VHA 2012 The Status of Instrument Development in The Human Animal Interaction. Field Wilson y Netting

AZ VOL.
25–Anniversary Issue:Layout 1 6/5/12 11:40 AM Page 11
ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 25, SUPPLEMENT REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2012

PP. S11–S55 DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY
The Status of Instrument

Development in the Human–
Animal Interaction Field
Cindy C. Wilson* and F. Ellen Netting†
*Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda,
Maryland, USA
†Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Social Work,
Richmond, Virginia, USA

Address for correspondence: ABSTRACT An overview of available instruments that assess characteristics
Cindy C. Wilson, PhD.,CHES,
Professor & Faculty
of human–animal interactions is provided, followed by a matrix of 140 tools,
Development Director, what they measure, information on structure and properties, original published
Department of Family sources, and a citation, when available, to another study in which the tool was
Medicine, Civilian,
Uniformed Services also used. Using Anderson’s (2007) book Assessing the Human–Animal
University of the Health Bond: A Compendium of Actual Measures, as a baseline, we systematically
Sciences, searched seven electronic databases. Suggested steps for future instrument
4301 Jones Bridge Road,
Bethesda, MD 20814-4799, development and research include greater accessibility through manualizing,
USA. carefully naming, providing design and conceptual rationales, defining key
E-mail:
cindy.wilson@usuhs.edu
terms, describing revisions along with use and scoring instructions, providing
Anthrozoös DOI: 10.2752/175303712X13353430376977

scores from several populations, including validity and reliability data, and
Views contained in this paper taking long-term responsibility for further refinement of instruments.
are those of the authors and
do not reflect the Department
Keywords: human–animal interaction instruments, measurements,
of Defense, the Uniformed
Services University, or Virginia survey instruments, tools
Commonwealth University.
❖
The field of human–animal interaction (HAI, i.e., anthrozoology)
is interdisciplinary, inter-professional, and transnational, all highly
valued characteristics in a global world. Yet, the strengths of
these characteristics are accompanied by tremendous complexity and a
host of dilemmas when one attempts to categorize the research on the
subject, much less to identify patterns in instrumentation. In this paper, we
attempt to do just that—provide a state-of-the-art overview of the field of
assessment instruments measuring characteristics of human–animal
interactions. We begin with a brief review of the instruments deemed to
hold the greatest “promise” for being able to measure the constructs as
defined by the tool developers at this point in the development of the field.
We then review the elements of sound psychometric measures, followed
s11
by suggestions for future instrument development and research. Finally,

AZ VOL. 25–Anniversary Issue:Layout 1 6/5/12 11:40 AM Page 12
The Status of Instrument Development in the Human–Animal Interaction Field
we provide a matrix (see Appendix 1) of these tools for use by students and investigators in
the field of human–animal interactions.
While the importance of developing and using appropriate research instruments to meas-
ure human–animal interactions (e.g., Lago et al. 1988; Kafer et al. 1992) is well-recognized, less
attention has been focused upon which instruments to use. The call for reliable and valid meas-
urement tools is long established in the literature (e.g., Wilson and Barker 2003; Wilson 2006)
and some tools such as The Companion Animal Bonding Scale (CABS) and the Companion
Animal Semantic Differential (CASD) are considered to have internal reliability, face validity, and
construct validity (Poresky 1989). To date, the proliferation of tools has outpaced appropriate
use criteria.
Anderson (2007) provided the first published compendium of tools relating to research in
HAI. He discussed “measures which relate to humans and their companion animals, princi-
pally by attachment or bonding, but also by fear, abuse and neglect” (p. 1). This review of mul-
tiple measures found many had not been tested for reliability and validity. Others were used in
only one or a few studies or with inadequate attention to underlying psychometric properties.
While there is no shortage of instruments, there remains confusion regarding consistent and
reliable use.
Searching the Literature

Anderson’s 2007 compendium provides an overview of 21 tools, the oldest being the Pet At-
titude Scale (PAS), developed by Templer et al. (1981). Through the years, the PAS has been
modified, currently being used as the PAS-M (Munsell et al. 2004). The most cited tool is the
Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS; Johnson, Garrity and Stallones 1992), which in-
corporates items from the PAS, the Companion Animal Bonding Scale (CABS), developed by
Poresky et al. (1987), and the Pet Attitude Inventory (Wilson, Netting and New 1987). Ander-
son lists 48 additional tools (or variations on tools previously cited) in his index and annotated
bibliography, leading to a total of 69 potentially available HAI tools. Further conversations with
the author revealed another 12 tools identified since the publication of the 2007 compendium,
raising the overall number of HAI tools to 81.
Using Anderson’s work as our baseline, we systematically reviewed the literature by search-
ing seven electronic databases from 2000 to 2008: Elsevier’s Embase, National Library of
Medicine’s (NLM) PubMed, Ovid’s HaPI, Ovid’s Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,
Ovid’s PsyINFO, ISI’s Current Contents Connect, and Dissertations Abstracts.
Our initial search began using NLM’s PubMed database with MeSH terminology. The term
“Bonding, Human–Pet” was defined as the emotional attachment of individuals to pets and
was listed as the preferred term for Animal–Human bonding. In order to eliminate articles in
which Bonding, Human–Pet was a peripheral subject, the MeSH term was defined as a Major
topic. This term provided relatively few results, although the retrieved articles using this term
were highly relevant to the field.
Exploration using the related article link in PubMed revealed a few other records that, upon
Anthrozoös
examination of their MeSH terms, did not contain the term “Bonding, Human–Pet,” but rather
the term “Animals, Domestic.” This term was then combined with “Humans” [MeSH] using the
operator “AND.” Pubmed’s Clinical Queries were also used to find systematic reviews and
clinical studies. The Embase search produced few relevant items when exploring either the
Emtree terms (i.e., Embase’s controlled vocabulary) “Pet therapy,” or combining the terms
s12
“object relation” AND “Domestic Animal.”

Wilson and Netting
We limited our search to articles written or translated in English. We also searched the
contents of specific journals including Anthrozoös, Society & Animals, and Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare, and further culled the reference lists from all studies and conceptual reviews
for relevant citations. We contacted David Anderson to determine the dates his review of meas-
urements covered, to compare methodologies of our searches, and to be certain that we had
captured anything published after his review.
A dissertation published within a year of Anderson’s work revealed an additional four tools
(Zaparanick 2008). Between the electronic search, Anderson’s seminal list, and cross refer-
encing the empirical studies identified by Zaparanick, we uncovered 140 different HAI tools (Ap-
pendix 1). In searching the literature, in order to determine relevancy, abstracts were screened
according to the following questions:
l) Is this an empirically based study?
2) Do the methods include the use of an instrument?
If the answer to the first question was “no” then the entire article was not read and it was
eliminated from further review. For example, articles based solely on reviews of the existing lit-
erature or providing theoretical/conceptual contributions were not used. In light of the second
question, in the case of abstracts revealing studies that relied solely on qualitative methods
using only semi-structured or observational approaches, those articles were not read. How-
ever, if the study used mixed methods, and included a tool as part of an array of methods, the
article was reviewed. For example, ethnographic studies were not included in the review be-
cause only word and observational data rather than numeric data were collected (e.g., Fox
2006). This process resulted in the review of more than 700 published, empirically based ar-
ticles in which tools were cited, representing studies from numerous countries such as the
United States, the UK, Australia, Hungary, and Japan.
In the review process, studies varied along a continuum from those seeking to
identify/assess and compare population characteristics, to those searching for deeper un-
derstandings of human–animal interaction, to those in which human–animal interventions were
evaluated. Thus, studies were roughly separated into three categories by their primary purpose:
(l) assess characteristics, (2) enhance understanding, or (3) evaluate interventions.
Conceptually, assessment studies often provided baseline information or a broader context for
subsequent studies with the purpose to delve deeper into the type and nature of the human–
animal relationship at one point in time. These types of studies or tools that capture both
assessment data and enhance understanding of the human–animal relationship pave the way
for research on evaluable outcome-based intervention programs. Often instruments used in
one type of study might be used in another type of study, but for different purposes.
Most recently, we contacted by letter every tool developer to be certain that the informa-
tion in Appendix I regarding their instrument was accurate. We explained that two years ago
we had been asked to develop an assessment of the state-of-the-art for HAI for the National
Anthrozoös
Institute of Child Health & Human Development conference and at that time had developed a
matrix of the tools available in the literature. We explained that, subsequently, our paper de-
scribing the current status of HAI instruments, along with the very lengthy matrix of their prop-
erties, had been accepted for publication in the 2012 supplementary issue of Anthrozoös,
celebrating the journal’s 25th anniversary. We wanted to be certain that we had listed what the
s13
developers considered to be the pivotal article in which the most updated version of their tool
was provided, as well an accurate description of its properties. In addition, we listed other
works in which the tool had been used, if known to the authors. We did not want to misrep-
resent their work or in any way fail to provide helpful information for anyone hoping to locate
an HAI instrument to be used in their research. We then updated the matrix with information
the developer provided.
Limitations
Since our search was conducted in 2009–2010, any tools published in 2011 will not have
been identified. It is our hope that others will use our matrix as a beginning point to add new
tools as they are developed. We limited our search to tools that were originally published in
English or translated into English. Therefore, tools published in languages other than English
are not included. There were, however, a number of tools included which originated from coun-
tries in which English is not the primary language—these all had English versions. We also
chose only those tools that focused on human subjects, not those related to measuring ani-
mal behavior.
In Appendix 1, we made a choice to list the tools alphabetically, rather than attempt to
group instruments according to construct. This is a limitation, but any ordering would involve
its own limitations. For example, tools presumed to measure the same construct could be
listed together but certain constructs may be differently defined by different developers.
Instruments Identified
Appendix 1 provides an overview (in alphabetical order) of the 140 tools identified in this
process. We listed each tool, what it measures (or its stated purpose), information on the
structure and properties of the instrument, the original source in which it was published, and
a citation to another study in which the tool was also used or cited as available. It is important
to note that these tools may have been used in more than one study, but we have provided
select examples to illustrate how they have been used. The appendix includes a matrix of tools
designed to evaluate therapeutic interventions, to measure perceptions of animal character-
istics, to measure attitudes and attachment or bonding levels, ownership responsibility, expe-
riences with animals, demographic characteristics, and a host of other aspects of
human–animal interactions. Of the 140 tools, at least eight are designed specifically for as-
sessing children’s relationships with animals. Intervention studies target specific population
groups of all ages with various and diverse needs.
Some instruments were designed to assess characteristics and attitudes. Studies of pet
owner characteristics and types of pets provide helpful overviews of animal and owner pop-
ulations. Examples of instruments used in these types of studies include assessment tools
used to determine attitudes toward, and previous experience with, pets. An example is the
Dogs and Physical Activities (DAPA) tool, which examines factors that relate to walking with a
dog (Cutt et al. 2008).
Other instruments were used to examine the nature and type of the human–animal rela-
Anthrozoös
tionships. The many attachment, interaction, and bonding tools could be used to describe
the relationship or to serve as a measurement of the independent variable in studies designed
to assess how the relationship might influence anything from depression to self esteem. For
example, the provision of social support by an animal companion reduced anger in boys from
deprived homes (Bryant and Donnellan 2007), or a companion animal intervention reduced
s14
loneliness in long-term care residents (Banks and Banks 2007).

Wilson and Netting
Intervention studies are based on the concept of effectiveness-based programming (e.g.,

Kettner, Martin and Moroney 2008) in which animals are used to make a difference in the quality
of life among humans The purpose of this type research is to provide “evidence” for subsequent
replication, and there are numerous resources that focus on how one goes about conducting
evidence-based practice (e.g., Roberts and Yeager 2004; DeGennaro and Fogel 2011). Thus,
measures are used multiple times in order to determine change in status. Depending on the out-
come, tools may be drawn from multiple fields, typically not specifically designed with human–
animal companionship in mind. For example, an intervention program targeting children with
emotional disorders may place a pet with the child, in order to see a change in self esteem. Self
esteem scales are drawn from the psychology literature and books of measures containing op-
tions for which scale to use (Roberts and Yeager 2004; Fischer and Corcoran 2007). Similarly,
books of measures in the social sciences are targeted to particular population groups such as chil-
dren (Mash and Barkley 2007) or older people (Kane and Kane 2000). Therefore we will not
attempt to discuss these types of measures unless they have been developed (or a tool has been
revised) to fit with a human–animal relationship. For example, the Provision of Support Measure
developed by Bryant (1990) and used in subsequent studies (Bryant and Donnellan 2007) is a
modification of Furman’s (1989) tool to assess human relationships.
Critically important in Appendix 1 is the column labeled “Structure of Instrument” because
it contains what was found about psychometric properties. Note that it was not possible to
locate these properties for the majority of tools. However, there are exceptions that warrant
close attention and hold promise. For example, moderate to high inter-correlations between
the PAS and the Pet Relationship Scale (PRS) subscales, as well as the expected pattern of
significant association between the attitudes scales and the other aspects of ownership,
demonstrate the best validation data available to date. Patterns of correlation among Pet
Ownership (PO) characteristics raise serious questions about single-item or very brief measures
in assessing attitudes to pets.
Patterns of subscale correlations suggest that several scales should be used together,
depending on the purposes of a given research study. These data support earlier calls for a
continued multivariate method of assessment of favorable attitudes and attachments toward
pets (Zaparanick 2008)
The Importance of Reliable and Valid Measures

Standard research texts emphasize the importance of choosing instruments that are reliable
and valid. If one does not know how valid and reliable a tool is, then one simply cannot trust
that the results have meaning. Cronbach (1970) indicated that a tool is valid if it does what it
is intended to do. Grinnell (1997) identifies three types of validity: content, criterion, and con-
struct, and one subtype (face validity)—each having a specific purpose. He poses the follow-
ing questions for each of the types:
Content: Does the measuring instrument adequately measure the major dimensions of the
variable under consideration?
Anthrozoös
Face Validity: Does the measuring instrument appear to measure the subject matter under
consideration?
Criterion: Does the individual’s measuring instrument score predict the probable behavior
on a second variable (criterion-related measure)?
Construct: Does the measuring instrument appear to measure the general construct (ele-
s15
ment) it purports to measure? (Grinnell 1997, p. 167).

