"), and 35 ("Dog acts aggressively when approached while playing with/chewing a favorite toy, bone, object, etc., by another (familiar) household dog") had a missing data rate exceeding 25 % and were therefore removed, reducing the total number of items to 96. Similarly, two participants had more than 25 % missing data and were excluded from the analyses. As a result, 246 completed questionnaires were included in the final analyses. Demographic information about the dogs and their owners is presented in Table 1.

## 3.2. Exploratory factor analysis

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the underlying structure of the French version of the C-BARQ. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index, Bartlett's test, factor number estimation, and exploratory factor analysis were repeated iteratively until a factorial structure retaining only items with factor loadings ≥ 0.40 was obtained. The KMO value of 0.77 indicated the dataset was suitable for factor analysis (DeVellis, 2017). Bartlett's test was significant (χ²(1953) = 8522.832, p < 0.001), confirming that the correlations among items were sufficiently strong to proceed.

The number of factors to retain was determined through Kaiser's criterion (eigenvalues > 1) and by a scree plot from the parallel analysis. A 13-factor structure was identified. Varimax rotation was applied to facilitate the interpretability of the factor structure (DeVellis, 2017). Of the 96 items analyzed, 63 met the criterion of having factor loadings higher than 0.40 on at least one factor. Each item was assigned to the factor on which it had the highest loading. Collectively, the 13 factors accounted for 54.1 % of the total variance. All factors showed acceptable to excellent reliability with alpha coefficients ranging from 0.693 to 0.914. Only one factor fell slightly below the conventional 0.70 threshold (DeVellis, 2017) but was still considered acceptable (Table 2).

## 3.3. Confirmatory factor analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the fit of the 13-factor model identified by Duffy and Serpell (2012) in the original version (excluding the "Dog rivalry" factor, which was removed from our data due to insufficient responses to the associated items). The results indicated an acceptable fit to the data: χ²(2549) = 3927.211, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.970; TLI = 0.969; RMSEA = 0.047; SRMR = 0.090. Although the SRMR was slightly above the recommended cutoff, the overall fit indices support a good correspondence between the model and the observed data. In other words, the way questions group together in the French version appears consistent with the structure of the original version.

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Demographic characteristics of study sample (n = 246).</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Median [Q1-Q3] or n (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dog Age (year)</td><td>5 [2-8]</td></tr><tr><td>Dog Sex/Reproductive Status</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neutered Male</td><td>72 (29.27)</td></tr><tr><td>Neutered Female</td><td>90 (36.59)</td></tr><tr><td>Entire Male</td><td>49 (19.92)</td></tr><tr><td>Entire Female</td><td>35 (14.23)</td></tr><tr><td>Dog Breed</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pure breed</td><td>166 (67.48)</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed breed</td><td>80 (32.52)</td></tr><tr><td>Dog Size/Weight (kilograms)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Miniature &lt; 3.6</td><td>4 (1.63)</td></tr><tr><td>Small 3.6-10</td><td>43 (17.48)</td></tr><tr><td>Medium 10-25</td><td>108 (43.90)</td></tr><tr><td>Large 25-45.5</td><td>82 (33.33)</td></tr><tr><td>Giant &gt; 45.5</td><td>9 (3.66)</td></tr><tr><td>Owner age (year)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 18</td><td>13 (5.28)</td></tr><tr><td>18-24</td><td>50 (20.33)</td></tr><tr><td>25-34</td><td>54 (21.95)</td></tr><tr><td>35-44</td><td>48 (19.51)</td></tr><tr><td>45-54</td><td>40 (16.26)</td></tr><tr><td>55-64</td><td>26 (10.57)</td></tr><tr><td>65 and more</td><td>15 (6.10)</td></tr><tr><td>Owner Sex</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>41 (16.67)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>202 (82.11)</td></tr><tr><td>Prefer not to say</td><td>3 (1.22)</td></tr><tr><td>Owner Education</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No diploma</td><td>1 (0.41)</td></tr><tr><td>High school diploma (Baccalauréat)</td><td>59 (23.98)</td></tr><tr><td>Vocational certificate (CAP, Brevet)</td><td>5 (2.03)</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree or equivalent (Licence, BTS, Bac+3)</td><td>67 (27.24)</td></tr><tr><td>Master's degree or equivalent (Master, Engineering degree, Bac+5)</td><td>81 (32.93)</td></tr><tr><td>Doctorate or equivalent (PhD, Bac+8 and above)</td><td>15 (6.10)</td></tr><tr><td>Professional doctorate (e.g., Doctor of Medicine, Pharmacy, Veterinary Medicine)</td><td>18 (7.32)</td></tr><tr><td>Owner with dog-related job</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>62 (25.20)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>184 (74.80)</td></tr></tbody></table>

