65
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta
2024, Vol. 50, Nº 183, 65-81
ISSN: 0211-7339
Using the Doggy Issues and Guidance (DIG) Assessment
Tool for Informing Individualized, Reinforcement-Based
Treatment of Canine Behavioral Issues
Uso de la herramienta de evaluación Doggy Issues and
Guidance (DIG) para informar el tratamiento individualizado
y basado en refuerzo de los problemas de conducta canina
Laura Villegas1, Joshua Jessel1, Felipe Magalhães Lemos2,3
1Queens College, City University of New York
2Universidade Federal de São Carlos
3Luna ABA
Resumen
Los problemas de conducta ponen a los perros en
riesgo de ser entregados a refugios de animales y poten-
cialmente de ser sacricados. Diseñamos una entrevista
abierta que se ha denominado herramienta de evalua-
ción Doggy Issues and Guidance (DIG) para informar el
tratamiento individualizado de los problemas de con-
ducta. Se entrevistó a cinco propietarios utilizando la
evaluación DIG para identicar variables relevantes que
inuyen en los problemas de conducta de sus perros.
Luego, dos perros participaron en un análisis funcio-
nal posterior, validando empíricamente la información
obtenida de las entrevistas. Finalmente, utilizamos el
entrenamiento de habilidades de cooperación para au-
mentar el conducta apropiado (es decir, sentarse y acos-
tarse) y reemplazar los problemas de conducta (es decir,
agresión, ladridos, saltos) en dos caninos que dependen
únicamente del refuerzo. Se realizaron cuestionarios de
validez social para evaluar (a) la aceptabilidad, compren-
sión, colaboración y viabilidad de la evaluación DIG y (b)
la aceptabilidad y satisfacción con los resultados del tra-
tamiento. Los propietarios que completaron los cuestio-
narios de validez social proporcionaron valoraciones po-
sitivas de todo el proceso de evaluación y tratamiento.
PalabRas clave
Canino, entrenamiento en habilidades de cooperación,
problemas de conducta, análisis funcional.
abstRact
Behavioral issues put dogs at risk of being surren-
dered to animal shelters and potentially being eutha-
nized. We designed an open-ended interview that has
been termed the Doggy Issues and Guidance (DIG) as-
sessment tool to inform the individualized treatment
of behavioral issues. Five owners were interviewed
using the DIG assessment to identify relevant variables
inuencing their dog’s behavioral issues. Two dogs
then participated in a subsequent functional analysis,
empirically validating information obtained from the
interviews. Finally, we used cooperation skills training
to increase appropriate behavior (i.e., sitting and lying)
and replace the behavioral issues (i.e., aggression, bar-
king, jumping) in two canines relying solely on reinfor-
cement. Social validity questionnaires were conducted
to evaluate (a) the acceptability, understanding, co-
llaboration, and feasibility of the DIG assessment and
(b) acceptability and satisfaction with the treatment
outcomes. Owners who completed the social validity
questionnaires provided positive ratings for the entire
assessment and treatment process.
KeywoRds
Canine, cooperation skills training, behavior issues,
functional analysis
Correspondencia: Joshua Jessel, Department of Psychology, Queens College, 65-30 Kissena Blvd, Queens, NY 11367.
E-mail: Joshua.Jessel@qc.cuny.edu
Recibido: 30/03/2024; aceptado: 03/05/2024
66 USING THE DOGGY ISSUES AND GUIDANCE (DIG) ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR INFORMING ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
Approximately 6.5 million cats and dogs are
relinquished to shelters every year, and around
1.5 million of these animals are euthanized
due to overcrowding and lack of adoptive
homes (Protopopova & Wynne, 2015; Winslow
et al., 2018). In addition, 26% of those dogs are
sent to the shelters due to unmanageable be-
havioral issues such as destructiveness, diso-
bedience, excessive barking, and stereotypic
responses (Dorey et al., 2012; Pfaller-Sadovsky,
Arnott, & Hurtado-Parrado, 2019). In fact, sur-
veys indicate that as high as 86 to 90% of all
dogs exhibit behavioral issues, which can put
them at risk for abandonment, abuse, or ne-
glect. Due to these high statistics, researchers
consider behavioral issues amongst dogs to
be a “signicant animal welfare issue” (Yin et
al., 2008).