Content validity requires that the instrument contain a logical sampling of questions from
the entire universe of questions that are presumed to reflect the variables being measured. A
great deal of personal judgment is given to the person who constructs a tool in defining the
variable to be measured, in assessing the universe of potential questions, and in choosing ap-
propriate questions. Without good judgment and a strong knowledge of the field, the tool may
have little or no content validity (Grinnell 1997, p. 168).
Face validity is often confused with content validity, but Grinnell cautions that they are dif-
ferent. Face validity refers to perceptions by persons administering the tool, as well as re-
spondents, that it measures what it is supposed to measure. For example, a pet attachment
tool that appears to measure attitudes toward animals rather than attachment would not have
face validity.
Criterion validity involves multiple measurements because it is based on comparison. For
example, an already validated tool on the strength of the human–animal bond could be ad-
ministered simultaneously with a new tool purported to measure the same variable. If results
from the new tool are congruent with those of the previously tested instrument, criterion va-
lidity can be established.
Construct validity is more difficult to understand because of its conceptual nature and
the meaning of what is being measured. In construct validity there is an interest in the
concept being measured more than in the particulars of the instrument itself. Does a pet
attachment scale really measure attachment? Or does a bonding scale really measure that
rather theoretical construct of “the bond”? Testing hypotheses based on theoretical propo-
sitions about the construct is typically done through procedures such as convergent-
discriminant validation and factor analysis (Grinnell 1997, p. 171). In the HAI field, then,
tools need to be evaluated against each other, cover the entire potential range of levels of
attitudes and attachment, be stable across animal species, and contain more than one
dimension.
Reliability is concerned with dependability and consistency of a tool. In other words, if ad-
ministered multiple times to the same persons, would the results be the same? Measurement
reliability includes the test-retest method, the alternate forms method, and the split-half method
(Grinnell 1997, p. 174). All tools should be reliable whether one is conducting phone inter-
views, asking respondents to complete self-administrated surveys, or using questionnaires in
face-to-face interviews.
Tools that have a common implicit conceptual framework should combine a number of
these scales in a large, random factor-analytic design, to identify the strongest common di-
mensions of pet attitudes. Future directions should include confirmatory factor analysis of pre-
cise-level and item loading differences between and among different samples. There remains
a clear need to move to larger, random samples of diverse groups using multiple scales for op-
timal assessment and validation.
It is important for researchers to refine the measurements of HAI and to examine relation-
ships between scales and outcome data. Although the depth of this review is modest, differ-
Anthrozoös
ences between the sample sizes used in developing most HAI tools suggest that continued
psychometric emphasis in characterizing measures in the samples with which they are used
should be stressed. Normative data on large, random samples of adequate size to test for pre-
sumed relationships and for employing multiple measures of HAI relationship are essential to
drive the quality of instrument development forward.
s16
Wilson and Netting
Discussion and Implications

In the previous sections we discussed a number of promising instruments that are used in
human–animal companion research. Note that the sections above are not mutually exclusive
in that an assessment tool can be used for a one-time study of characteristics, but with sub-
sequent administrations it may also be used to reassess changes over time. Similarly, a tool
used to gain depth into the type and nature of the relationship between humans and animals
may be used to develop deep understandings, but it may also be used as an outcome
measure if the intervention is to develop a close attachment to a pet. Thus, any classification
scheme is just that—a way to classify for manageability, when the actual usefulness of most
tools is highly variable.
In examining the studies that use formal measurements of some type, we have eliminated
many rigorously designed qualitative studies that pave the way for quantitative research. One
limitation of this paper is that we do not even attempt to classify those studies, many of which
may hold promise for generating results from grounded theory approaches that manifest in the
development of new tools that are literally “grounded” in practice. One recommendation we have
is that researchers engaged in these types of studies go beyond constant comparison ap-
proaches in analyzing their data and actually generate theory-driven tools that can be rigorously
tested in subsequent studies. One of the criticisms of the field has been that so many of the
studies have small sample sizes and are non-generalizable. If, however, these are pilot studies
using maximum variation in sample selection, and researchers are attentive to the rigors of these
type designs, they may hold a key to additional future instrument development and use.
There are a number of concerns about sampling when one reviews the various studies.
First is the frequent testing of measures involving student/convenience samples and non-
representative samples (based on self selection), and this sampling concern influences psy-
chometric qualities. When convenience samples are used, particularly when students are being
asked to complete a tool, there is the potential for social desirability biases to influence re-
sponses. Second there is also the potential of using a tool designed for one age group with
another age group when the instrument might not have been suitable for the age group under
investigation in another study. A third concern identified in the studies reviewed is that when
large samples were found, the manner in which they were selected (e.g., snowball approach)
does not generate a random sample and thus does not answer the call for generalizability.
Our review reveals that when one has seen one study in human–animal companionship, one
has seen one study. What we mean is that even in studies that are addressing similar popula-
tion groups and considering similar constructs such as attachment level, there does not seem
to be a great deal of intentionality in using the same tools or even trying to replicate existing stud-
ies. This haphazard approach to research across disciplines, professions, and nations has re-
sulted in a huge increase in the numbers of researchers interested in the field, which is certainly
inclusive of all sorts of possibilities. However, the difficulty is that, particularly with intervention
studies, there is little hope of designing an intervention to replicate (or even come close to repli-
cating) so that the “evidence” is seen as contradictory and can easily be dismissed by the sci-
Anthrozoös
entific community. If the field is to develop credibility it needs more intentionality in designing
studies that are comparable in their interventions, using valid and reliable measurements.
In the evidence-based practice movement, there have been great strides made “to
systematically gather, critically appraise, and summarize results from scientific studies from
methodologically sound research designs” (Hannes and Claes 2007, p. 748). In 1979, British
s17
epidemiologist Archie Cochrane was concerned that medical science had missed the
opportunity to pursue an efficient system of decision-making, and his ideas led to the estab-
lishment of the Cochrane Coalition (CC) in the early 1990s. This international coalition was
designed to produce and disseminate systematic reviews of intervention research and has
produced over 1,500 such reviews since then.
In 2000, the international Campbell Coalition (C2) was inspired by the CC, with the goal of
improving quality practice and has begun systematically reviewing studies in multiple fields
(Hannes and Claes 2007, p. 748). A systematic review “aims at answering a clear targeted
research question. It differs substantially from a narrative review in specifying and delineating
the research question as much as possible” (p. 749). To synthesize the findings of individual
studies, meta-analysis is used. For the meta-analytical process to be successful, “studies have
to be more or less homogeneous for the target group, the intervention, the comparison, and
the outcome” (p. 750).
Valid and reliable instruments are absolutely essential to a meta-analysis, and they must
be used across studies in order for comparisons to be made. At this point, the state of the
human–animal interaction field makes it difficult to use meta-analytical methods. Even studies
that target similar population groups are asking different research questions, using different
or modified tools, and are thus incomparable with other similar studies. This is not an attempt
to limit academic freedom or constrain researchers, but if multiple studies are not designed
to be more comparable, the possibility is lost for pooling the results and thus having more
robust findings. It is important to note that since funding is limited in this research area,
applications which use similar designs and methods to re-test another study’s results may
have a lower chance of acceptance.
Why should anyone care? Researchers care because “questions that were not resolved
in previous research projects are revealed, and reproducible, increasing the trustworthiness and
improving their chance for publication in high-impact journals” (Hannes and Claes 2007, p.
751). Policy-makers care because they want to know “what works,” and practitioners are
looking for synthesized up-to-date evidence from which to draw best or promising practice
methods. We recognize that everyone would like a guidebook to make recommendations
about the “best instrument.” This is of course a difficult judgment to make without knowing the
study in which the individual plans to use the instrument.
The sheer proliferation of instruments and the amount of time necessary to glean the rel-
evant information from the diverse literature has limited this review to its initial steps of sum-
marizing the instruments across four categories. We have made no attempt to rate these
instruments with regard to application, administration time, nor thoroughness of the reliability
and validity testing. However, this topical review of the instruments available in the field of HAI
indicates that there is considerable variation and sophistication between and among these in-
struments. Certainly the development of HAI indices is a relatively recent endeavor compared,
for example, with measuring intelligence or public opinion, and the psychometric qualities of
the instruments reflect this.
From the “beginning” of instrument development for HAI studies (e.g., Bustad’s Pet’s and
Anthrozoös
Personal History (1980), Ory and Goldberg’s (1984) single-item query, and Wilson, Netting and
News’s (1987) Pet Attitude Inventory) through developmental stages (e.g., Poresky et al.’s
(1987) Companion Animal Bonding Scale (CABS) and Poresky’s (1988) Companion Animal
Semantic Differential (CASD)), to the more sophisticated instruments (e.g., Dogs and Physical
Activity Tool (Cutt et al. 2008), Lexington Attachment Scale (Johnson, Garrity and Stallones
s18
1992), and Monash Dog Relationship Scale (Dwyer, Bennett and Coleman 2006)), the
Wilson and Netting
developers and users of these instruments have moved in the right direction by refining and
further testing the existing instrument, rather than continuing to create new tools. There is a
marked increase in the comparisons between measurement instruments and more correlations
are being reported with rival scales. In addition, more attention is focused upon scaling
methods rather than nominal level responses.
While we may complain about the weakness of specific tools, and the lack of coordina-
tion in developing instruments for measuring human–animal interaction, it is inaccurate to think
that there is one, universal measure that will be suited to all research studies. Such an
instrument would have to make so many compromises it would likely be unsuitable for any
application. Ultimately, different scales will be necessary for different studies and participant
cohorts. This is even more important in a field that is transnational, due to differences in pet-
keeping and basic attitudes among nations. Admittedly, our critique of not using a well-
designed instrument repeatedly, and rather designing a new one, highly depends on its
availability at the time, cultural background, age group, and language.
Suggested Next Steps
Rather than suggest a “best” measure or measures within human–animal interaction research,
we would like to suggest a series of steps to address three shortcomings of the current
measures (i.e., inadequate development and testing of the instrument, inadequate detailed
published descriptions of the measures, and a lack of leadership in ensuring continued
development and promotion of the method), based upon the guidance given to developers
measuring health (McDowell and Newell 1996). These steps are:
1. Publish articles or manuals with a full description of the purpose of the methodology,
indicating the population for which it is designed, the populations on which it had been
tested, and the intended use of the data collected.
2. Make the instrument available to users; don’t set up copyright barriers. A copy of the
scale should be included in the manual along with precise directions for its use.
3. Give measures a name that is meaningful and accurately describes their content. The
number of “pet attachment scales” (PAS) is truly amazing when one realizes how dif-
ferent they are. If a scale has been modified or revised, that should be reflected in the
names. A description of how the instrument is scored and what those scores mean
should be included.
4. Provide a rationale for the design and conceptual framework of the instrument.
Remember that no one knows this rationale better than the instrument developers,
and articulating that rationale will be valuable to anyone hoping to use that tool.
5. Define how the items or questions were selected for instrument development and put
that definition in the manual. Where did they come from and how were they selected?
Anthrozoös
6. Clearly describe the revision to the instrument or the method of development, and
present data on the reliability and validity of the latest version.
7. Describe the instruction on the use and scoring of the instrument. Include time
necessary to complete the tool, the setting in which the instrument was administered,
how missing data are handled, and how change scores should be handled (i.e., as
s19
absolute changes or as a percentage of the initial score).

8. Include all instrument reference scores from several populations. Ideally, these should
include a sample of healthy pet owners against which to make and interpret
comparisons with subsequent studies.
9. Include validity and reliability testing for both the internal structure of the method
(internal consistency and factor structure) and also its relationship to alternative meas-
urements of the same concept or variable. In criterion validation, the reason for the
selection of the criterion scores must be given and attention paid to their validity. The
expected level of correlation should be stated before the study is undertaken.
Construct validity should include tests of discriminant and convergent validity, also
with an advance statement of how much discrimination is expected.
10. Compare rival measure(s) with attention to how the scale classifies respondents at the
extremes of the scale.
11. Test each instrument by users other than the original developers, to determine if the
original validity values are stable.
12. Take long-term responsibility for further refinement. The most enduring instruments are
those for which the developers assume this responsibility. Like children and young
pets, HAI measures require care through adolescence, and nurturing and structure as
they develop.
Conclusion
Research into the link between pet attachment, attitudes, and personal health is abundant but
lacks empirical support. Despite the limitations in comparing various tools with each other, there are
select tools in the matrix with adequate reliability to be considered worthy by human–animal rela-
tionship investigators. If these tools could be used consistently in targeted studies with various
population groups, the potential for building a meta-analytical database could provide evidence for
the field. We encourage the International Society for Anthrozoology to host a database of all
instruments developed in the field of HAI. Developers could share resources and an intentional ap-
proach to assessment of reliability and validity of these instruments could be made. To this end, we
offer our matrix of instruments as a step in building a relational database of instruments.
References
Anderson, D. C. 2007. Assessing the Human–Animal Bond: A Compendium of Actual Measures. West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Banks, M. R. and Banks, W. A. 2007. The effects of animal-assisted therapy on loneliness in an elderly population
in long-term care facilities. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences. 37A(7): M428–M432.
Bryant, B. 1990. The richness of the child–pet relationship: A consideration of both benefits and costs of pets
to children. Anthrozoös 3(3): 253–261.
Bryant, B. K. and Donnellan, M. B. 2007. The relation between socio-economic status concerns and angry
peer conflict resolution is moderated by pet provisions of support. Anthrozoös 20(3): 213–223.
Anthrozoös
Bustad, L. 1980. Animals, Aging, and the Aged. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cochrane, A. L. 1979. 1931–1971: A critical review with particular reference to the medical profession. In
Medicines for the Year 2000, 1–11, ed. G. Teeling-Smith. London: Office of Health Economics.
Cronbach, L. J. 1970. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 3rd edn. New York: Harper & Row.
Cutt, H. E., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M. W. and Pikora, T. J. 2008. Physical activity behavior of dog owners:
Development and reliability of the Dogs and Physical Activity (DAPA) tool. Journal of Physical Activity & Health
s20
5(Suppl. 1): S73–S89.