# 4. Discussion

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified 13 distinct factors comprising 63 items. Despite some differences, the factorial structure remained broadly consistent with previous studies, including the original version (Hsu and Serpell, 2003), the revised American version (Duffy and Serpell, 2012), the Canadian version (Flint et al., 2017), and other translated adaptations (Boonhoh et al., 2023; Broseghini et al., 2023; Canejo-Teixeira et al., 2018; González-Ramírez et al., 2017; Hsu and Sun, 2010; Nagasawa et al., 2011; Naqa Tamimi et al., 2015; Svartberg, 2005; van den Berg et al., 2006). These findings reinforce the cross-cultural robustness of the C-BARQ while underscoring the importance of contextual adaptation.

Several extracted factors aligned with previous studies: "Trainability," "Owner-directed aggression," "Non-social fear," "Separation-related behaviour," "Chasing," "Elimination problems," "Dog-directed aggression," "Dog-directed fear," and "Attachment/attention-seeking." However, items 72 and 73, traditionally grouped under "Attachment/attention-seeking", instead loaded into "Energy level", resulting a reconfigured factor renamed "Social excitability/energy". This suggests that, within this sample, dogs with higher energy levels may also respond more intensely to social stimuli, such as owner interactions with third parties. Väätäjä et al. (2021) showed that stronger emotional bonds are associated with increased physical activity. Similarly, Broseghini et al. (2023), proposed that such behaviours may reflect boredom-related coping strategies, especially in high-energy dogs. This reconfiguration highlights the importance of considering the links
<table><caption>**Table 2**
Results of exploratory factor analysis on the French CBARQ.</caption><thead><tr><th>Factors / Items</th><th>Variance %</th><th>α (n. of items)</th><th>Loadings</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Factor 1 – <i>Stranger-directed aggression/ fear</i></td><td>9.243</td><td>0.914 (11)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10. Dog acts aggressively when approached directly by an unfamiliar adult while being walked/exercised on a leash.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0701</td></tr><tr><td>11. Dog acts aggressively when approached directly by an unfamiliar child while being walked/exercised on a leash.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0646</td></tr><tr><td>12. Dog acts aggressively toward unfamiliar persons approaching the dog while s/he is in your car (at the gas station for example).</td><td></td><td></td><td>0431</td></tr><tr><td>15. Dog acts aggressively when an unfamiliar person approaches you or another member of your family at home.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0574</td></tr><tr><td>16. Dog acts aggressively when unfamiliar persons approach you or another member of your family away from your home.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0605</td></tr><tr><td>21. Dog acts aggressively when an unfamiliar person tries to touch or pet the dog.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0692</td></tr><tr><td>28. Dog acts aggressively toward unfamiliar persons visiting your home.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0644</td></tr><tr><td>36. Dog acts anxious/fearful when approached directly by an unfamiliar adult while away from your home.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0793</td></tr><tr><td>37. Dog acts anxious/fearful when approached directly by an unfamiliar child while away from your home.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0718</td></tr><tr><td>39. Dog acts anxious/fearful when unfamiliar persons visit your home.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0726</td></tr><tr><td>40. Dog acts anxious/fearful when an unfamiliar person tries to touch or pet the dog.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0803</td></tr><tr><td>Factor 2 – <i>Separation-related behaviour</i></td><td>6.339</td><td>0.866 (8)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>54. Shaking, shivering or trembling when left or about to be left on its own.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0635</td></tr><tr><td>55. Excessive salivation when left or about to be left on its own.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0584</td></tr><tr><td>56. Restlessness/agitation/pacing when left or about to be left on its own.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0734</td></tr><tr><td>57. Whining when left or about to be left on its own.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0792</td></tr><tr><td>58. Barking when left or about to be left on its own.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0674</td></tr><tr><td>59. Howling when left or about to be left on its own.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0738</td></tr><tr><td>60. Chewing/scratching at doors, floor, windows, curtains, etc. when left or about to be left on its own.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0588</td></tr><tr><td>61. Loss of appetite when left or about to be left on its own.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0509</td></tr><tr><td>Factor 3 – <i>Dog-directed aggression</i></td><td>4.603</td><td>0.856 (4)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23. Dog acts aggressively when approached directly by an unfamiliar male dog while being walked/exercised on a leash.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0732</td></tr><tr><td>24. Dog acts aggressively when approached directly by an unfamiliar female dog while being walked/exercised on a leash.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0726</td></tr><tr><td>26. Dog acts aggressively toward unfamiliar dogs visiting your home.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0484</td></tr><tr><td>29. Dog acts aggressively when barked, growled, or lunged at by another (unfamiliar) dog.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0687</td></tr><tr><td>Factor 4 – <i>Dog-directed fear</i></td><td>3.781</td><td>0.825 (4)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 2 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Factors / Items</th><th>Variance %</th><th>α (n. of items)</th><th>Loadings</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>45. Dog acts anxious/fearful when approached directly by an unfamiliar dog of the same or larger size.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0782</td></tr><tr><td>46. Dog acts anxious/fearful when approached directly by an unfamiliar dog of a smaller size.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0668</td></tr><tr><td>52. Dog acts anxious/fearful when unfamiliar dogs visit your home.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0539</td></tr><tr><td>53. Dog acts anxious/fearful when barked, growled, or lunged at by an unfamiliar dog.