The most common and severe form of be-
havioral issues exhibited by dogs is aggres-
sion. Canine aggression is a typical adaptive
communicative response between dogs. Spe-
cically, dominance-associated aggression,
which is the most common aggression form
exhibited by dogs, is a natural evolutionar-
ily selected trait passed down genetically in
canines (Cameron, 1997). This aggressive be-
havior poses a great risk of danger for family
members in a household setting (Mehrkam
et al., 2020). In many states, such as New York,
canine aggression can lead to owners being
legally mandated to (a) pay for damages if
perpetrated against a human or (b) seclude,
relinquish, or euthanize their pet if perpetrat-
ed against another dog or companion animal
(Agriculture and Markets Law, 2020, New York
Consolidated Laws, Agriculture and Markets
Law - AGM § 121. Night quarantine, retrieved
from https://codes.ndlaw.com/ny/agricul-
ture-and-markets-law/agm-sect-121.html).
Functional analysis is a common tool used
to identify environmental variables contribut-
ing to behavioral issues to better inform eec-
tive behavioral treatment. However, functional
analysis is more commonly associated with
the behavioral issues exhibited by humans di-
agnosed with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (see Hanley et al., 2003 for a review).
In a seminal demonstration of the function-
al analysis, Iwata et al. (1982/1994) described
the operant methodology used to assess the
causal relations between self-injurious behav-
ior (SIB) and common potential reinforcers
(e.g., attention, escape from demands) with
nine participants with developmental disabili-
ties. The authors identied that severe prob-
lem behavior such as SIB could be inuenced
by environmental consequences, suggesting
that behavioral treatments could be estab-
lished rearranging those same consequences
to instead support some form of alternative
appropriate behavior.
Although the functional analysis method-
ology has yet to fully be embraced with other
species, there have been some single-case
demonstrations with SIB in a captive baboon
(Dorey et al., 2009), feces throwing and spitting
in a captive chimpanzee (Martin et al. 2011), ag-
gression in a captive lemur (Farmer- Dougan,
2014), and self-injurious feather plucking in a
black vulture (Morris & Slocum, 2019). Assess-
ments of behavioral issues in dogs currently
consist of mostly closed-ended questionnaires
and standardized testing in an attempt to es-
67
LAURA VILLEGAS · JOSHUA JESSEL · FELIPE MAGALHÃES LEMOS
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
tablish the behavioral issues a dog exhibits
and classify this behavior (Dorey et al., 2012).
These assessments do not include an empirical
validation of the environmental variables con-
tributing to behavioral issues and may inu-
ence the continued use of punishment tech-
niques such as kneeing the dog in the chest,
squirting the dog with water, pulling on the
dog’s choke chain, and stepping on their leash
to keep them down (Yin et al., 2008). By using
a function-based assessment to determine the
environmental variables sustaining behavioral
issues, more reinforcement-based treatments
can be developed and used for canines.
In a single-case example, Mehrkam et al.
(2020) used functional analysis methodology
to assess the environmental variables main-
taining human-directed resource guarding
behavior exhibited by a dog in a home set-
ting. The functional analysis consisted of three
standardized conditions (escape, attention,
and tangible) evaluating potential reinforcers,
which were presented in a sequential order
compared to a single control condition. The
functional analysis determined that resource
guarding occurred in the presence of a human
hand across multiple consequences. Therefore,
the experimenters evaluated three treatments
specically matched to each test condition
from the functional analysis. The treatments
either included (a) providing escape from the
hand contingent on the absence of guarding
behavior, (b) praise contingent on the absence
of guarding behavior, and (c) a preferred tan-
gible item contingent on sitting and attentive
behavior. Results of the three treatments dem-
onstrated that operant procedures derived
from the functional analysis were successful in
decreasing the resource guarding behavior.
Canine behaviors such as jumping on own-
ers could also be construed as problematic, es-
pecially considering if the dogs are exception-
ally large (Dorey et al., 2011; Pfaller-Sadovsky
et al., 2019). Pfaller-Sadovsky et al. (2019), con-
ducted functional analyses for ve dogs who
exhibited jumping behaviors. The functional
analysis used the same standardized test con-
ditions to inform a treatment of noncontingent
reinforcement (NCR). Following the functional
analysis, the dog was given reinforcers on a
time-based schedule, regardless of whether
jumping occurred and the treatment eective-
ly decreased jumping up in three out of four
dogs.