Wilson and Netting
DeGennaro, M. and Fogel , S. eds. 2011. Empirically Supported Interventions for Community and Organizational
Change. Chicago: Lyceum Books, Inc.
Dwyer, F., Bennett, P. C. and Coleman, G. J. 2006. Development of the Monash Dog Owner Relationship Scale
(MDORS). Anthrozoös 29(3): 243–256.
Fischer, J. and Corcoran, K. 2007. Measures for Clinical Practice. 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fox, R. 2006. Animal behaviors, post-human lives: Everyday negotiations of the animal human divide in pet-
keeping. Social & Cultural Geography 7(4): 525–537.
Furman, W. 1989. The development of children’s social networks. In Children’s Social Networks and Social
Supports, 151–172, ed. D. Belle. New York: Wiley.
Grinnell, R. M. 1997. Social Work Research and Evaluation. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Hannes, K. and Claes, L. 2007. Learn to read and write systematic reviews: The Belgian Campbell Group.
Research on Social Work Practice 17(6): 748–753.
Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F. and Stallones, L. 1992. Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington Attachment to Pet
Scale (LAPS). Anthrozoös 5(3):160–175.
Kafer, R., Lago, D., Wamboldt, P. and Harrington, F. 1992. The Pet Relationship Scale: Replication of
psychometric properties in random samples and association with attitudes towards wild animals. Anthrozoös
5: 93–105.
Kane, R. L. and Kane, R. A. 2000. Assessing Older Persons: Measures, Meaning and Practical Application. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Kettner, P. M., Martin, L. L. and Moroney, R. M. 2008. Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness-
Based Approach. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lago, D., Kafer, R., Delaney, M. and Connell, C. 1988. Assessment of favorable attitudes towards: Development
and preliminary validation of self-report pet relationship scales. Anthrozoös 1(4): 240–254.
Mash, E. and Barkley, R. A. 2007. Assessment of Childhood Disorders. 4th edn. New York: The Guilford Press.
McDowell, I. and Newell, C. 1996. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 2nd edn.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Munsell, K. L., Canfield, M., Templer, D., Tangan, K. and Arikawa, H. 2004. Modification of the Pet Attitude
Scale. Society & Animals 12(2): 137–142.
Ory, M. G. and Goldberg, E. L. 1984. An epidemiological study of pet ownership in the community. In The Pet
Connection: Its Influence on Our Health and Quality of Life, 320–330, ed. R. K. Anderson, B. L. Hart and L.
A. Hart. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Poresky, R. H. 1988. The Companion Animal Semantic Differential: Long and short form reliability and validity.
Education and Psychological Measurement 48: 255–260.
Poresky, R. H. 1989. Analyzing human–animal relationship measures. Anthrozoös 2(4): 236–244.
Poresky, R. H., Hendriz, C., Mosier, J. E. and Samuelson, M. L. 1987. The Companion Animal Bonding Scale:
Internal reliability and construct validity. Psychological Reports 60: 743–746.
Roberts, A. R. and Yeager, K. R. eds. 2004. Evidence-Based Practice Manual: Research and Outcome
Measures in Health and Human Services. New York: Oxford University Press.
Templer, D., I., Salter, C. A., Dickey, S., Baldwin, R. and Veleber, D. M. 1981. The construction of the Pet Attitude
Scale. Psychological Record 31: 343–348.
Wilson, C. C. ed. 2006. The Future of Research, Education, and Clinical Practice in the Animal Human Bond
and Animal-Assisted Therapy. Part B: Human–Animal Interactions and Health: Best Evidence and Where We
Go from Here. San Diego: Academic Press.
Wilson, C. C. and Barker, S. B. 2003. Challenges in designing human–animal interaction research. American
Behavioral Scientist 47(1): 16–28.
Wilson, C. C., Netting, F. E. and New, J. C. 1987. The Pet Attitude Inventory. Anthrozoös 1(2): 76–84.
Zaparanick, T. L. 2008. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale. Ph.D.
Anthrozoös
Dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA.

s21
s22 Anthrozoös
Appendix 1. Instruments identified (in alphabetical order).

Tool Name What it Measures Structure of Instrument Original Source Select Studies in which
It Was Used
Animal Attitude Attitudes towards the 29 items; 5-point Likert scale; Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.88. Nine Herzog, H., Betchart, N. and Herzog, H.A. and Golden, L.
Scale use of animals. items deal with tendency to become involved with animal wel- Pittman, R. 1991. Gender, sex 2009. Moral emotions and social
fare (Take Action subscale); remaining 20 items measure atti- role orientation, and attitudes activism:The case of animal rights.
tudes towards treatment and use of animals (Ethics subscale). towards animals. Anthrozoös Journal of Social Issues 65:
4(3):184–192 485–498.
Animal Attitude Attitudes towards the 20 items; 5-point Likert scale. Scores range 20–100: higher Herzog, H., Betchart, N. and Signal, T. D. and Taylor, N. 2007.
Scale (AAS) treatment of animals. scores indicate pro-animal attitudes. Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.91. No Pittman, R. 1991. Sex role identity Attitude to animals and empathy:
AZ VOL. 25–Anniversary Issue:Layout 1
validity assessment. This is a shortened version of the 29-item and attitudes toward animals. Comparing animal protection
AAS (see above). Anthrozoös 4(3): 184–192. and general community samples.
Anthrozoös 20(2): 125–130.
Matthews, S. and Herzog, H.1997.
6/5/12
Personality and attitudes towards

the treatment of animals. Society
& Animals 5(2): 169–175.
Animal Attitude Attitudes. Velde, S. 2005. The development

11:40 AM
Scale and validation of a research evalua-

tion instrument to assess the effect-
iveness of animal-assisted therapy.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Kennedy-Western University, USA.

Page 22
Animal-Assisted The manual is designed The manual is comprised of many forms (pre-therapy, during Lawrence, M. K. 2002. Animal- Glacken, J. and Lawrence, M.
Therapy: Therapy for the adult client and therapy, and post course of therapy) with detailed instructions assisted therapy: Therapy 2005. Content validation, and pilot
Effectiveness provides a means to mea- for use. effectiveness. (Contact Marilyn K. studies of the Therapy Effective-
Evaluation sure the effects of AAT on The post course of therapy evaluation form is the same one Lawrence: mklaw@earthlink.net) ness Evaluation for Animal-
(Rev. Edn)* the client using a holistic used for pre-therapy evaluation to ensure measuring the exact Assisted Therapy instrument.
approach through re- same things in the same exact way. American Therapy Journal of
sponses in four domains: Recreation 4(3): 21–24.
social, psychomotor,
emotional, and cognitive.
Tool Name What It Measures Structure of Instrument Original Source Select Studies in which
It Was Used
Animal Empathy Empathy for animals. 22 items; 9-point Likert scale. 11 items represent Paul, E. S. 2000. Empathy with Paul, E. S. and Podberscek, A.L.
Scale (AES)* unempathetic sentiments and 11 represent empathetic. animals and with humans: Are 2000. Veterinary education and
sentiments. Higher scores show greater empathy. they linked? Anthrozoös 13(4): students’ attitudes towards animal
Human–animal and animal–animal empathy scores 194–202. welfare. Veterinary Record 146:
highly correlated (Kendall tau = 0.26, p < 0.001). 269–272.
Animal Fears Fear of specific animals. Davey, G. C. L. 1994. Self-reported Arrindell, W. A. 2000. Phobic
Questionnaire* fears to common indigenous ani- dimensions: IV. The structure of
mals in an adult UK population: The animal fears. Behaviour Research
role of disgust sensitivity. British Jour- and Therapy 38(5): 509–530.

nal of Psychology 85(4): 541–554.
Animal Human How members of other Composed of 2 subscales: Pet Compatibility (26 items) Budge, R. C., Jones, B. and Spicer,
Compatibility species relate to their and Owner Compatibility (15). For each item an J. 1997. A procedure for assessing
6/5/12
Scale* human companions. Com- attribute of the pet and owner relationship is presented human–companion animal compati-
patibility defined as “ … on a 10-point Likert scale, with polar opposites as bility. In Proceedings of the First
the fit between the animal ends. The score (index) is the absolute difference International Conference on Veteri-
and the owner on physical, between the actual and ideal rating. Cronbach’s nary Behavioural Medicine, 82–86,
behavioural, and psycho- ␣ = 0.84 and 0.87, respectively. ed. D. S. Mills, S. E. Heath and L. J.
11:40 AM
logical dimensions, as per- Harrington. Potters Bar, UK: Univer-

ceived by the owner”(p.82). sities Federation for Animal Welfare.
Animal What you would like to be Open-ended queries with descriptive element. Krevelen, D. A. v. 1956. The use of Rojas, E. B. and Tuber, S.1991. The
Preference if you had to return to this Pigem’s Test with children. Journal Animal Preference Test and its rela-
Page 23
Test (APT)* world and could not be a of Projective Techniques 20(2): tionship to behavioral problems in
person. What would you 235–242. young children. Journal of Person-
NOT want to be? ality Assessment 57(1): 141–148.
Animal Related Animal related activities, 14 animal-related activities were measured with a Bjerke, T., Odengardstuen, T. S.
Activities and whether an animal was kept 4-point Likert scale; other questions were forced and Kaltenbron, B. P. 1998.
Appreciation of at home and what species choice (Yes/No); animal preferences were measured Attitudes toward animals among
Animals survey of animal; had the child ever with a 4-point Likert scale. Norwegian adolescents. Anthrozoös
been hurt by an animal and 11(2): 79–86.
taken to the hospital for
treatment, had they had an
allergic reaction to animals.
Wilson and Netting
Animal species preference.
s23 Anthrozoös
s24 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Animal-Related Boat, B. W.1999.Abuse of children Henry, B. C. 2003. The relation be-
Trauma Inventory and abuse of animals: Using the tween animal cruelty, delinquency,
(see Boat Inven- links to Inform child assessment and attitudes toward the treatment
tory on Animal- and protection. In Child Abuse, of animals. Society & Animals 3:
Related Experi- Domestic Violence and Animal 185–207.
ences, BIARE)* Abuse: Linking the Circles of Com-
passion for Prevention and Inter-
vention, 83–100, ed. F. R. Ascione
and P. Arkow. West Lafayette, IN:
Purdue University Press.
Animal Rights Attitudes about potentially Animal Rights Scale: 28 items; 5-point Likert scale; the Wuensch, K. L., Jenkins, K. W. and
and Misanthropy related things. higher the number, the higher the agreement with the Poteat, G. M. 2002. Misanthropy,
Scales statement. Overall score is the mean of the 28 items. dealism and attitudes towards
6/5/12
Misanthropy Scale: 5 items; 5-point Likert scale. Scored animals. Anthrozoös 15(2):
like Animal Rights Scale. 139–149.
Animal Thematic Individuals’ perceptions of 5 pairs of line drawings; in each pair, one has a picture of Lockwood, R. 1983. The influence Friedmann, E. and Lockwood, R.
Apperception animals, differences in per- an animal(s) and the other does not. Drawings with of animals on social perception. In 1991. Validation and use of the An-
11:40 AM
Test (ATAT)* ceptions of animals between animals are rated on an 11-adjective scale; drawings with New Perspectives on Our Lives imal Thematic Apperception Test
groups, and changes in people are rated on a scale with 20 adjectives. For each with Companion Animals, 64–71, (ATAT). Anthrozoös 4(3): 174–183.
perceptions of animals. adjective pair a 7-point Likert scale was used. Factor ed. A. H. Katcher and A. M. Beck.
analysis with 11-item semantic differential scale resulted Philadelphia: University of Friedmann, E. and Thomas, S. A.
in Cronbach’s ␣ of 0.86 and split-half reliability was Pennsylvania Press. 1995. Pet ownership, social sup-
Page 24
excellent (0.85) for FSCENE. Factor analysis resulted in port, and one year survival after
8 items with loadings greater than 0.50, thus confirming acute myocardial infarction in the
construct validity of FCENE as 8-item tool assessing Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression
perceptions of scenes. Trial (CAST). American Journal of
Cardiology 76: 1213–1217.
Anthropomorph- “… the tendency to attribute Albert, A. and Bulcroft, K.1988.
ism Scale human or personality Pets, families, and the life course.
Interview*† characteristics to things that Journal of Marriage and the Family
are not human“ (p. 549). 2: 543–552.
It Was Used
Assessment of The Healthy, Happy, & Wise (FHHW)—9 items, and the Lewchanin, S. and Zimmerman, E. Lockwood, R. 2000. Assessment
Dangerousness Nurturing Scale (FNURT)—6 items, both had high 2000. Clinical Assessment of of dangerousness in perpetrators
in Perpetrators of reliability explained 86% of variance in rating of the Juvenile Animal Cruelty. Brunswick, of animal cruelty. In Clinical Assess-
Animal Cruelty* people in the scenes. ME: Biddle Publishing Company ment of Juvenile Animal Cruelty,
and Audenreed Press. 40–45, ed. S. Lewchanin and E.
Zimmerman. Brunswick, ME:
Biddle Publishing Company and
Audenreed Press.
Assistance Dog Knowledge and attitudes of 16 items with both open-ended and forced-choice Zapf, S. A. and Rough, R. B. 2000. Miura, A., Bradshaw, J. W. and
Questionnaire young people towards questions. Versions in both English and Japanese. Asks The development of an instrument Tanida, H. 2002. Attitudes
assistance dogs. about knowledge and personal experience with assist- to match individuals with disabilities towards assistance dogs in Japan
ance dogs, then given a brief written description of the and service animals. Disability and and the UK: A comparison of col-
types and roles of assistance dogs and then asked for Rehabilitation: An International lege students studying animal
6/5/12
their perceptions and thoughts about using dog to assist Multidisciplinary Journal 24(1–3): care. Anthrozoös 15(3): 227–242.
people with disabilities. Claims content reviewed by 10 43–48.
scientists and has validity.
Attachment of Attachment/attitudes. Voith, V. L. 1985. Attachment of
11:40 AM
People to people to companion animals.