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0664</td></tr><tr><td>Factor 5 – <i>Non-social fear</i></td><td>3.357</td><td>0.750 (6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>38. Dog acts anxious/fearful in response to sudden or loud noises (e.g. vacuum cleaner, car backfire, road drills, objects being dropped, etc.).</td><td></td><td></td><td>0701</td></tr><tr><td>41. Dog acts anxious/fearful in heavy traffic.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0501</td></tr><tr><td>42. Dog acts anxious/fearful in response to strange or unfamiliar objects on or near the sidewalk (e.g. plastic trash bags, leaves, litter, flags flapping, etc.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0460</td></tr><tr><td>44. Dog acts anxious/fearful during thunderstorms, firework displays, or similar events.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0484</td></tr><tr><td>47. Dog acts anxious/fearful when first exposed to unfamiliar situations (e.g., first car trip, first time in elevator, first visit to veterinarian, etc.)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0503</td></tr><tr><td>48. Dog acts anxious/fearful in response to wind or wind-blown objects.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0612</td></tr><tr><td>Factor 6 – <i>Owner-directed aggression</i></td><td>4.136</td><td>0.757 (5)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13. Dog acts aggressively when toys, bones or other objects are taken away by a household member.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0623</td></tr><tr><td>14. Dog acts aggressively when bathed or groomed by a household member.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0461</td></tr><tr><td>17. Dog acts aggressively when approached directly by a household member while s/he (the dog) is eating.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0437</td></tr><tr><td>19. Dog acts aggressively when his/her food is taken away by a household member.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0851</td></tr><tr><td>31. Dog acts aggressively when you or a household member retrieves food or objects stolen by the dog.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0619</td></tr><tr><td>Factor 7 – <i>Social excitability/energy</i></td><td>3.804</td><td>0.777 (5)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>72. Dog becomes agitated (whines, jumps up, tries to intervene) when you (or others) show affection for another person.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0475</td></tr><tr><td>73. Dog becomes agitated (whines, jumps up, tries to intervene) when you show affection for another dog or animal.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0414</td></tr><tr><td>90. Dog is “hyperactive”, restless, has trouble settling down.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0686</td></tr><tr><td>91. Dog is playful, puppyish, boisterous.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0659</td></tr><tr><td>92. Dog is active, energetic, always on the go.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0695</td></tr><tr><td>Factor 8 – <i>Passerby-directed aggression</i></td><td>3.367</td><td>0.829 (3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18. Dog acts aggressively when mailmen or other delivery workers approach your home.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0651</td></tr><tr><td>20. Dog acts aggressively when strangers walk past your home while your dog is outside or in the yard.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0758</td></tr><tr><td>22. Dog acts aggressively when joggers, cyclists, rollerbladers or skateboarders pass your home while your dog is outside or in the yard.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0609</td></tr><tr><td>Factor 9 – <i>Attachment/attention-seeking</i></td><td>3.825</td><td>0.717 (4)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>68. Dog displays a strong attachment for one particular member of the household.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0506</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>**Table 2 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Factors / Items</th><th>Variance %</th><th>α (n. of items)</th><th>Loadings</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>69. Dog tends to follow you (or other members of household) about the house, from room to room.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.634</td></tr><tr><td>70. Dog tends to sit close to, or in contact with, you (or others) when you are sitting down.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.744</td></tr><tr><td>71. Dog tends to nudge, muzzle or paw you (or others) for attention when you are sitting down.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.519</td></tr><tr><td><i>Factor 10 – Elimination problems</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>86. Dog urinates against objects/ furnishings in your home.</td><td>2.739</td><td>0.802 (3)</td><td>0.463</td></tr><tr><td>88. Dog urinates when left alone at night, or during the daytime.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.970</td></tr><tr><td>89. Dog defecates when left alone at night, or during the daytime.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.797</td></tr><tr><td><i>Factor 11 – Chasing</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>74. Dog chases or would chase cats given the opportunity.</td><td>2.897</td><td>0.764 (3)</td><td>0.625</td></tr><tr><td>75. Dog chases or would chase birds given the opportunity.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.761</td></tr><tr><td>76. Dog chases or would chase squirrels, rabbits and other small animals given the opportunity.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.637</td></tr><tr><td><i>Factor 12 – Trainability</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. Dog returns immediately when called while off the leash.</td><td>2.656</td><td>0.707 (4)</td><td>0.518</td></tr><tr><td>2. Dog obeys a “sit” command immediately.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.664</td></tr><tr><td>3. Dog obeys a “stay” command immediately.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.688</td></tr><tr><td>4. Dog seems to attend/listen closely to everything owner says or does.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.582</td></tr><tr><td><i>Factor 13 – Compulsive-like behaviour</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>93. Dog stares intently at nothing visible.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.654</td></tr><tr><td>94. Dog snaps at (invisible) flies.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.712</td></tr><tr><td>96. Dog chases/follows shadows, light spots, etc.</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.582</td></tr></tbody></table>