The functional analysis methodology was
also extended to canine behavioral issues that
are more stereotypic in nature such as circling
or excessive oor licking (Hall et al., 2015). Hall
et al. (2015) began with the implementation
of surveys to better understand antecedents
and consequences of the behavioral issues
as reported by the dog’s owners. The authors
then conducted the functional analyses using
the information suggested to be inuencing
the stereotypic behavior (e.g., removal of light,
access to a walk outside) before implementing
treatments developed based on the results of
the functional analyses with three dogs. Hall et
al. (2015) implemented dierential reinforce-
ment of alternative behavior (DRA) and dier-
ential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO)
based procedures; however, still relied on pun-
ishment procedures (i.e., timeout) for two of
the three participants.
68 USING THE DOGGY ISSUES AND GUIDANCE (DIG) ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR INFORMING ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
The literature reviewed above provides a
multitude of dierent functional analysis and
treatment procedures that have been imple-
mented across dierent owners, dogs, and
behavioral issues. While eective, the range of
procedures limits a therapist’s ability to iden-
tify a comprehensive treatment package that
begins with the initial interviews with fam-
ily members and ends with a socially accept-
able treatment that has produced meaningful
change in behavioral issues for any dogs (cf.,
Hanley et al. 2014). The purpose of this study
was to design an open-ended indirect assess-
ment that could be used to inform an individ-
ualized functional analysis for each dog and
develop a comprehensive behavioral treat-
ment package to reduce any behavioral issues
reported by the dog owners. The behavioral
treatment focused on using DRA as a form
of cooperation skills training to improve the
relationship between the owner and dog by
focusing on only reinforcement-based strate-
gies. Social validity measures were collected to
ensure the assessment and treatment process
was found to be acceptable and helpful to the
owner’s situation.
Method
Subjects, Setting, and Materials
Description of dogs were summarized in Ta-
ble 1. Toby was a Lhasa Apso that was acquired
at 2 months of age from a professional breeder.
He was 11 years old at the time of the study. His
owners referred him for participation because
they reported loud and incessant barking that
occurred every time they began to prepare
his food. Shayla was a Beagle mix that was ac-
quired at 2 months of age from a family friend
and was 9 years old at the time of the study.
The owners found it dicult to leave the house
because they reported Shayla would immedi-
ately begin to whine and jump on them to get
them to stop. In addition, Shayla was a large
dog, which created a precarious situation for
the female owner. Killian was a Rat Terrier mix
that was acquired at 1 year of age from an ani-
mal shelter. He was 9 years old at the time of
the study. Owner’s referred Killian for partici-
pation in this study because they reported he
was afraid of large dogs and would often pull
on the leash and bark at them in public. Casey
was a Labrador/Pitbull mix that was acquired
at 3 months of age from an animal shelter. She
was 6 years old at the time of the study and
had diculty with the presence of other dogs
when with her owner (i.e., owner’s reported
Casey was overly protective). Charlie was a
Sheepadoodle that was acquired at 2 months
of age from a professional breeder and was 1
year old at the time of the study. Similarly, to
Casey, Charlie reportedly had diculty with
other dogs being around his owner.
The DIG assessments were conducted vir-
tually over a video conferencing application.
Any treatment services took place at the dog’s
residences with the trainer present (Shayla) or
virtually coaching the owner live via the video
conferencing application (Toby). For Shayla
the general environment in the home for train-
ing was the entrance way. For Toby the general
environment in the home for training was a 10
foot by 10 foot dining room/kitchen space. Any
potentially distracting items that were not part
of the experiment were removed during data
69
LAURA VILLEGAS · JOSHUA JESSEL · FELIPE MAGALHÃES LEMOS
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
collection. Materials available in the room
included a smartphone camera, laptop used
for video conferencing, related dog toys (ball,
chewy toy, stued toy) or treats, water bowls,
food bowls, collars, harnesses, and leashes.
Each trial was a maximum of 5 min. The dogs
were trained for 10-15 sessions weekly and the
training sessions were dependent on the dog’s
interest. Motivation to engage in behavioral is-
sues or appropriate alternative behavior may
shift during the session (Pfaller-Sadovsky et al.,
2019). That is, the dogs could discontinue train-
ing at any point by walking away or orienting
away from the owner. This was conducted to
ensure that the dogs preferred the treatment
process.
Measurement
We measured multiple topographies of
caregiver-informed behavioral issues. One
category of behavior was aggression which
was dened as instances of biting, lunging,
snapping, including precursors to aggression
(e.g., growling or barking, and baring teeth).