Companion Veterinary Clinics of North America:
Animals Small Animal Practice 15(2):
289–295.
Page 25
Attachment to Attachment to cats. Bradshaw, J. W. and Limond, J. Stammbach, K. B. and Turner,

the Cat (BrAtt) 1997. Attachment to cats and its D. C. 1999. Understanding the
relationship with emotional support: support or attachment. Anthro-
A cross cultural study. Paper pre- zoös 12(3): 162–168.
sented at the International Society
for Anthrozoology conference,
Boston, USA, July 24–25, 1997.
Attachment to Garrity, T. F., Stallones, L., Marx, M. Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F. and
Pets Scale (APS) and Johnson, T. P. 1989. Pet Stallones, L.1992. Psychometric
(See Lexington ownership and attachment as evaluation of the Lexington At-
Attachment to supportive factors in the health of tachment to Pets Scale (LAPS).
Pets Scale—LAPS)* the elderly. Anthrozoös 3(1): 35–44. Anthrozoös 5(3): 160–175.
Wilson and Netting
s25 Anthrozoös
s26 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Attitudes Attitudes towards animals 7 subscales with 5 statements within each category Kellert, S. R. 1985. Attitudes Bjerke, T., Odengardstuen, T. S.
towards and our relationships with scored on a 4-point Likert scale. Sub categories are: towards animals: Age-related and Kaltenbron, B. P. 1998. Atti-
Animals them. humanistic, moralistic, utilitarian, negativistic, development among children. tudes toward animals among
dominionistic, naturalistic, and ecologistic. Journal of Environmental Norwegian adolescents. Anthro-
Education 16: 29–39. zoös 11(2): 79–86.
Attitudes toward Attitudes. Ray, J. J. 1982. Love of animals St Yves, A., Freeston, M. H.,
Animals and and love of people. Journal of Jacques, C. and Robitaille, C.
Attitudes toward Social Psychology 116(2): 1990. Love of animals and
People Scales* 299–300. behavior. Psychological Reports
67: 1067–1075.
Attitudes toward Rates participants’ 10 items; 5-point Likert scale; 5 of the times shown to Wiley-Driscoll, J. 1995. Attitudes Chamove, A. S., Crawley-Hatrick,
Animals: Species attitudes towards 10 be highly correlated with each other from a low of 0.83 towards animals: Species ratings. O. J. and Stafford, K. J. 2002.
6/5/12
Rating Scale common domesticated for “loveable and smart” to 0.97 for “responsive and Society & Animals 3: 47–51. Horse reactions to human atti-
(ATA) animals. smart.” tudes and behavior. Anthrozoös
15(4): 323–331.
Attitude toward Ray, J. J. 1982. Love of animals
Animal Use and love of people. Journal of So-
11:40 AM
cial Psychology 116(2): 299–300.

Attitude toward Attitudes. Miura, A., Bradshaw, J. W. and Miura, A., Bradshaw, J. W. and
Dogs (DAQ) Also Tanida, H. 2000. Attitudes towards Tanida, H. 2002. Attitudes to-
known as Dog dogs: A study of university wards assistance dogs in Japan

Page 26
Attitude Scale* students in Japan and the UK. and the UK: A comparison of col-
Anthrozoös 13(2): 80–88. lege students studying animal
care. Anthrozoös 15(3): 227–242.
Attitude toward Attitudes regarding 44 items related to the value of the dog; 51 items Shelby, L. A., Rhoades, J. D., Shelby, L. A. and Rhoades, J. D.
Responsible Pet responsible pet ownership. related to the value of the cat, and 18 separate items. Hewett, J. E. and Irwin, J. A. 1979. 1981. Attitudes of the public to-
Ownership* All evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale. A survey of attitudes toward re- wards dogs and cats as com-
sponsible pet ownership. Public panion animals. Journal of Small
Health Reports 94(4): 380–386. Animal Practice 22: 129–137.
It Was Used
Attitudes to the Understanding the use of 32 items; 4-point Likert scale. Five factors emerged: Furnham, A., McManus, C. and Taylor, N. and Signal, T. 2005.
Use of Animals animals in experimentation. Attitudes towards animals in research; feelings of Scott, D. 2003. Personality, Empathy and attitudes to animals.
in Medical and animals; animals tested, non-medical products; meat empathy and attitudes to animal Anthrozoös 18(1): 18–27.
Psychological eating; animal testing. welfare. Anthrozoös 16(2):
research 135–146.
Attributions Designed to assess 11 items; 5-point Likert scale, ranging from no capacity Herzog, H. A. and Galvin, S. 1997. Knight, S., Vrij, A., Bard, K. and
Questionnaire indvidual differences in to reason to human like capacity to reason. Factor Common sense and the mental Brandon, D. 2009. Science
(AQ) perceptions of the mental analysis indicates attributes fall into 3 categories (cog- lives of animals: An empirical ap- versus animal welfare: Under-
capacities of 18 different nition, affect, and sentience). No alphas calculated. proach. In Anthropomorphism, standing attitudes toward animal
species. Anecdotes and Animals, 237–253, use. Journal of Social Issues 65:
ed. R. W. Mitchell. Albany: State 463–483.
University of New York Press.
6/5/12
Battered Partner Animal abuse experiences Semi-structured interview. Ascione, F. R. and Weber, C.1995. Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V. and
Shelter Survey, in the context of intimate Battered partner shelter survey Wood, D. S. 1997. The abuse of
BPSS/Pet partner violence applicable (BPSS). Logan: Utah State animals and domestic violence: A
Maltreatment to domestic violence University. national survey of shelters for
Survey (2 ver- shelter residents. women who are battered. Society
11:40 AM
sions, one being & Animals 5(3): 205–218.

a mother/child
version)* Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V.
Thompson, T., Heath, J.,
Maruyama, M. and Hayashi, K.
Page 27
2007. Battered pets and

domestic violence: Animal abuse
reported by women experiencing
intimate violence and by non-
abused women. Violence Against
Women 13(4): 354–373.
Wilson and Netting
s27 Anthrozoös
s28 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Berkley Animal Personality rating of pet 50-items; 9-point Likert scale. Used z-scores to Gosling, S. D. and Bonnenburg, Podberscek, A. L. and Gosling, S.
Personality owners and their pets. compare findings within and across studies. A. V. 1998. An integrative ap- D. 2000. Personality research on
Survey Utilized the Five Factor proach to personality research in pets and their owners: Concep-
(http://socrates. Model of McCrae and anthrozoology: Ratings of six tual issues and review. In Com-
berkeley.edu/ Costa. Includes Extra- species of pets and their owners. panion Animals and Us: Exploring
bapp) version, Agreeableness, Anthrozoös 11(3): 148–156. the Relationships between People
Conscientiousness, Neur- and Pets, 143–167, ed. A. L.
oticism, and Intellect/Open- Podberscek, E. S. Paul and J. A.
ness. They used adjectives Serpell. Cambridge: Cambridge
to provide examples of the University Press.
labels. Used 50 adjective

(items) and labeled these Gosling, S. D., Kwan, V. S. Y. and
as traits. John, O. P. 2003. A dog’ s got
personality: A cross-species com-
6/5/12
parative approach to evaluating

personality judgments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology
85: 1161–1169.
11:40 AM
Boat Inventory PO history, experiencing 20 items; open-ended questions. Not standardized or Boat, B. W. ed. 2006. Clinical Henry, B. C. 2006. Empathy,
of Animal- animals as a source of normed. Approaches to Assessing and home environment, and attitudes
Related support, loss of animals, Utilizing Animal-Related Experi- toward animals in relation to
Experiences cruelty to animals, killing of ences in Therapeutic Interventions animal abuse. Anthrozoös 19(1):
(BIARE)* animals, animals used to with Children, Adolescents, and 17–34.

Page 28
coerce or control a person, Their Caregivers. San Diego, CA:

sexual interactions with Academic Press. Flynn, C. P. 1999. Animal abuse in
animals, and animal-related childhood and later support for
fears. interpersonal violence in families.
Society & Animals 7(2):
161–172.
It Was Used
Canine Quality Nonphysical aspects of 27 items; 4-point Likert scale; and over 5 domains: Wjciechowska, J. L., Hewson, Wjciechowska, J. L., Hewson,
of Life quality of life (QOL) of pet administered via telephone to dog owners. Test-retest C. J., Stryhn, H., Guy, N. C., Pat- C. J., Stryhn, H., Guy, N. C.,
Questionnaire† dogs; may be used to reliability (k) ranges 0.11–0.91. Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.45 to ronek, G. J. and Timmons,V. 2005. Patronek, G. J. and Timmons, V.
complement veterinary 0.61. Development of a discriminative 2005. Evaluation of a question-
assessment of dogs’ questionnaire to assess nonphysi- naire regarding nonphysical
physical health and QOL. cal aspects of quality of life of aspects of quality of life in sick
dogs. American Journal of and healthy dogs. American
Veterinary Research 66(8): Journal of Veterinary Research
1453–1460. 66(8): 1461–1467.
CENSHARE Attachment. “ … to 27 items; 4-point Likert scale; 2 factors (relationship Holcomb, R., Williams, R. C. and Woodward, L. E. and Bauer, A. L.
Pet Attachment determine whether the maintenance and intimacy). Internal consistency = 0.83 Richards, P. S. 1985. The ele- 2007. People and their pets: A
Scale (PAS)* [CENSHARE] instrument in for 16 “relationship maintenance” items and 0.74 for 11 ments of attachment relationship relational perspective on interper-
question validated state- intimacy items. Face, content, and construct validity. maintenance and intimacy. sonal complementarity and
6/5/12
ments about attachment” Journal of the Delta Society 2(1): attachment in companion animal
(p. 28). “ … to create a 28–33. owners. Society & Animals 15(2):
more accurate instrument” 169–189.
(p. 28). Convenience
sample. Gerwolls, M. K. and Labott, S. M.
11:40 AM
1994. Adjustment to the death of

a companion animal. Anthrozoös
7(3): 172–187.
Center for the Participants’ responses to 28 items; 5-point Likert scale, with 1 = more often Johnson, R. and Meadows, R. Fulton, B. 2005. Evaluation of the
Page 29
Study of Animal receiving a dog visit in a being false, and 5 = more often true. Designed to 2002. Development of the Center reliability of the Center for the
Wellness Pet therapeutic environment. assess whether a bond develops between human and for the Study of Animal Wellness Study of Animal Wellness Pet
Bonding Scale Specifically it measures the therapy animal. Based upon reciprocity, uncondition- Pet Bonding Scale. Personal Bonding Scale (CSAWPBS) and
(CSAWPBS)* concepts of unconditional al acceptance, social support, and alliance. Designed communication by R. Johnson. the Dog Walk Program.
acceptance from the animal, for third grade reading level. Internally consistent with a University of Missouri, School of Unpublished research project,
feelings of reciprocity and coefficient alpha level of 0.892 among disabled adults. Nursing, Columbia, MO, USA. University of Missouri, USA.
attachment to the animal. No validity data available.
Child Pet Child’s attachment to pet. 15 items; Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.089. Melson, G. F. 1988. Availability of Vidovic, V. V., Stetic, V. V. and
Attachment and involvement with pets by Bratko, D. 1999. Pet ownership,
Scale* children: Determinants and type of pet and socio-emotional
correlates. Anthrozoös 4(2): 45–52. development of school children.
Anthrozoös 12(4): 211–217.
Wilson and Netting
s29 Anthrozoös
s30 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Childhood Pet Demographics, childhood 40 items; combination of forced-choice, Paul, E. S. and Serpell, J. A. 1993. Paul, E. S. and Serpell, J. A.
Ownership background and pet history, descriptive, and Likert (4-point) responses. Childhood pet keeping and 1994. Pets and the development
Questionnaire* parental attitudes, current humane attitudes in young adult- of positive attitudes to animals. In
PO, impact of PO as a child, hood. Animal Welfare 2(4): Animals and Human Society,
attitudes towards pets, 321–337. 127–144, ed. A. Manning and J.
empathy and attitudes A. Serpell. London: Routledge.
toward the treatment of
animals. Questions about
how the participants would
spend funds given 8 charity
descriptions.
Children and Information on animal mal- Semi-structured interview for use with children Ascione, F. R., Thompson, T. M. Pagani, C., Robustelli, F. and
Animals treatment; current and past over 4 years of age and their parents. Scores and Black, T. 1997. Childhood Ascione, F. R. 2010. Investigating
6/5/12
Assessment behavior with animals. for each item range 0–30. cruelty to animals: Assessing animal abuse: Some theoretical
Instrument Dimension of cruelty include: cruelty dimensions and and methodological issues.
(CAAI) observation, severity, motivations. Anthrozoös 10(4): Anthrozoös 23: 259–276.
frequency, duration, recency, 170–173.
diversity/across categories, Pagani, C., Robustelli, F. and
11:40 AM
sentience, covert, isolate, Ascione, F. R. 2007. Italian youths’

and empathy. attitudes toward, and concern
for, animals. Anthrozoös 20(3):
275–293.
Page 30
Children and 6-page, self-administered For 9–10 year olds (56 items); for 11–12 and
Animals questionnaire based upon CAAI 13–18 year olds (60 items). Unlike BIARE, no
Assessment (Ascione, Thompson and Black questions about coercion or control, sexual
Instrument 1997), and the Boat Inventory interactions with animals, or animals portrayed
(CAAI) modified (BIARE, Boat 1999). 3 age- in the movies or on TV. Only items culturally
(for use in Italy) specific versions were created. significant in Italy were included.
Measures PO (current and past),
Pet Loss, Worries about Pet, Rea-
sons for Never Having a Pet, Pos-
sible Desire to Have a Pet, Animal
Abuse Experiences as Witness.
It Was Used
Children & 9 theory-driven dimensions Self-report; 5-point Likert scale; scores from 0 (no Dadds, M. R., Whiting, C., Bunn, Dadds, M. R., Whiting, C. and
Animals Inventory of cruelty (i.e., severity, fre- cruelty) to 39 (severe cruelty). P., Fraser, J. A., Charlson, J. H. Hawes, D. J. 2006. Associations
(CAI) quency, duration, recency, and Pirola-Merlo, A. 2004. among cruelty to animals, family
diversity, sentience, covet, Measurement of cruelty in children: conflict, and psychopathic traits
isolate, and empathy). The Cruelty to Animals Inventory. in childhood. Journal of
Journal of Abnormal Child Interpersonal Violence 21(3):
Psychology 32(3): 321–334. 411–429.
Children’s A child’s relationship to im- Projective test using 10 drawings of animals in social Information available from the
Apperception portant figures and drives, situations. Educational Testing Service data-
Test (Animal/ concerned with feeding base: www.ets.org.

Figure) CAT(A)* problems, sibling rivalry,
relations with parents as a
couple, etc.
6/5/12
Children’s Childhood cruelty. 5 initial PO demographics; 23 Likert scale items Guymer, M. E., Mellor, D., Luk,
Attitudes and (5-point) and 1 question about harm E. S. L. and Pearse, V. 2001. The
Behaviors toward (Yes/No response). Three scores are derived: malicious development of a screening ques-
Animals (CABTA)* cruelty, typical cruelty, and a total score. tionnaire for childhood treatment of
11:40 AM
cruelty to animals. Journal of Child

Psychology & Psychiatry 42(8):
1057–1063.
Children’s Observations of children’s Descriptive study. Ascione, F. R. and Weber, C. 1995.
Page 31
Observation and behavior with pets; loss; Battered partner shelter survey
Experience with and a relationship between (BPSS). Logan: Utah State
their Pets domestic violence and pet University.
(COEP) abuse.
Children’s Children’s representations of Story-based methodology. McNicholas, J. and Collis, G. M.