between personality, activity needs, and social behaviours in behavioural assessment.

Some factors typically found in other versions were not retained. “Dog rivalry”/”Familiar dog aggression” was excluded due to a high rate of missing data. “Touch sensitivity” also failed to emerge, possibly because not all owners perform grooming or veterinary care themselves. Cultural and economic differences in dog care practices (Broseghini et al., 2023) and the emotional context of such interactions may have influenced responses. Reactions to handling might reflect fear rather than tactile sensitivity alone. Finally, the factor “Excitability” was not extracted. Related items may represent inconsistent expressions of arousal across contexts (e.g., car rides, walks, visitors), weakening internal coherence (Broseghini et al., 2023).

Another divergence involved the merging of fear and aggression toward strangers into a single factor, “Stranger-directed aggression/ fear.” This suggests that respondents may struggle to distinguish these behaviours—an issue previously documented in the Japanese (Nagasawa et al., 2011), Portuguese (Canejo-Teixeira et al., 2018), and Italian (Broseghini et al., 2023) versions. This overlap likely reflects the similarity of behavioural signals and the high prevalence of fear-induced aggression (Borchelt, 1983; Reisner et al., 2007; Sueda and Malamed, 2014). For instance, histories of fearful or anxious behaviour in response to loud noises or separation from the owner may indicate a predisposition to bite in anxiety or fear-provoking situations (Reisner et al., 2007). Moreover, anxiety — defined as the apprehensive anticipation of a stimulus or situation perceived by the animal as unpredictable or dangerous, leading to preparatory and reactive behaviours — is known to heighten irritability and lower aggression thresholds, thereby facilitating aggressive responses (Bamberger and Houpt, 2006; Talegón and

Delgado, 2011).