Another category of behavior was jumping up
on humans which was dened as a dog’s front
paws leaving the ground with at least one of the
paws touching the experimenter. Although not
a behavioral issue, we included a measure of
distress to indicate the dog’s diculty with the
situation. Distress is a mental/emotional state
characterized by unpleasant behavior and emo-
tional strain. We dened distress as low/tucked
tail, sti body, ears back, looking away, hiding,
whining, hair on neck standing up.
We also measured two forms of appropriate
behavior: sitting and lying down. Sitting was
operationally dened as the dog’s tail end and
hind legs being fully on the ground, with the
front legs in standing position holding up the
dog’s upper body. Laying was dened as the
dog’s whole under belly and chin touching the
ground. These behaviors were measured per
trial and represented in a cumulative record, in
which the number of trials for each response
Table 1
Demographic Information and Functional Analysis Variables
Dog
Demographics Functional Analysis Variables
Age
Breed Location Born Evocative
Events Preferred Events
Initial
Ownership Current
Toby 2 months 11 years Lhasa Apso Professional
Breeder
Feed
Preparation
Food
Presentation
Shayla 2 months 9 years Beagle Mix Family Friend Owner
Leaving
Owner Returning
to Play
Killian 1 year 9 years Rat Terrier Mix Animal Shelter Presence of
Large Dog
Removal of Large
Dog
Casey 3 months 6 years Labrador/Pit Bull
Mix Animal Shelter Presence of
Other Dog
Removal of Other
Dog
Charlie 2 months 1 year Sheepadoodle Professional
Breeder
Presence of
Other Dog
Removal of Other
Dog
70 USING THE DOGGY ISSUES AND GUIDANCE (DIG) ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR INFORMING ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
was added to the total number of responses
recorded since data collection began.
Experimental design
Both the functional analysis and treatment
evaluation were conducted using single-
subject experimental designs (SCEDs). SCEDs
maintain a high level of internal validity be-
cause the participants experience both the
baseline/control and treatment conditions,
thus serving as their own control (Perone &
Hursh, 2013). The functional analysis was con-
ducted using a multielement design (Johnston
& Pennypacker, 2009). During the functional
analysis, two conditions (test and control) were
rapidly alternated. Experimental control was
demonstrated when there were higher levels
of behavioral issues during the test condition
in comparison to the control condition. The
behavioral treatment using cooperation skills
training was evaluated using a multiple base-
line design across behaviors (Gast & Ledford,
2009). The treatment was introduced in a stag-
gered fashion targeting two dierent respons-
es (i.e., sitting and lying down). Experimental
control was demonstrated when each target
behavior increased with the corresponding
contingent reinforcement from the treatment.
Interobserver Agreement and Treatment
Integrity
Interobserver agreement (IOA) data was
calculated during at least 33% during the
functional analysis and cooperation skills
training. A secondary observer independently
collected data either during live sessions or
using recordings. The experimenter used the
trial-by-trial method to calculate IOA (Cooper
et al., 2020). This method reports the agree-
ment between each discrete trial instead of
the total count. Each experimenter separately
calculated and reported their counts of each
trial (0 or 1). Agreements were counted when
both observers scored a matching response
for occurrence or nonoccurrence of the be-
havior during a trial. Disagreements were
counted when one observer recorded the
occurrence of the behavior and the other ob-
server recorded a nonoccurrence. For Shayla,
IOA for problem behavior, sitting, lying down,
and distress was 93% (range, 0-100%), 89%
(range, 0-100%), 96% (range, 0-100%), and
89% (range, 0-100%), respectively. The IOA for
Toby was 96% (range, 0-100%), 92% (0, 100%),
100%, and 84% (range, 0-100%) for problem
behavior, sitting, lying down, and distress, re-
spectively. The range of agreement was always
0 and 100% because the two observers could
only agree that the event occurred or disagree
in a binary manner.
Procedure
DIG Assessment Tool
The DIG assessment tool is an open-ended
interview designed by the rst and second au-
thor. The questions and formatting of the DIG
assessment tool were highly informed by the
open-ended interview for the problem behav-
ior exhibited by children designed by Hanley
(2012, see appendix). Questions were adapted
to be more representative of the experiences
of the owner and dogs. The DIG assessment
was administered by the experimenter with
the dog’s owner and required 15-30 min to
71
LAURA VILLEGAS · JOSHUA JESSEL · FELIPE MAGALHÃES LEMOS
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
conduct. The DIG included questions regard-
ing the dog’s relevant background information
such as the dog’s breed, age, history living situ-
ation, training, preferred items, level of activ-
ity, amount of exercise, and any medications
the dog is taking for behavioral issues. This in-
formation is important because these factors
could all possibly impact the dog’s behavior.