Representations pets in their social networks. 2001. Children’s representations of
of Pets pets in their social networks. Child
Care Health Development 27(3):
279–294.
Wilson and Netting
s31 Anthrozoös
s32 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Children’s Treat- Children’s humane behavior 13 items; 3-point Likert scale.1item is reversed scored. Thompson, K. L. and Gullone, E.
ment of Animals towards animals. Scores range 13–36, with higher scores reflecting 2003. The children’s treatment of
Questionnaire higher humane behavior towards animals. Cronbach’s animals questionnaire (CTAQ): A
(CTAQ)* ␣ = 0.81 for sample (boys: 0.74; girls: 0.85). Conver- psychometric investigation.
gent validity analysis with empathy measures led to Society & Animals 11(1): 1–15.
medium and significant correlations within the entire
sample but not for smaller gender subsets. Good
test-retest reliability.
Clinical Assess- Assesses family or caregiver Includes parent interview and other scales: CAAI, Lewchanin, S. and Zimmerman, E.
ment of Juvenile background to include vio- ADPAC, Juvenile culpability Assessment, Lewchanin‘s 2000. Clinical Assessment of
Animal Cruelty lence and childhood cruelty, motivation checklist, Wolin and Wolin’s scale to assess Juvenile Animal Cruelty. Brunswick,
experiences with pets, inci- child’s resiliency, a readiness for change scale. ME: Biddle Publishing Company
dence of animal abuse, and & Audeneed Press.
6/5/12
environmental information.
Comfort from Perceived level of emotional 13 items, 4-point Likert scale; higher scores = greater Zasloff, R. L. 1996. Measuring at- Chesney, T. and Lawson, S.
Companion support from pets. “ … exa- perceived comfort. Face, content, and construct tachment to companion animals: 2007. The illusion of love—Does
Animals Scale mine attachment in terms of validity. Reliability testing resulted in Cronbach’s ␣ = A dog is not a cat is not a bird. a virtual pet provide the same
11:40 AM
(CCAS)* the perceived level of emo- 0.85. Applied Animal Behaviour companionship as a real one?
tional comfort that dog Science 47: 43–48. Interaction Studies 8(2): 337–342.
owners and cat owners re-
port receiving from their pets”
(p. 44). Sampling unknown.

Page 32
Comfort Scale Extent to which people are 15 items; 5-point Likert scale. Total is summed, with Herzog, H., Betchart, N. and
comfortable with touching higher score indicative of greater touch comfort (range Pittman, R.1991. Gender, sex role
animals. 15–75); 2 distinct factors (positively perceived and orientation, and attitudes towards
negatively perceived animals). animals. Anthrozoös 4(3): 184–192.
Commitment to Commitment. 10 items; 5-point Likert scale. High internal consis- Staats, S., Miller, D., Carnot, M. J., Shore, E. R. 2005. Returning a
Pets Scale (see tency and correlates with attachment (r = 0.44). Rada, K. and Turnes, J. 1996. The recently adopted companion
Miller-Rada Miller-Rada Commitment to Pets animal: Adopters’ reasons for and
Commitment to Scale. Anthrozoös 9(2/3): 88–94. reactions to the failed adoption
Pets Scale)* experience. Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare Science 8(3):
187–198.
It Was Used
Community Behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, 5 sections (Demographics [23], animal ownership and Toukhsati, S. R., Bennett, P. C. Toukhsati, S. R., Young, E.,
Attitudes towards and awareness of cat and semi-ownership [96], companion animal containment and Coleman, G. J. 2007. Bennett, P. C. and Coleman, G. J.
Companion dog management; owner- [11], beliefs about wandering cats [9], knowledge Behaviors and attitudes towards 2012. Wandering cats: Attitudes
Animals ship and semi-ownership about and attitudes towards companion animals semi-owned cats. Anthrozoös and behaviors towards cat con-
(CACAQ) issues. [forced and open choice]. No reliability or validity data. 20(2): 131–142. tainment in Australia. Anthrozoös
25(1): 65–74.
Companion Attachment. Garrity, T. F., Stallones, L., Marx, McCutcheon, K. A. and Fleming,
Animal Attach- M. and Johnson, T. P. 1989. Pet S. J. 2001–2. Grief resulting from
ment Scale* ownership and attachment as euthanasia and natural death of a
supportive factors in the health of companion animal. Omega:

the elderly. Anthrozoös 3(1): 35–44. Journal of Death and Dying
44(2):169–188.
6/5/12
Companion Gage, G. and Magnunson, M. S.

Animal/Baby 1988. Intergenerational continuity
Interaction Atti- of attitudes and values about dogs.
tude Index Anthrozoös 1(4): 232–239.
(CABIAI)
11:40 AM
Companion Interaction between pet 8-item, 5-point Likert scale; self-administered. Cron- Poresky, R. H., Hendrix, C., Dwyer, F., Bennett, P. C. and
Animal Bonding owners and their pet (i.e., bach’s ␣ = 0.77; face, content, and construct [indicat- Mosier, J. E. and Samuelson, M. L. Coleman, G. J. 2006. Develop-
Scale (CABS)* “the bond”/attachment). ed by strong association with Pet Attitude Scale; 1987. The Companion Animal ment of the Monash Dog Owner
Unknown sampling. r = 0.420]. Scores range 0–32, with higher scores Bonding Scale: Internal reliability Relationship Scale (MDORS).
Page 33
indicative of stronger attachment. Three factors and construct validity. Psycho- Anthrozoös 19(3): 243–256.
emerged: bonding or “involvement,” animal size logical Reports 60: 743–746.
(inferred from sleeping arrangements), and companion Angulo, F. J., Siegel, J. M. and
animal’s responsiveness and autonomy. Detels, R. 1996. Pet ownership
and the reliability of the Com-
panion Animal Bonding Scale
among participants of the Multi-
center AIDS Cohort Study.
Anthrozoös 9(1): 5–9.
Wilson and Netting
s33 Anthrozoös
s34 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Companion Respondent’s perception/ 18-bipolar semantic differential word pairs which Poresky, R. H., Hendrix, C., Mosier, Shiloh, S., Sorek, G. and Terkel, J.
Animal Semantic feelings of childhood com- loaded on four factors (perception of pet as loving J. E. and Samuelson, M. L. 1988. 2003. Reduction of state-anxiety
Differential panion animal. “… provide a animal, monetary value of pet, affective value, and size The Companion Animal Semantic by petting animals in a controlled
(CASD)* sensitive scale for the as- of animal) Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.90. Construct validity indi- Differential: Long and short form laboratory experiment. Anxiety,
sessment of self-reported cated by significant correlations with PAS (0.31) and reliability and validity. Educational Stress, and Coping 16(4):
behavior indicative of the CABS (0.54). Factor analysis led to 9-item form as a and Psychological Measurement 387–395.
establishment of a bond be- one-dimensional measure of the affective attitude 48: 255–260.
tween person and an animal” towards pet. Short form’s Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.88.
(Poresky 1989, p. 244). Poresky, R. H. 1989. Analyzing
human–animal relationship
measures. Anthrozoös 2(4):

236–244.
Contemporary Attachment to pet. 8 items; 5-point Likert scale; self-administered; Triebenbacher, S. L. 1999.
6/5/12
Companion Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.80. Three factors emerged: emo- Re-evaluation of the Companion
Animal Bonding tional bond, physical proximity (inferred by sleeping Animal Bonding Scale.
Scale arrangements), and caretaking. Construct validity with Anthrozoös 12: 169–173.
PAI (r = 0.005).
11:40 AM
Cruelty to Dadds, M. R., Whiting, C., Bunn,

Animals Inven- P., Fraser, J. A., Charlson, J. H.
tory (CAI) (also and Pirola-Merlo, A. 2004.
known as the Measurement of cruelty in children
Children & The Cruelty to Animals Inventory.

Page 34
Animals Journal of Abnormal Child

Inventory)* Psychology 32(3): 321–324.
Demographic Demographics, history of 26 items; forced responses. No psychometric data. Banks, M. R. and Banks, W. A.
and Pet History PO, ages of PO, types of 2002. The effects of animal-
Questionnaire pets previously owned, assisted therapy on loneliness in
(DPHQ)* length of PO, and desire to an elderly population in long-term
have animal in long-term care facilities. Journal of
care facility. Gerontology: Medical Sciences
57A: M428–M432.
It Was Used
Dog ADHD RS Attention deficit and activity 18 items; validated on the basis of a human attention- Vas, J., Topal, J., Pech, E. and
Owner Version in dogs as described by PO. deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) questionnaire; Miklosi, A. 2007. Measuring at-
Questionnaire for adjusted to dog rather than human. PO asked how tention deficit and activity in dogs:
Attention Deficit often statement was true for their dog on a 4-point A new application and validation
and Activity scale. Six items related to inattention in the dog and 7 of a human ADHD question-
Impulsivity† items were designed to measure the level of motor naire. Applied Animal Behaviour
activity and impulsivity. Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.7. Analysis of Science 103(1–2): 105–117.
internal subscales resulted in Pearson’s correlation co-
efficient being quite low (r = 0.27), suggesting only
weak association between inattention and “activity-
impulsivity.” Factor analysis suggests 3 factors

equivalent with predetermined scale structure.
Dog Care Usual care and nurturing 18 items that identified the person most responsible Davis, J. H. 1987. Preadolescent Davis, J. H. 1987. Pet care during
6/5/12
Responsibility duties of PO. doing things for the dog. Nominal level data. self-concept development and adolescence: Developmental
Inventory* pet ownership. Anthrozoös 1(2): considerations. Child Care, Health
90–99. and Development 139(4): 269–276.
Dog Ownership Basic demographic infor- 16 items with Yes/No responses. Davis, J. H. 1987. Preadolescent Davis, J. H. 1987. Pet care during
11:40 AM
History mation, mutual activities self-concept development and adolescence: Developmental con-
Questionnaire and affiliations shared with pet ownership. Anthrozoös siderations. Child Care, Health and
people that are also 1(2): 90–99. Development 139(4): 269–276.
applicable to pets.
Page 35
Dog Personality Personality traits and Tool has both a long (75 items) and short form (45 Jones, A. C. 2005. Development Jones, A.C. and Gosling, S.D.
Questionnaire descriptions that may apply items). Items are scored using a 7-point Likert scale. of the dog personality question- 2005. Temperament and person-
(DPQ) to your dog. Questions load on 5 factors: Fearfulness, Aggression naire. Unpublished doctoral ality in dogs (Canis familiaris):
towards people, Activity/excitability, Responsiveness dissertation, University of Texas, A review and evaluation of past
to training, and Aggression towards animals. Austin, USA. research. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 95: 1–53.
Gosling, S. D., Sandy, C. J. and

Potter, J. 2010. Personalities of
self-identified “dog people” and
“cat people.” Anthrozoös 23:
213–222.
Wilson and Netting
s35 Anthrozoös
s36 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Dogs & Physical Dog walking behaviors of 12 items (6 of which were attachment measures); Cutt, H. E., Giles-Corti, B.,
Activity (DAPA) dog owners; type and size Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.58; test-retest reliability > 0.7. Four Knuiman, M. W. and Pikora, T. J.
tool of dog; attachment and factors (dog attachment, normative beliefs, motivation 2008. Physical activity behavior
social support. to comply and physical features of dog walking) ex- of dog owners: Development
plained 61.4% of total variance. Construct validity as- and reliability of the Dogs and
sessed by load value onto a dominant factor (55% Physical Activity (DAPA) tool.
variance explained by dog-attachment and 66% Journal of Physical Activity &
explained in the normative-belief items). Health 5 (Suppl. 1): S73–S89.
Dogs Exercise Exercise behavior of dogs. Sallander, M. H., Hedhammar, A.,
Behavior Rundgren, M. and Lindberg J. E.

Assessment 2001. Repeatability and validity of
a combined mail and telephone
questionnaire on demographics,
6/5/12
diet, exercise, and health status in

an insured-dog population.
Preventive Veterinary Medicine
50: 35–51.
11:40 AM
Domestic Ascione, F. R. 2000. Safe havens

Violence Pet for pets: Guidelines for programs
Abuse Survey sheltering pets for women who
(DVPAS)* are battered. http://www.human
animalconnection.org/PDF/
Page 36
ascione_safe_havens.pdf.
Draw-Yourself- Art-based assessment to Blank paper—instructions to draw self with one or Smith, M. H., Meehan, C. L.,
with-an-Animal assess the effects of the ani- more animals. Projective tool. 20-minute time limit. Enfield, R. P. and Castori, P. 2005.
tool mal ambassadors program Inter-rater reliability was at or above 80% throughout Using drawings to assess self-
on children’s perceptions of the study. animal perceptions. Anthrozoös
their relationship to animals. 18(2): 122–139.
Empathy in Pet Attitudes among a conven- 5-factor tool. Vitulli, W. F. 2006. Attitudes toward
Dogs and Cats ience sample of undergrad- empathy in domestic dogs and
Scale† uates regarding empathy in cats. Psychological Reports
domestic dogs and cats. 99(3): 981–991.
It Was Used
Equine Client Describes characteristics 23 items using a Likert scale. Higher scores indicate a Brackenridge, S. S. and Shoe-
Attachment and behavior of bonded vs. stronger bond. maker, R. S. 1996. The human/
Checklist* non-bonded clients. horse bond and client bereave-
ment in equine practice, Part 1.
Equine Practice 18(1): 19–22.
EWL (German Mood states. “moderate to high reliability and moderate validity.“ No Janke, W. and Debus, G. 1978. Rieger, G. and Turner, D. C. 1999.
abbreviation for data given. 14 mood subscales with high load factors Die Eigenschaftswoerterliste: How depressive moods affect the
list of adjectives) on 4 that were reflected similarly between genders. EWL. Goettingen: Hogrefe. behavior of singly living persons to-
ward their cats. Anthrozoös 12:
224–233.
Turner, D. C., Rieger, G. and Gygax,

L. 2003. Spouses and cats and
6/5/12
their effects on human mood.

Anthrozoös 16(3): 213–228.
Experiences in Relationship security; 18 items in original, shortened to 9 items each scale. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G. and Beck, L. and Madresh, E. 2008.
Close Relation- Avoidance and anxiety. 7-point Likert scale. No validity or reliability data. Brennan, K. A. 2000. An item Romantic partners and four-legged
11:40 AM
ships-Revised response theory analysis of self- friends: An extension of attachment