This confusion between fear and aggression is especially common among respondents without specific expertise (Broseghini et al., 2023; Canejo-Teixeira et al., 2018). In the present study, a minority of respondents (25.20 %) had a dog-related profession. As a complementary descriptive exploration, median scores for “Stranger-directed fear” and “Stranger-directed aggression” were compared across professionals and non-professionals. Slight trends emerged: professionals showed marginally higher fear scores (median = 0.50; IQR = [0.00–1.19]) and lower aggression scores (median = 0.40; IQR = [0.14–0.90]) compared to non-professionals (fear median = 0.25; IQR = [0.00–1.06]; aggression median = 0.60; IQR = [0.20–1.13]). While exploratory, these trends may reflect differences in perception or experience.

González-Ramírez et al. (2017) observed strong correlations between fear and aggression-related factors, suggesting comorbidity that may explain their statistical convergence. In contrast, the structure retained a clearer distinction between dog-directed fear and aggression, likely because such behaviours are easier to observe separately and less commonly overlap. Defensive aggression may be more common in human-directed contexts, whereas offensive aggression predominates in conspecific interactions (Notari et al., 2020).

Finally, two novel factors emerged: “Passerby-directed aggression” and “Compulsive-like behaviour.” The first consists of items initially associated with “Stranger-directed aggression” factor, but whose contextual coherence — centered on passerby — justifies their separation into a distinct factor. This may reflect the characteristics of the sample, which included typical pet owners rather than specific subpopulations (e.g., guide dogs, purebreds, behaviour referrals), as in Hsu and Serpell (2003) or Duffy and Serpell (2012). More generalised samples, such as that used in Flint et al. (2017), may better capture context-dependent traits. The second new factor, “Compulsive-like behaviour,” includes items describing repetitive, non-functional actions—staring at nothing, snapping at invisible stimuli, chasing shadows—commonly described as signs of compulsive disorders (Luescher, 2004; Tiira et al., 2012). Due to the limited number of items and lack of clinical criteria in the questionnaire, the label “compulsive-like” was chosen to avoid overinterpretation. This factor was likely identified thanks to the inclusion of all original questionnaire items, including those typically excluded under the “Miscellaneous” category. This comprehensive strategy allowed the detection of less commonly studied but relevant latent behaviours.

Subsequently, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated an acceptable fit to the model proposed by Duffy and Serpell (2012), reinforcing the validity of the core structure in the French context. As Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando (2024) noted, confirmatory approaches often yield slightly reduced precision relative to exploratory methods, especially under strict CRMSR (Comparative Root Mean Square Residual) thresholds—an observation that helps contextualize the slightly elevated SRMR seen here.

Although the dogs in the sample were broadly comparable to those in other C-BARQ studies (in terms of age, sex, breed status, size, and neutering rates), several limitations should be considered. First, most participants were female, a gender bias also observed in the Mexican version of the C-BARQ (González-Ramírez et al., 2017) and commonly reported in survey-based research (Bianco et al., 2020). Voluntary participation may also have attracted more engaged or emotionally invested dog owners, increasing the risk of observation bias. Even among non-professionals, a high level of involvement may influence behavioural evaluations.