Additionally, the owner’s assessment of the
dog’s preferred events can be used to deter-
mine the reinforcers used for that dog. Other
questions are pertinent to antecedents, con-
sequences, and dimensions (topography, du-
ration, intensity, rate) of the behavioral issues.
Behavioral antecedents are events that hap-
pen directly before and evoke the behavioral
issue. Consequences are behavioral events
that happen directly after and reinforce behav-
ior issues.
Functional Analysis
During the functional analysis, the experi-
menter arranged antecedent and consequent
variables representative of the dog’s natural
environment in which behavioral issues oc-
curred as reported by the owners during the
DIG assessment. That is, an individualized
contingency was systematically arranged for
each dog’s behavioral issues to determine the
inuence of environmental variables on their
behavioral issues. The goal of the functional
analysis was to empirically validate the verbal
reports indicating the problematic context ex-
perienced by the owners.
During the control condition, no evocative
events were presented, and preferred events
were non-contingently provided throughout
the 1-min trial. The dog was given continuous
access to the potential reinforcers identied
from the DIG assessment, regardless of the
presence or absence of the behavioral issues.
If the dog exhibited the behavioral issues, the
behavior was be ignored while the preferred
events were continuously provided. For ex-
ample, regardless of whether Toby barked or
growled while accessing the reinforcer (food),
continued access was allowed throughout the
entire control.
The test condition used the same preferred
events from the control condition; however,
they were presented contingent on the oc-
currence of the behavioral issues. During the
test condition, purported evocative events for
the behavioral issues were presented for 1 min
or for long enough to evoke the behavioral is-
sues. If the behavior issue occurred, the possi-
ble reinforcer was presented for 30 s. After 30
s the session was discontinued, and the next
programmed trial was initiated. For example,
an antecedent variable was introduced to the
environment, such as the removing Toby’s
meal from the fridge and beginning to prepare
it. Contingent upon the occurrence of the be-
havioral issues, the individuals gave Toby his
bowl of food.
Treatment Evaluation
The baseline condition of the treatment
evaluation was obtained during the test con-
dition of the functional analysis. After 30 s the
potential reinforcer was removed, and evoca-
tive eects were re-presented for a new trial.
The purpose of including the baseline was to
72 USING THE DOGGY ISSUES AND GUIDANCE (DIG) ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR INFORMING ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
evaluate the extent of the behavioral issue be-
fore treatment was introduced.
The behavioral treatment for all dogs in-
cluded cooperation skills training, which in-
volved DRA using the specic reinforcers
identied during the functional analysis. That
is, the treatment for each dog incorporated in-
dividualized reinforcers that were determined
to be functionally related to the behavioral is-
sue. DRA consists of reinforcing occurrences of
behavior that is a desirable alternative to the
behavioral issues. This behavior occupies that
time during which behavioral issues typically
occurred. The dogs were taught the desirable
behavior during pre-treatment training trials
(data available upon request). This included
least-to-most prompting and prompt fading.
The behavioral treatment was initiated after all
prompts were entirely removed. After meet-
ing mastery for sitting during the behavioral
treatment, the DRA contingency was modied
to support lying down. For Shayla, a reinforce-
ment thinning strategy was used to ensure
that owner was able to leave the house while
she was lying down. This included steps such
as slightly opening the door, opening the door
halfway, and completely opening and closing
the door while leaving the house. Each thin-
ning step was progressively introduced follow-
ing the success of Shayla lying down without
exhibiting behavioral issues.
Social Validity
Two social validity questionnaires were
provided to the owners after their participa-
tion in this study. The Usage Rating Prole-
Assessment (URP-A; Chafouleas et al., 2012)
was modied for dogs and provided to the
dog owners that completed the DIG interview.
The purpose was to obtain opinions from dog
owners regarding the usefulness of the assess-
ment approach. Scoring categories were sepa-
rated into four factors and the URP-A included
a total of 21 questions. Factor I (acceptabil-
ity) included seven questions regarding the
owner’s opinions on assessment eectiveness,
reasonableness, fairness, manageability, time
feasibility, and commitment to training. Factor
II (understanding) included three questions re-
garding the owner’s clarity/ understanding of
procedures. Factor III (setting-trainer collabo-
ration) included six questions regarding time
allocation, a positive home-service relation-
ship, interest in implementation, enthusiasm,
and regular home-service communication.