(ECR-R) report measures of a full attach- theory to relationships with pets.
ment. Journal of Personality and Anthrozoös 21(1): 43–56.
Social Psychology 78(2): 350–365.
Page 37
Human–Animal Terpin, J. L. 2004. Exploring the

Bond Scale human–animal bond in an animal-
(HABS)†, HABS assisted therapy program for
Handler Rating at-risk youth. Unpublished
Scale† doctoral dissertation, Antioch
University, USA.
Human–Animal Attachment. 6 items; Split-half reliability of 0.71 and test-retest Keil, C. 1990. Conceptual Keil, C. 1998. Loneliness, stress,
Relationship reliability results (r = 0.77, p < 0.001). framework of human–animal and human–animal attachment
Scale* relationships. Unpublished among adults. In Companion
doctoral dissertation, University Animals in Human Health,123–134,
of Kansas, USA. ed. C. C. Wilson and D. C. Turner.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilson and Netting
s37 Anthrozoös
s38 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Human/Pet Aspects of human/pet 14 items of which 12 items are forced-choice and Siegel, J. M. 1990. Stressful Siegel, J. M.1990. Stressful life
Relationships relationship: responsibility, 2 are open-ended. Items are scored by frequencies life events and use of physician events and use of physician
Measure* time with pet, attachment and percentages for the open-ended choices. The services among the elderly: The services among the elderly: The
to pet, and benefit minus benefit minus cost difference is determined by sub- moderating role of pet ownership. moderating role of pet ownership.
cost difference. tracting the number of negative categories from the Journal of Personality and Social Journal of Personality and Social
number of positive categories. Psychology 58: 1081–1086. Psychology 58: 1081–1086.
Intermediate Humane attitudes in 36 items; 4-point Likert scale, with 4 points for the Ascione, F. R. 1988. Intermediate Ascione, F. R. 1992. Enhancing
Attitude Scale 3–6-graders. most humane choice and 1 point for the least Attitude Scale. Assessment of children’s attitudes about the hu-
humane; Scores range 36–144. Cronbach’s third through sixth graders’ atti- mane treatment of animals: Gener-
␣ = 0.69. tudes toward the treatment of alization to human-directed empa-

animals. Logan, UT: Wasatch In- thy. Anthrozoös 5(3): 176–191.
stitute for Research and Evaluation.
Ascione, F. R. and Weber, C. V.
6/5/12
Ascione, F. R. and Weber, C. V. 1996. Children’s attitudes about

1996. Children’s attitudes about the humane treatment of animals
the humane treatment of animals and empathy: One-year follow up
and empathy: One-year follow up of a school-based intervention.
of a school-based intervention. Anthrozoös 9(4): 188–195.
11:40 AM

Inventory of Pet Attachment (non-conventional) Face, content and construct validity. Andrews, S. L. 1992. The
Attachment conventional) “is there a level Inventory or Pet Attachment:
(IPA)* of attachment above which Development and validation.

Page 38
the benefits of owning a pet Dissertation Abstracts Inter-

actually diminish?” (p.1). “What national 53(9-B): 494.
is the degree to which varying
levels of attachment are asso-
ciated with psychological sys-
tems, mood states, and sociali-
zation factors?” (p. 3). Phase 1
and 2: convenience sampling.
Phase 3: Control group select-
ed from convenience sample
by systematic procedure.
It Was Used
Index of Attachment. 10 items related to affectionate relationships Katcher, A. H., Friedman, E., Akiyama, H. J., Holtzman, J. M.
Attachment to with pets. Goodman, M. and Goodman, L. and Britz, W. E. 1986. Pet owner-
Pets 1988. Men, women, and dogs. ship and health status during be-
California Veterinarian 37: 14–16. reavement. Omega 17(2): 187–193.
Friedmann, E. and Thomas, S. A.

1995. Pet ownership, social sup-
port, and one year survival after
acute myocardial infarction in the
Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression
Trial (CAST). American Journal of

Cardiology 76: 1213–1217.
Jewel Satisfaction. 49 items of which 31 load on a satisfaction variable Tshohantaridis, V. A. and Koch,
6/5/12
Equestrian and 18 load on an anxiety factor. C. 2004. Development of the

Scale† Jewel Equestrian Scale. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation,
George Fox University, USA.
11:40 AM
Lexington Attachment. “ … develop a 23 items; 4-point Likert scale; 3 factors (general Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F. and Bagley, D. K. and Gonsman, V. L.
Attachment to scale with a more practical attachment, people substituting, and animal rights/ Stallones, L. 1992. Psychometric 2005. Pet attachment and person-
Pets Scale (i.e., smaller) number of items” welfare). Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.928. Scores range 1–69. evaluation of the Lexington ality type. Anthrozoös 18(1): 28–42.
(LAPS)* (p. 165). “ … develop and Item response analysis indicates LAPS is equally Attachment to Pets Scale.
evaluate a measure of pet efficient discriminating levels of attachment for all pet Anthrozoös 5(3): 160–175. Adkins, S. L. and Rajecki, D. W.
Page 39
attachment that is reliable owners. Theoretically better at identifying strong vs. 1999. Pet’s roles in parents’
and for which some prelimin- weak attachment. Appears to have face, content, bereavement. Anthrozoös 12(1):
ary evidence of validity can criterion, (concurrent) and construct (convergent) 33–41.
be provided” (p. 172). validity.
Systematic random samp-
ling using random digit dialing.
Love of Animals Attitudes. Ray, J. J. 1982. Love of animals
and Love of and love of people. Journal of
People Social Psychology 116(2): 299–300.
Wilson and Netting
s39 Anthrozoös
s40 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Measurement of Measures effect of animal- Client attention span, physical movement, commun- Heimlich, K. 2001. Animal- Schiro-Geist, C. 2007. Measure
Pet Intervention assisted therapy on client ication, and compliance on 7-point Likert scale; Pre- assisted therapy and the severely ment of Pet Intervention, MOPI. In
(MOPI)* functioning in 4 domains: post comparisons. No psychometric data. disabled child: A quantitative Assessing the Human–Animal
client attention span, physical study. Journal of Rehabilitation Bond: A Compendium of Actual
movement, communication, 67(4): 48–54. Measures, 48–49, ed. D. Anderson.
and compliance. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue
University Press.
Heimlich, K., Schiro-Geist, C. and

Broadbent, E. 2003. Animal-
assisted therapy and the child with

severe disabilities: A case study.
Rehabilitation Professional 11(2):
41–53.
6/5/12
Miller-Rada Commitment to pets. “ … 8 items; 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores Staats S., Miller, D., Carnot, M.J., Shore, E. R., Douglas, D. K. and
Commitment of add to the understanding of indicating greater commitment (range: 9–40). Rada, K. and Turnes, J. 1996. Riley, M. L. 2005. Assessing the
Pets Scale* the human animal bond by Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.90. 3 factors: Factor 1 unspeci- The Miller-Rada Commitment to concept of commitment to pets: A
introducing the concept of fied; Factor 2 interpreted as commitment to an adult Pets Scale. Anthrozoös 9(2/3): comparison of the Miller-Rada
11:40 AM
commitment to pets and by pet; Factor 3 seen as commitment in face of need 88–94. Commitment to Pets Scale to two
distinguishing this concept for extensive veterinary care. Face, content, and measures of pet attachment.
from that of attachment to construct validity. Paper presented at the Interna-
pets” (p. 88). Snowball tional Society for Anthrozoology
sampling. conference, Niagara Falls, USA,

Page 40
July 11–12, 2005.

Monash Dog Human–animal relationships: 28 items; 5-point Likert scale; two factors (perceived Dwyer, F., Bennett, P. C. and Bennett, P. C. and Rohlf, V. I. 2007.
Ownership (l) dog–owner interaction; (2) emotional closeness and negative aspects of dog Coleman, G. J. 2006. Develop- Owner–companion dog interac-
Relationship Perceived emotional close- ownership). Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.84. No normative ment of the Monash Dog Owner tions: Relationships between
Scale (MDORS)* ness; (3) Perceived costs. data. Relationship Scale (MDORS). demographic variables, potentially
Used only with adult dog Anthrozoös 19(3): 243–256. problematic behaviours, training
owners. engagement and shared activities.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science
102(1–2): 65–84.
It Was Used
“My Pet” Measures children’s 21 items; 5-point Likert scale. Companionship (items Furman, W. 1989. The develop- Bryant, B. 1990. The richness of
Inventory* relationship with pets. 1, 8, 15); nurturance (items 6, 13, 20); satisfaction ment of children’s social networks. the child–pet relationship: A
(items 3, 10, 17); reliable alliance (items 4, 11, 18); In Children’s Social Network and consideration of both benefits
affection (items 4, 14, 21); admiration (items 2, 9,16); Social Supports, 151–172, ed. and costs of pets to children.
and intimacy (items 5, 12, 19). Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.91. D. Belle. New York: Wiley. Anthrozoös 3(3): 253–261.
People’s Demographics of PO and pet. Demographics of PO and pet (13 forced-choice) Adams, C. L. 1996. Owner Adams, C. L., Bonnett, B. N. and
Experiences and 99 relationship questions (7-point Likert scale). grieving following companion Meek, A. H. 1999. Owner
Following the animal death. Unpublished response to companion animal
Death of a Pet* doctoral dissertation, University of death: Development of a theory
Guelph, Canada. and practical implications. Cana-

adian Veterinary Journal 40(1):
33–39.
6/5/12
Adams, C. L., Bonnett, B. and

Meek, A. H. 2000. Predictors of
owner response to companion
animal death in 177 clients from
14 practices in Ontario. Journal of
11:40 AM
the American Veterinary Medical

Association 217(9): 1303–1309.
Personal Evalua- Measures students’ level of 9 items; 5-point Likert scale; possible maximum Shrauger, S. J. and Schohn, M. Chamove, A. S., Crawley- at
tion Inventory confidence when interacting score of 45. Reported to have reasonable internal 1995. Self confidence in college Hatrick, O. J. and Stafford, K. J.
Page 41
(PEI) with horses and other large consistency with a strong level of test-retest reliability students: Conceptualization, 2002. Horse reactions to human
animals. (Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.87) and a high level of discrimin- measurement, and behavioural attitudes and behavior.
ate validity (e.g., being un-correlated with Marlowe- implications. Psychological Anthrozoös 15(4): 323–331.
Crowne Social Desirability Scale, r = 0.04). Assessment 2: 255–278.
Pet Abuse How children refer to pets Based upon Milner’s Child Abuse Potential Scale Raupp, C. D. 1999. Treasuring,
Potential Scale* combined with attachment. (1994) by rewording 19 items plus 27-item attach- trashing or terrorizing: Adult out-
ment scale that covers not only affection but also comes of childhood socialization
selective preference. about companion animals. Society
& Animals 7(2): 141–159.
Wilson and Netting
s41 Anthrozoös
s42 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Pet and Assessment of elements Interviewing guide. Bustad, L. 1980. Animals, Aging,
Personal History* related to pet placement and the Aged. Minneapolis:
with individuals. University of Minnesota Press.
Pet and Relationships styles of 8-item Pet Avoidance scale, Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.81. Beck, L. and Madresh, E. A. 2008.
Partnership partners and their pets. 8-item Pet Anxiety section, Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.75. Romantic partners and four-
Scale legged friends: An extension of
attachment theory to relationships
with pets. Anthrozoös 21(1):43–56.
Pet Anxiety Interactions with pet. 8 items; 7-point Likert scale; Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.75. Beck, L. and Madresh, E. A. 2008.
Scale† Romantic partners and four-legged
friends: An extension of attachment
theory to relationships with pets.
6/5/12

Pet Attachment Pet attachment. 8 items; 4-point Likert scale. Actual score range Stallones, L., Marx, M.B., Johnson, Stallones, L., Marx, M. B., Garrity,
Questionnaire 0–22. Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.75. Good factor structure; J.T. and Garrity, T.1990. Quality of T. F. and Johnson, T. P. 1988.
(PAQ) good for all animals. attachment to companion animals Attachment of companion
among U.S. adults 21 to 64 years animals among older pet owners.
11:40 AM
of age. Anthrozoös 3(3): 171–176. Anthrozoös 2(2): 118–124.

Pet Attachment Pet attachment. Combines Pet Relationship Scales 1 & 2 (Kafer et al. Chumley, P. R., Gorski, J. D.,
Scale (PAS) 1992) and 7 items from Pet Attitude Scale (Templer Saxton, A. M., Granger, B. P. and
(Also known as et al. 1981) to form a 21-item pet attachment scale New, J. C. 1993. Companion
Page 42
survey for Military using a 6-point Likert. animal attachment and military
Owners)* transfer. Anthrozoös 6(4): 258–273.
Pet Attachment Pet attachment. 34-item scale with 2 factors (companionship [12 Geller, K. S. 2005. Quantifying the
Scale (PAS)* items] and emotional fulfillment [7 items]). Strong power of pets: The development
correlations between PAS and CABS and suggests of an assessment device to
concurrent, convergent, and construct validity for measure the attachment between
the PAS. humans and companion animals.
Unpublished doctoral thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, USA.
It Was Used
Pet Attachment Comparison between two Line drawings and text (240 pages) with forced- Melson, G. F. 1988. Availability of Kidd, A. H. and Kidd, R. M. 1990.
Scale—Revised* extremes of interaction choice and 4-point (a lot or a little) Likert responses. and involvement with pets by chil- Factors in children’s attitudes to-
between a child and a pet. 11 items in original scale. dren: Determinants and correlates. ward pets. Psychological Reports
Adapted from CABS Anthrozoös 4(2): 45–52. 66(3): 775–786.
(Poresky et al. 1987).
Melson, G. F., Peet, S. and Cheryl, Vidovic, V. V., Stetic, V. V. and
S. 1991. Children’s attachment to Bratko, D. 1999. Pet ownership,
their pets: Links to socio-emotional type of pet and socio-emotional
development. Children’s Environ- development of school children.
ments Quarterly 8(2): 55–65. Anthrozoös 12(4): 211–217.
Pet Attachment Comparison between two Line drawings and text (240 pages) with forced-
Scale—Parent extremes of interaction be- choice and 5-point (a lot or a little) Likert responses.
Report* tween a child and a pet. 13 items deal with amount of time child spends on
6/5/12
Adapted from CABS pet-related activities. 14 items deal with expressions

(Poresky et al. 1987). of interest in pets during last month.
Pet Attachment Effect of pet loss. Self-administered; 7-point Likert scale. Greene, L. A. and Landis, J. 2002.
Worksheet Saying Goodbye to the Pet You
11:40 AM
(PAW)* Love: A Complete Resource to