Second, the relatively modest sample size for the EFA (246 participants for 96 items) falls short of conventional recommendations (i.e., 4–20cases per item). Although it meets the commonly cited minimum of N = 200 and aligns with previous international validations of the C-BARQ (Canejo-Teixeira et al., 2018; Naqa Tamimi et al., 2015), it remains below the ideal range of 384–1920 (Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando, 2024). After item reduction (63 items), the adjusted
recommendation (252–1260) places the current sample at the lower bound. However, recent findings by Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando (2024) suggests that sample size adequacy also depends on factors such as model structure, item communalities, and precision goals. Their SEN-ECA method (Sample size Estimation using Necessary Conditions Analysis) advocates for a flexible, context-dependent interpretation of sample size guidelines. In this case, satisfactory KMO (0.77), significant Bartlett's test, strong factor loadings (≥ 0.40), and good internal consistency (α = 0.693–0.914) support the validity of the factor analysis. Moreover, a CFA based on the retained structure was conducted. As CFA typically requires smaller samples when the model is predefined (Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando, 2024), this provides further support for the reliability of the identified structure, though future studies with larger samples are encouraged to confirm their generalizability.

Finally, while the exhaustive inclusion of items enabled the identi-
fication of rarely documented factors (such as “Compulsive-like behav-
iour”), it may have led to sample-specific groupings. This could limit the
generalizability of the results. Nonetheless, partial convergence with
other international versions supports the existence of shared behav-
ioural dimensions recognizable even by non-expert observers.

5. Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that the French version of the C-BARQ reveals a factorial structure broadly comparable to those observed in other cultural contexts, with several factors consistently and stably emerging. This attests to the robustness of the underlying factorial model, regardless of the country. The study also highlighted specific cultural, contextual, and demographic particularities. The absence of the "Dog rivalry" factor may be explained by the low number of multi-dog households in the sample, highlighting the need to specifically target such households in order to assess the relevance of this factor within the Francophone context. Moreover, the merging of items related to "Stranger-directed aggression" and "Stranger-directed fear" suggests a difficulty in differentiating these dimensions, linked to respondents' lower familiarity with canine emotional signals. Conversely, this confusion was not observed in dog-to-dog interactions, where distinct factors emerged. Two novel factors were also identified—"Passerby-directed aggression" and "Compulsive-like behaviour"—likely associated with the inclusion of all questionnaire items and the nature of the sample, composed primarily of companion dogs rather than specialized populations. This underlines the value of analyzing more diverse populations to reveal behavioral profiles that have been under-documented until now. Overall, the French version of the C-BARQ proves to be a valid and relevant tool for canine behavioral assessment, while highlighting the importance of adapting and validating psychometric instruments for the target population. These findings pave the way for broader clinical and epidemiological applications in Francophone countries and highlight the need to explore cultural and contextual influences on behaviour perception. Such tools can improve adoption success, guide individualised care and prevention strategies, and support the selection of suitable working dogs.

Ethical considerations

Our study did not include any animal experiments as defined in
French law.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial or non-for-profit sectors. The work
was supported by shelter AVA (Agir pour la Vie Animale) through a
CIFRE (Convention Industrielle de Formation par la Recherche) contract
via ANRT (Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie)
funding AB's salary, by Paris Nanterre University for the salary of DB

and by UniLaSalle for the salary of NR, SH.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Thierry Bedossa:** Writing – review & editing. **Dalila Bovet:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision. **Sarah Jeannin:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision. **Audrey Besegher:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Nancy Rebout:** Supervision, Methodology, Formal analysis. **James A. Serpell:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision. **Sara Hoummady:** Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation.

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the
writing process

Generative AI (GPT-4o) was utilized by the authors to support lan-
guage refinement and provide assistance with R software syntax. All
outputs generated by the AI were carefully reviewed and revised by the
authors, who assume full responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of
the final manuscript.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Pr. James A. Serpell for providing the
most recent English version and a first French version. We thank all the
participants dog owners.

**Appendix A. Supporting information**

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106816.

References

Bamberger, M., Houpt, K.A., 2006. Signalment factors, comorbidity, and trends in behavior diagnoses in dogs: 1,644 cases (1991–2001). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 229, 1591–1601. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.229.10.1591

Bianco, A., Abood, V., Mutsaers, S., Woods, A., Coe, J.P., Verbrugghe, J.B., A, 2020. Unconventional diets and nutritional supplements are more common in dogs with cancer compared to healthy dogs: an online global survey of 345 dog owners. Vet. Comp. Oncol. 18, 706–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/vco.12599.

Boonhoh, W., Wongtawan, T., Sriphavatsarakom, P., Waran, N., Boonkaewwan, C., 2023. The validation of Thai version of canine behavioral assessment and research questionnaire (C-BARQ) and the exploration of dog ownership in Thailand. J. Vet. Behav. 68, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2023.08.001.

Borchelt, P.L., 1983. Aggressive behavior of dogs kept as companion animals: classification and influence of sex, reproductive status and breed. Appl. Anim. Ethol. Appl. Canine Feline Ethol. 10, 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(83) 90111-6.

Broseghini, A., Guérineau, C., Lőoke, M., Mariti, C., Serpell, J., Marinelli, L., Mongillo, P., 2023. Canine behavioral assessment and research questionnaire (C-BARQ): validation of the Italian translation. Animals 13, 1254. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ani13071254.

Buuren, S. van, Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K., 2011. Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in r. J. Stat. Softw. 45, 1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045. i03.

Canejo-Teixeira, R., Almiro, P.A., Serpell, J.A., Baptista, L.V., Niza, M.M.R.E., 2018. Evaluation of the factor structure of the canine behavioural assessment and research questionnaire (C-BARQ) in european Portuguese. PLOS ONE 13, e0209852. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209852.

Clay, L., Paterson, M.B.A., Bennett, P., Perry, G., Phillips, C.C.J., 2020a. Do behaviour assessments in a shelter predict the behaviour of dogs Post-Adoption? Animals 10, 1225. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10071225.

Clay, L., Paterson, M.B.A., Bennett, P., Perry, G., Phillips, C.C.J., 2020b. Comparison of canine behaviour scored using a shelter behaviour assessment and an owner
completed questionnaire, C-BARQ. Animals 10, 1797. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101797.

van den Berg, L., Schilder, M.B.H., Vries, H. de, Leegwater, P.A.J., van Oost, B.A., 2006. Phenotyping of aggressive behavior in golden retriever dogs with a questionnaire. *Behav. Genet* 36, 882–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-006-9089-0.

DeVellis, R.F., 2017. Scale development: theory and applications, 4. Edition. ed. In: Applied social research methods series; Applied social research methods series; Applied social research methods series, 26. SAGE, Los Angeles.

Diederich, C., Giffroy, J.M., 2006. Behavioural testing in dogs: a review of methodology in search for standardisation. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 97, 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.018.

Duffy, D.L., Serpell, J.A., 2012. Predictive validity of a method for evaluating temperament in young guide and service dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 138, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.011.

Duffy, D.L., Hsu, Y., Serpell, J.A., 2008. Breed differences in canine aggression. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 114, 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.04.006.

Fauchère, G., 2021. Tests de tempérament chez les animaux domestiques. Rev. Bibliogr. Et. Appl. à la Relat. Hum. Anim. 117.

Flint, H.E., Coe, J.B., Serpell, J.A., Pearl, D.L., Niel, L., 2017. Risk factors associated with stranger-directed aggression in domestic dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 197, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.08.007.

Fratkin, J.L., Sinn, D.L., Patall, E.A., Gosling, S.D., 2013. Personality consistency in dogs: a Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE 8, e54907. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054907.

González-Ramírez, M.T., Quezada-Berumen, L., Landero-Hernández, R., 2017. Assessment of canine behaviors using C-BARQ in a sample from Northern Mexico. J. Vet. Behav. Spec. Sect. Stereo Behav. 20, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.03.007.

Hsu, Y., Serpell, J.A., 2003. Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2003.223.1293.

Hsu, Y., Sun, L., 2010. Factors associated with aggressive responses in pet dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 123, 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.01.013.

Jones, A.C., Gosling, S.D., 2005. Temperament and personality in dogs (canis familiaris): a review and evaluation of past research. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 95, 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.04.008.

Ledger, R., Baxter, M.R., 1997. The development of a validated test to assess the temperament of dogs in a rescue shelter. Proc. First Int. Conf. Vet. Behav. Med. Birm. UK 87–92.