Help You Heal. Oakland, CA: New
Harbinger Publications.
Pet Attachment Effect of pet loss on children Greene, L. A. and Landis, J. 2002.
Page 43
Worksheet and intended for parents in Saying Goodbye to the Pet You
(PAW) for discussing these effects. Love: A Complete Resource to
Children* Help You Heal. Oakland, CA: New
Harbinger Publications.
Wilson and Netting
s43 Anthrozoös
s44 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Pet Attitude Attitudes/strength of attach- 2-track tool (PO and NPO) with 7 common demo- Netting, F. E., Wilson, C. C. and Johnson, R. A. and Meadows, R.
Inventory (PAI)* ment. Broad assessment of graphic and self-rated health questions; open- and New, J. C. 1984. Developing a L. 2002. Older Latinos, pets, and
pet ownership characteristics. forced-choice responses; general pattern of con- multidisciplinary pet placement health. Western Journal of Nurs-
currence in item responses. Face, content, criterion program for community-based ing Research 24(6): 609–620.
(known groups), and construct (divergent) validity. elderly. Journal of Applied Geron-
tology 3(2): 181–191. Marks, S. G., Koepke, J. E. and
Bradley, C. L. 1994. Pet Attitude
Wilson, C. C., Netting, F. E. and Inventory. Pet attachment and
New, J. C. 1987. The pet attitude generativity among young adults.
inventory. Anthrozoös 1: 76–84. The Journal of Psychology 128:
641–650.
Pet Attitude Attitudes/strength of attach- 18 items; 7-point Likert scale; 3 factors (love and in- Templer, D. J., Salter, C.A., Dickey, Schenk, S. A., Templer, D. I.,
Scale (PAS)* ment. Broad assessment of teraction, pets in the home, joy of PO); Cronbach’s S., Baldwin, R. and Veleber, D. M. Peters, N. B. and Schmidt, M.
6/5/12
pet ownership characteristics. ␣ = 0.93; 2-week test-retest reliability of 0.92. 1981. The construction of a pet 1994. The genesis and correlates
“ … to construct a scale for Strong face validity. attitude scale. The Psychological of attitudes toward pets.
measuring the favorableness Record 31: 43–48. Anthrozoös 7(1): 60–68.
of attitudes towards pets“
(p. 43). Convenience samples.
11:40 AM
Pet Attitude Attitudes. 18 items; 7-point Likert scale; 3 factors (love and Templer, D. J., Salter, C. A., Dickey, Allen, K. M., Blascovich, J.,
Scale-Modified interaction, pets in the home, joy of PO); Cronbach’s S., Baldwin, R. and Veleber, D. M. Tomaka, J. and Kelsey, R. M.1991.
(PAS-M)* ␣ = 0.93; 2-week test-retest reliability of 0.92. 1981. The construction of a pet Presence of human friends and
Strong face validity. Scores range 18–126, with attitude scale. The Psychological pet dogs as moderators of auto-
Page 44
higher scores indicating more positive feelings Record 31: 43–48. nomic responses to stress in wo-
towards pets. Wording changed to “or would, if I men. Journal of Personality and
had one.” Munsell, K.L., Canfield, M., Social Psychology 61: 582–589.
Templer, D. I., Tangan, K. and
Arikawa, H. 2004. Modification Chumley, P. R., Gorski, J. D.,
of the Pet Attitude Scale. Saxton, A. M., Granger, B. P. and
Society & Animals 12(2): 137–142. New, J. C. 1993. Companion
animal attachment and military
transfer. Anthrozoös 6(4): 258–
273.
It Was Used
Pet Avoidance Interactions with pet. 8 items; 7-point Likert scale. Beck, L. and Madresh E. A. 2008.
Scale† Romantic partners and four-legged
friends: An extension of attachment
theory to relationships with pets.
Pet Behavior Frequency of perceived Woodward, L. E. and Bauer, A. L.
Scale (PBS) positive pet behaviors. 2007. People and their pets: A re-
lational perspective on interper-
sonal complementarity and attach-
ment in companion animal owners.

Society & Animals 15(2): 169–189.
Pet Psychological impact of 3 factors: guilt, anger, and grief. 16 items with inter- Hunt, M. and Padilla, Y. 2006. Hunt, M., Al-Awadi, H. and John-
6/5/12
Bereavement losing a pet. nal consistency = 0.87. Scores range 0–48, with Development of the Pet Bereave- son, M. 2008. Psychological
Questionnaire factor scores ranging 0–3. Good factor structure ment Questionnaire. Anthrozoös sequelae of pet loss following
(PBQ)† and construct validity; highly correlated with Beck 19(4): 308–324. Hurricane Katrina. Anthrozoös
Depression Inventory. 21(2): 109–121.
Pet Bonding Relationship between the 25-items; 3-point Likert scale. Angle, R. L. 1995. Utilization of the Biere, R. E. 2000. The relationship
11:40 AM
Scale (PBS)* human/companion animal pet bonding scale to examine the between pet bonding, self-
bond and self-esteem in relation between the human/ esteem, and empathy in pre-
pre-adolescents. companion animal bond and self- adolescents. Unpublished
esteem in pre-adolescence. doctoral dissertation, University of
Page 45
Unpublished thesis, University of New Mexico, USA.

Houston, USA.
Pet Care Pet care, pet attachment, pet 18-item scale to measure pet care experience and Robertson, J. C., Gallivan, J. and
Experience and care experience and pet attachment; 5-point Likert scale, 2 items forced- Maclntyre, P. D. 2004. Sex differ-
Pet Attachment attachment. choice [Yes/No]. Some items taken from Pet ences in the antecedents of animal
Scale* Attitude Inventory (Wilson, Netting and New 1988). use attitudes. Anthrozoös 17(4):
306–319.
Wilson and Netting
s45 Anthrozoös
s46 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Pet Costs Experiences between children 22 items in a “structured alternative” format that Bryant, B. 1988. Parental strate- Bryant, B. 1990. The richness of
Inventory (PCI)* and their pets that make describes two different ways that children might feel gies actually used in responding to the child–pet relationship: A
them sad, worried, or angry. about a given situation. The child must decide which children’s stress experiences consideration of both benefits
description best reflects his/her point of view and involving animals. Paper presented and costs of pets to children.
then checks box to indicate where the description at the Annual Meeting of the Delta Anthrozoös 3: 253–261.
falls on a 4-point Likert scale. Scale addresses 7 Society, Orlando, FL, USA,
factors: distress of pet death or rejection; distress September 29 to October 1, 1988.
associated with care, needs, and nurturing of pet;
unfair grief; dissatisfaction or noninvolvement with
the pets’ needs; worry about pet safety; getting into
trouble; and distress of not being allowed to care for

pet needs. Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.78.
Pet Expectations Role you expect pet to play Individual expectations composed of 13 items Kidd, A. H., Kidd, R. M. and Kidd, A. H., Kidd, R. M. and
6/5/12
Inventory (PEI). in your life and if you have (7-point Likert scale). Reponses along with 3 George, C. C. 1992. Veterinarians George, C. C. 1992. Successful
Also known as children the role the pet background questions. Expectations of pet in our and successful pet adoptions. and unsuccessful pet adoptions.
George’s Pet expected to play in their lives. children’s lives is composed of 17 items (7-point Psychological Reports 71: Psychological Reports 70:
Expectations Likert scale). 551–557. 547–561.
inventory*
11:40 AM
Pet/Friend Attitudes towards pet 60 positive affective statements related to the Davis, J. H. 1985. Implications of
Q-Sort (PFQ)* ownership; includes PAS emotional relationship of children and pets. the human–animal companion
(Templer et al. 1981). bond in the community. Home
Health Nurse 3(6): 11–14.

Page 46
Davis, J. H. 1987. Preadolescent

self-concept, development and pet
ownership. Anthrozoös 1(2): 90–99.
Pet Friendship Facets of friendship with the 26 items; 5-point Likert scale. Has content validity Davis, J. and Juhasz, A. M. 1995.
Scale (PFS) family pet. based upon (1) literature on the emotional relation- The pre-adolescent/pet friendship
ship; (2) interviews with re-adolescents; and (3) bond. Anthrozoös 8(2): 78–82.
owner research instruments used to identify
attitudes towards pets.
It Was Used
Pet Helpfulness Judgments of pet helpfulness 3 items; Yes/No. Adkins, S. L. and Rajecki, D. W.
Scale during first year after a death. 1999. Pet’s roles in parents’ ber-
eavement. Anthrozoös 12(1):
33–41.
Pet Inventory 3 types of questions: Informa- Open-ended and forced-choice questions. Ory, M. and Goldberg, E. 1983.
Assessment tion on the presence of a pet; Pet possession and life satisfaction
the type of pet; and the in elderly women. In New Perspec-
degree of attachment to tives on Our Lives With Companion
the pet. Animals, 303–317, ed. A. Katcher
and A. M. Beck. Philadelphia: Uni-

versity of Pennsylvania Press.
Pet Loss and Davis, H., Irwin, P., Richardson, M.
6/5/12
Religious Issues and O’Brien-Malone. 2003. When

Interview* a pet dies: Religious issues, euth-
anasia and strategies for coping
with bereavement. Anthrozoös
16(1): 57–74.
11:40 AM
Pet Loss Planchon, L. A., Templer, D. I.,

Questionnaire* Stokes, S. and Keller, J. 2002.
Death of a companion cat or dog
and human bereavement: Psycho-
Page 47
social variables. Society & Animals

10(1): 93–105.
Pet Ownership The experience of Open-ended interview guide with 10 questions. Allen, J. M., Kellegrew, D. H. and
Interview Guide* pet ownership. Jaffe, D. 2000. The experience of Jaffe, D. 2000. Pet Ownership In-
pet ownership as a meaningful terview Guide. The experience of
occupation. Canadian Journal of pet ownership as a meaningful
Occupational Therapy 67: occupation. Canadian Journal of
271–278. 271–278.
Wilson and Netting
s47 Anthrozoös
s48 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Pet Ownership Field observations of naturally Field notes are written before, during, and after the Allen, J. M., Kellegrew, D. H. and
Observations* occurring interactions observations. Jaffe, D. 2000. The experience
between participants and of pet ownership as a meaningful
their pets. occupation. Canadian Journal of
Occupational Therapy 67:
271–278.
Pet Ownership Demographics, pet type, Forced-choice and one descriptive response. Daly, B. and Morton, L. L. 2003.
Survey (POS) living arrangement. Children with pets do not show
higher empathy: A challenge to
current views. Anthrozoös 16(4):

298–314.
Pet Personality Characteristic of 6 species of Respondents asked to answer “How accurately do Gosling, S. D. and Bonnenburg,
6/5/12
Trait Rating pet and their owners. these traits describe your pet?“ A. V. 1998. An integrative
Scale* approach to personality research
in anthrozoology: Ratings of six
species of pets and their owners.
Anthrozoös 11(3): 148–156.
11:40 AM
Pet Preference Rates the types of pet one 5-point Likert scale. Reliability adequate (Cronbach’s Daly, B. and Morton, L. L. 2000.
Inventory (PPI) would like to have. ␣ = 0.77). Children with pets do not show
higher empathy: A challenge to
current views. Anthrozoös 16(4):

Page 48
298–314.
Pet Relationship For use with one’s own family. Self-administered; 30 items; Likert scale; 6 sub- Eckstein, D. 2000. The Pet
Impact Inventory Role of pets in family and scales—the total of which is a global measure of Relationship Impact Inventory
(PRII)* impact of pets on home. commitment and of pet’s importance in your life. (PRII).The Family Journal: Coun-
seling and Therapy for Couples
and Families 8(2): 192–198.
It Was Used
Pet Relationship Favorable attitudes towards 22 self-report items (6-point Likert scale) organized Lago, D., Kafer, R., Delaney, M. Kafer, R., Lago, D., Wamboldt, P.
Scale (PRS) pets. Validation study was into 3 subscales: affectionate companionship (PRS1; and Connell, C. 1988. Assessment and Harrington, F. 1992. The Pet
“based upon comparison of scores range10–32), equal family member status of favorable attitudes toward pets: Relationship Scale: Replication of
the PRS scales with the Pet (PRS2; scores range 9–27), and mutual physical Development and preliminary psychometric properties in
Attitude Scale“ (p. 240). activity (PRS3; scores range 8–25). Inferred strong validation of self-report pet random samples and association
Convenience sample. correlation between PRS and PAS scores. Face, relationship scales. Anthrozoös with attitudes towards wild ani-
content, and construct (convergent) validity. 1(4): 240–254. mals. Anthrozoös 5: 93–105.
Lago, D., Delaney, M., Miller, D.

and Grill, C. 1989. Companion
animals, attitudes towards pets,

and health outcomes among the
elderly: A long term follow-up.
6/5/12
Pet Relationship Favorable attitudes towards 22 self-report items organized into 3 subscales: Kafer, R., Lago, D., Wamboldt, P.
Scale (PRS) pets. affectionate companionship (PRS1; scores range and Harrington, F. 1992. The Pet
(refined) 10–32), equal family member status (PRS2; scores Relationship Scale: Replication of
range 9–27), and mutual physical activity (PRS3; psychometric properties in random
11:40 AM
scores range 8–25). PRS4 added later to measure samples and association with
dominance over one’s pet (scores range 2–11). attitudes towards wild animals.
Anthrozoös 5: 93–105.
Miller, M. and Lago, D. 1990. Ob-

Page 49
served pet-owner in-home inter-

actions: Species differences and
association with the Pet Relation-
ship Scale. Anthrozoös 4(2): 49–54.
Pet Role Scales Identifies role (functions) of 6 role scales (with 1–5 items each): distraction, Adkins, S. L. and Rajecki, D. W.
pets on parental bereavement. comfort, confidant, burden, scapegoat, and worry. 1999. Pets’ roles in parents’ be-
Measured on a 6-point Likert scale. reavement. Anthrozoös 12(1): 33–41.
Wilson and Netting
s49 Anthrozoös
s50 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Pets and Intended to be used in the Open-ended and deals only with physical dimension Bustad, L. 1980. Animals, Aging,
Personal home of a potential place- of health. and the Aged. Minneapolis:
History ment candidate. Coupled University of Minnesota Press.
with input from a physician or
therapist concerning the
reasons for recommending a
pet placement.
Pet/Friend Emotional relationship 60 positive declarative affective statements; evalua- Davis, J. H. 1987. Preadolescent
Q Sort between children and pets. tion of content validity; hand card sort correlation self-concept development and pet
p = 0.96. Test-re-test reliability p = 0.82. ownership. Anthrozoös 1(2): 90–99.

Pet Visitation Fried, K. P. 1996. Pet facilitated
Program Survey therapy as adjunctive care for
6/5/12
Form* home hospice patients: A human

service program design to promote
quality of life. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: Sciences
and Engineering 57(5-B): 3409.
11:40 AM
Physical and Baldry, A. C. 2005. Animal abuse

Emotional among pre-adolescents directly
Tormenting and indirectly victimized at school
against Animals and at home. Criminal Behaviour

Page 50
Scale (PET)* Mental Health 15(2): 97–110.

It Was Used
Primary Attitude Measures care and treatment 23 items with Yes/No response format, with more Ascione, F. R. 1988. Primary Atti- Ascione, F. R. 1992. Enhancing
Scale (PAS) of animals in K-2 grades. humane response assigned 2 points and the less tude Scale. Assessment of Kinder- children’s attitudes about the hu-
humane response assigned 1 point. Scores range garten through Second Graders’ mane treatment of animals: Gen-
23–46. Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.63. Attitudes towards the Treatment eralization to human-directed em-
of Animals. Logan, UT: Wasatch pathy. Anthrozoös 5(3): 176–191.
Institute for Research and
Evaluation. Nicoll,K., Trifone,C. and Samuels,
W. E. 2008. An in-class, humane
education program can improve
young students’ attitudes to
wards animals. Society & Animals

16: 45–60.
Provision of Social Support. Modification Three subscales: Self-enhancing admiration with Bryant, B. K. 1990. The richness Bryant, B. and Donnellan, M. B.
6/5/12
Support of Furman’s (1989) original affection (6 items, Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.92); Exclusivity of the child–pet relationship. A 2007. The relation between socio-
Measure measure about human with intimacy (3 items, Cronbach’s ␣ =0.86); and consideration of both benefits economic status concerns and
relationships. Nurturing companionship (6 items, Cronbach’s ␣ and costs of the pets to children angry peer conflict resolution is
= 0.87). Anthrozoös 3: 253–261. moderated by pet provisions of
support. Anthrozoös 20(3):
11:40 AM
213–223.
Quality of Life Quality of life associated with Internet survey; 25 items and 1 essay on why avian Anderson, D. C. 2007. Assessing Anderson, P. K. 2003. A bird in the
Offered by benefits of avian companion- companionship is important. the Human–Animal Bond: A house: An anthropological per-
Bird Ownership* ship, routine care, level of vet- Compendium of Actual Measures. spective on companion parrots.
Page 51
erinary care, membership in West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Society & Animals 11(4):
bird clubs, publication owned University Press. 393–418.
on birds.
Questionnaire Demographic data and 27 items; short answer; 6-point Likert scale. 21 items Gosse, G. H. and Barnes, M. J.
for Pet Owners personal attitudes. gather demographic data and the other 6 items are 1994. Human grief resulting from
(QPO) about personal attitudes. Inter-item correlations of the death of a pet. Anthrozoös
these 6 items were high enough to allow for hypo- 7(2): 103–112.
thesis testing [no values given].
Wilson and Netting
s51 Anthrozoös
s52 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Reasons People Demographics and reasons 49-item survey consisting of 2 parts. Part 1 consists Loughlin, C. A. and Dowrick, D. W.
Keep Avian for avian pet keeping. of 13 questions dealing with demographics; Part 2 1993. Psychological needs filled
Companions consists of 36 items (5-point Likert scale) on reasons by avian companions. Anthrozoös
people keep birds. Validation conducted by com- 6(3): 166–172.
parison with 2 other pet surveys. Additional validity
support: graduate students were asked to identify
which of a host of categories of psychological need
most closely matched each item in Part 2. They
identified 6 needs (esteem, social safety, cognitive,
power, and aesthetic needs).
Relinquishment Why people give up pets. Mondelli, F., Prato, P., Previde, E.,
Questionnaire* Verga, M., Levi, D., Magistrelli, S.
and Valsecchi, P. 2004. The bond
6/5/12
that never developed: Adoption

and relinquishment of dogs in a
rescue shelter. Journal Applied
Animal Welfare Science 7(4):
253–266.
11:40 AM
Scale of Attitudes towards treatment Bowd, A. D. 1984. Development

Attitudes toward of animals. and validation of a scale of attitudes
the Treatment toward the treatment of animals.
of Animals Educational and Psychological

Page 52
Measurement 44(2): 513–515.

Self Assessment Empathy with animals. Items are in the form of a question. Test-retest relia- Killian, B. 1994. Das Tierbild des Hergovich, A., Monshi, B.,
of Empathy bility of 0.70 at the beginning of study and 0.50 kindes im Verlauf seiner kognitiven Semmler, G. and Zieglmayer, V.
with Animals three months later. Entwicklung. Unpublished 2002. The effects of the presence
Unveroffentlichte Diplomarbeit, of a dog in the classroom.
Universitat Wien. Anthrozoös 15(1): 37–50.
It Was Used
Self Psychology Whether a companion animal 16 questions centered on what the companion Brown, S. E. 2007. Companion
Interview serves as a self-object (i.e., animal means to the person. Revised in 2009, animals as self objects.
serves as a provider of self- additional questions added, some removed, Anthrozoös 20(4): 329–343.
esteem, self-cohesion, calm- resulting in total of 17 questions; face validity only.
ness, soothing, and accept- Brown, S. E. 2011. Self psycholo-
ance) for the respondent. gy and the human–animal bond:
An overview. In The Psychology of
the Human–Animal Bond: A
Handbook for Clinicians and
Researchers,137–149, ed.
C. Blazina, D. S. Shen-Miller and

G. Boyraz. New York: Springer.
Service Animal Content validity based upon comparison of respon- Zapf, S. A. and Rough, R. B. 2002.
6/5/12
Adaptive ses of occupational therapists with physical thera- The development of an instrument
Intervention pists and another group of health care professionals. to match individuals with disabilities
Assessment Inter-rater reliability results indicate good to high and service animals. Disability and
(SAAIA)* agreement on 6 of 8 variables. Kappa scores indi- Rehabilitation: An International
cate low inter-rater reliability in terms of clinical utility. Multidisciplinary Journal 24(1–3): 43–48.
11:40 AM
Staff Attitudes Staff members’ concern for 9 items; inadequate description of instrument. Crowley-Robinson, P. and Black-
Towards therapy dog, her disappear- Appears to be nominal-level response categories. shaw, J. K. 1998. Nursing home
Therapy Dog ance, and to AAT programs. staffs’ empathy for a missing ther-
and AAT apy dog, their attitudes to animal-
Page 53
Program assisted therapy programs and

suitable dog breeds. Anthrozoös
11(2): 101–104.
Stakeholder Attitudes towards farm animal 51 items (Likert scale), with 1 qualitative question Heleski, C. R., Mertig, A. G. and
Attitudes welfare based upon the 5 and 13 background questions. Zanella, A. J. 2006. Stakeholder
towards Farm Freedoms and 15 husbandry attitudes toward farm animal
Animal Welfare issues. welfare. Anthrozoös 19(4):
290–307.
Wilson and Netting
s53 Anthrozoös
s54 Anthrozoös
It Was Used
Student Percep- Attitude. Blackshaw, J. K. and Blackshaw,
tions of Attitudes A. W. 1993. Student perceptions
to the Human– of attitudes to the human animal
Animal Bond bond. Anthrozoös 6(3): 190–198.
Survey on Pet Explores link between having Descriptive questions. Rud, A. G., Jr. and Beck, A. M.
Animals in the pets in a classroom and 2006. Companion animals in
Classroom* learning effects. Indiana elementary schools.
Anthrozoös 16(3): 241–251.
Survey for Animal attachment by adult 21-item scale with 18 questions aimed at what was Chumley, P. R., Gorski, J. D.,
Military Com- caregiver. done with pets at transfer time. Closed-ended Saxton, A. M., Granger, B. P. and
panion Animal questions were asked about the arrangements for New, J. C. 1993. Companion
Owners pets, pet type, pet source, length of ownership, animal attachment and military
6/5/12
previous transfer with pet, reasons for leaving pet, transfer. Anthrozoös 6(4): 258–273.
reason for transfer, etc. 3 open-ended questions on
the effects on the family if a pet was ever left behind,
what the military would do to assist the pet transfer,
and general comments regarding pets of military
11:40 AM
owners. Validity data were generated through the

use of a semantic differential scale and these scores
compared with the attachment score. Kendall’s
tau = 0.552 (CI = 0.446, 0.658) showed strength
and direction. Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.95.

Page 54
Survey about 9 categories for maintaining a 9 categories with 2 items per category; 7-point Horvath, T. and Roelans, A. M.
Bird Feeders bird feeder: companionship, Likert scale. “whatever the face validity of state- 1991. Backyard feeders: Not
(Backyard Feed felt needs, duty, anthropomor- ments, the pairs actually measure a common entirely for the birds. Anthrozoös
Survey BFS) phism, relaxation, entertain- actor.” Limited range score produce correlation of 4(4): 232–236.
ment, escape, sharing, and 0.65.
aesthetic value.
It Was Used
Tortoise Based upon Backyard Feed Survey 20 items (5-point Likert scale). Unlike Templer, Kamper, K. and Love, J. 1998.
Caretaking and compared with BFS and used 2 items for “interaction” instead of 4. Motivation aspects of desert
Questionnaire PAS by Templer. Found common tortoise caretaking. Anthrozoös
(TCQ) factors. Sufficient correlation be- 11(2): 87–94.
tween paired questions to assume
their usefulness with only minor
changes. Measures aesthetic,
anthropomorphism, sharing, enter-
tainment, feel needed, escape,
companionship, duty, and relaxation.

Volunteers’ Volunteers’ experiences in nursing 111 items containing both Likert and semantic Granger, B. P. and Carter, D. 1991.
Experience in home. Socio-demographics, tyoe differential items. Pretested on comparable group The use and nonuse of companion
6/5/12
Nursing Home of nursing home visit, reasons for of volunteers not in the study group for clarity, un- animals by volunteers in nursing
volunteering, level of volunteer derstandability, and readability. Attitude scales used homes: A comparative study.
anxiety during initial encounters with to measure anxiety, interaction, and acceptance; Anthrozoös 4(4): 237–246.
residents and staff, level of inter- rank order comparison used to assess reasons,
action with residents and staff, volun- responses, and satisfaction between 2 groups.
11:40 AM
teer perception of acceptance by Cronbach’s ␣ ranged between 0.96 and 0.64.

residents and staff, total volun- Composite indices were developed for anxiety,
teer satisfaction with experience. interaction, and acceptance. Weighted values
for each item were summed to form the indexes.
Page 55
Le Travail en Affective elements of HAI in animal 26 items in original instrument, five were removed Porcher, J., Cousson-Gelie, F. and
elevage (work husbandry. from analysis; 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores Dantzer, R. 2004. Affective com-
with livestock) appear to indicate positive feelings. ponents of the human–animal re-
lationship in animal husbandry:
Development and validation of a
questionnaire. Psychological
Reports 95(1): 275–290.
*Tools identified in Anderson, D. 2007. Assessing the Human–Animal Bond: A Compendium of Actual Measures. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
†
Tools identified with David Anderson, 2008.
PO = pet owner; NPO = non-pet owner
Wilson and Netting
s55 Anthrozoös

VHA 2012 The Status of Instrument Development in The Human Animal Interaction. Field Wilson y Netting

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

VHA 2012 The Status of Instrument Development in The Human Animal Interaction. Field Wilson y Netting

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AZ VOL.

25–Anniversary Issue:Layout 1 6/5/12 11:40 AM Page 11

ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 25, SUPPLEMENT REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2012

The Status of Instrument

Richmond, Virginia, USA

Anthrozoös DOI: 10.2752/175303712X13353430376977

by suggestions for future instrument development and research. Finally,

The Status of Instrument Development in the Human–Animal Interaction Field

Searching the Literature

“object relation” AND “Domestic Animal.”

Wilson and Netting

The Status of Instrument Development in the Human–Animal Interaction Field

loneliness in long-term care residents (Banks and Banks 2007).

Wilson and Netting

Intervention studies are based on the concept of effectiveness-based programming (e.g.,

The Importance of Reliable and Valid Measures

ment) it purports to measure? (Grinnell 1997, p. 167).

The Status of Instrument Development in the Human–Animal Interaction Field

Wilson and Netting

Discussion and Implications

The Status of Instrument Development in the Human–Animal Interaction Field

Wilson and Netting

absolute changes or as a percentage of the initial score).

The Status of Instrument Development in the Human–Animal Interaction Field

5(Suppl. 1): S73–S89.

Wilson and Netting

Dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA.

Appendix 1. Instruments identified (in alphabetical order).

Personality and attitudes towards

Animal Attitude Attitudes. Velde, S. 2005. The development

Scale and validation of a research evalua-

Kennedy-Western University, USA.

role of disgust sensitivity. British Jour- and Therapy 38(5): 509–530.

logical dimensions, as per- Harrington. Potters Bar, UK: Univer-

Animal species preference.

People to people to companion animals.

Attachment to Attachment to cats. Bradshaw, J. W. and Limond, J. Stammbach, K. B. and Turner,

cial Psychology 116(2): 299–300.

known as Dog dogs: A study of university wards assistance dogs in Japan

sions, one being & Animals 5(3): 205–218.

2007. Battered pets and

labels. Used 50 adjective

parative approach to evaluating

(BIARE)* animals, animals used to with Children, Adolescents, and 17–34.

coerce or control a person, Their Caregivers. San Diego, CA:

1994. Adjustment to the death of

sentience, covert, isolate, Ascione, F. R. 2007. Italian youths’

Test (Animal/ concerned with feeding base: www.ets.org.

cruelty to animals. Journal of Child

Children’s Children’s representations of Story-based methodology. McNicholas, J. and Collis, G. M.

(p. 44). Sampling unknown.

supportive factors in the health of companion animal. Omega:

Companion Gage, G. and Magnunson, M. S.

measures. Anthrozoös 2(4):

Cruelty to Dadds, M. R., Whiting, C., Bunn,

Children & The Cruelty to Animals Inventory.

Animals Journal of Abnormal Child

impulsivity.” Factor analysis suggests 3 factors

Gosling, S. D., Sandy, C. J. and

Behavior Rundgren, M. and Lindberg J. E.

diet, exercise, and health status in

Domestic Ascione, F. R. 2000. Safe havens

Turner, D. C., Rieger, G. and Gygax,