Ley, J.M., Bennett, P.C., Coleman, G.J., 2009. A refinement and validation of the monash canine personality questionnaire (MCPQ). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 116, 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.09.009.

Lorenzo-Seva, U., Ferrando, P.J., 2024. Determining sample size requirements in EFA solutions: a simple empirical proposal. Multivar. Behav. Res. 59, 899–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2024.2342324.

Luescher, A.U., 2004. Diagnosis and management of compulsive disorders in dogs and cats. Clin. Tech. Small Anim. Pract. Clin. Vet. Behav. 19, 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ctsap.2004.10.005.

MacKay, J.R.D., Haskell, M.J., 2015. Consistent individual behavioral variation: the difference between temperament, personality and behavioral syndromes. Anim. Open Access J. MDPI 5, 455–478. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5030366.

Nagasawa, M., Tsujimura, A., Tateishi, K., Mogi, K., Ohta, M., Serpell, J.A., Kikusui, T., 2011. Assessment of the factorial structures of the C-BARQ in Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 73, 869–875. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.10-0208.

Netto, W.J., Planta, D.J.U., 1997. Behavioural testing for aggression in the domestic dog. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. Behav. Probl. Small Anim. 52, 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01126-4.

Notari, L., Cannas, S., Di Sotto, Y.A., Palestrini, C., 2020. A retrospective analysis of Dog–Dog and Dog–Human cases of aggression in Northern Italy. Animals 10, 1662. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091662.

Pérez-Guisado, J., Muñoz-Serrano, A., López-Rodríguez, R., 2008. Evaluation of the campbell test and the influence of age, sex, breed, and coat color on puppy behavioral responses. Can. J. Vet. Res. 72, 269–277.

R Core Team, 2025. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.

Reisner, I.R., Shofer, F.S., Nance, M.L., 2007. Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression. Inj. Prev. 13, 348–351. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2007.015396.

Revelle, William, 2025. Psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

Rosseel, Y., 2012. Lavaan: an r package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

Ruefenacht, S., Gebhardt-Henrich, S., Miyake, T., Gaillard, aude, 2002. A behaviour test on German shepherd dogs: heritability of seven different traits. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79, 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00134-X.

Sforzini, E., Michelazzi, M., Spada, E., Ricci, C., Carenzi, C., Milani, S., Luzi, F., Verga, M., 2009. Evaluation of young and adult dogs' reactivity. J. Vet. Behav. 4, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2008.09.035.

Sueda, K.L.C., Malamed, R., 2014. Canine aggression toward people: a guide for practitioners. Vet. Clin. North Am. Small Anim. Pract. Behav. A Guide Pract. 44, 599–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2014.01.008.

Svartberg, K., 2002. Shyness–boldness predicts performance in working dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79, 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00120-X.

Svartberg, K., 2005. A comparison of behaviour in test and in everyday life: evidence of three consistent boldness-related personality traits in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 91, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.030.

Svartberg, K., Tapper, I., Temrin, H., Radesäter, T., Thorman, S., 2005. Consistency of personality traits in dogs. Anim. Behav. 69, 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.04.011.

Talegón, M.I., Delgado, B.A., 2011. Anxiety disorders in dogs. Anxiety Disorders. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/23135.

Tamimi, Naqa, Jamshidi, Shahram, Serpell, James A., Mousavi, Shadi, Ghasempourabadi, Zeinab, 2015. Assessment of the C-BARQ for evaluating dog behavior in Iran. J. Vet. Behav. 10, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.09.064.

Tiira, K., Hakosalo, O., Kareinen, L., Thomas, A., Hielm-Björkman, A., Escriou, C., Arnold, P., Lohi, H., 2012. Environmental effects on compulsive tail chasing in dogs. PLOS ONE 7, e41684. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041684.

Väätäjä, H., Majaranta, P., Cardó, A.V., Isokoski, P., Somppi, S., Vehkaoja, A., Vainio, O., Surakka, V., 2021. The interplay between affect, Dog's physical activity and Dog–Owner relationship. Front. Vet. Sci. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.673407.