Factor IV (feasibility) included ve questions
about reasonableness of material preparation,
assessment complexity, assessment disruptiv-
ity, and feasibility of incorporating assessment
methods into routine. The Likert scale from the
URP-A ranged from 1 to 6 with one represent-
ing the lowest score (i.e., strongly disagree)
and six representing the highest score (i.e.,
strongly agree).
The second social validity questionnaire
was provided to dog owners who completed
the cooperation skills training and were re-
lated to the acceptability of the entire assess-
ment and treatment process. The questions
included the rating of the extent to which the
owner was satised with the dog’s improve-
ment in behavioral issues and improvement
in listening skills. The owner was also asked to
rate the extent to which they would suggest
73
LAURA VILLEGAS · JOSHUA JESSEL · FELIPE MAGALHÃES LEMOS
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
this treatment to others, the extent to which
they nd punishment procedures to be ac-
ceptable, and the extent to which treatment of
their pet’s behavioral issues is important. The
owner was encouraged to give the researcher’s
additional commentary/feedback regarding
the treatment in the open-ended comments
sections. This questionnaire including a Likert
scale ranging from one (lowest score) to seven
(highest score) with four representing a neu-
tral rating.
Results
The DIG assessment was completed for ve
dogs (Toby, Shayla, Killian, Casey, and Charlie)
and the results are summarized in Table 1. Out-
comes of the DIG assessment for Toby suggest-
ed that he engaged in aggressive behavior in-
cluding growling and barking while food was
being prepared for him and that this behavior
was reinforced following preparation when he
was able to eat. Outcomes of the DIG assess-
ment for Shayla suggested that she engaged
in aggression including barking, growling, and
jumping when family members left the home
and that this behavior was reinforced when
they returned or did not leave. Outcomes for
Killian predicted that his behavioral issues
(aggression) were caused by the presence of
a large dog and reinforced by the removal of
large dogs from the environment. Casey and
Charlie’s behavioral issues (aggression) were
hypothesized to be evoked by the presence
of any other dogs, regardless of size, and rein-
forced by the removal of the other dog. The re-
sults of the DIG assessment for Shayla and Toby
were used to conduct a functional analysis to
validate the caregiver-informed contingency.
Figure 1 displays the results of the func-
tional analysis for Shayla and Toby. Behavioral
issues were observed during every test trial
for both dogs when the evocative events were
presented. In addition, appropriate behavior
(sitting and lying down) was typically not ob-
served; however, there was a consistent level
of distress experienced. During the control
trials, when preferred events were freely avail-
able, behavioral issues were never observed.
Appropriate behavior continued to not be
emitted and there was no distress during this
time. Therefore, we concluded that the envi-
ronmental contingencies evaluated during
the functional analysis inuenced behavioral
issues and we used this information to inform
the subsequent treatment.
Figures 2 depicts the results of the behavio-
ral treatment. During the baseline, behavioral
issues and distress were occurring at consist-
ent levels across trials. Once the DRA was intro-
duced for sitting, behavioral issues decreased
and sitting began to increase. More consist-
ent decreases in behavioral issues and distress
were observed with Shayla. The DRA was then
modied to support lying down and behav-
ioral issues and distress remained low during
these trial for both participants. Although ly-
ing down began to increase, sitting continued
to occur on occasion for Shayla and reliably
during every trial for Toby. Anecdotally, the
dogs would rst sit, likely due to the immedi-
ately preceding training, before continuing to
lie down. That being said, the owner of Shayla
was eventually able to leave the house and the
74 USING THE DOGGY ISSUES AND GUIDANCE (DIG) ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR INFORMING ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
0
2
4
6
Cumulative Behavioral Issues
Shayla
Toby
0
2
4
6
Cumulative Sitting
0
2
4
6
Cumulative Lying
12345
0
2
4
6
Trials
Cumulative Distress
12345
Trials
Test condition
Control condition
Segments
Figure 1. Results of the functional analyses
75
LAURA VILLEGAS · JOSHUA JESSEL · FELIPE MAGALHÃES LEMOS
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
owner of Toby was able to prepare food with-
out behavioral issues by the end of their par-
ticipation.
Social validity measures were collected for
the DIG assessment from the owners of ve
dogs (Toby, Shayla, Killian, Casey, and Charlie)
using the URP-A (modied for dogs). Results
are summarized in Table 2. Overall, the owners
rated the DIG assessment as acceptable (Fac-
tor I: M = 5.8; SD = 0.2) and had a very good
understanding of the purpose of the assess-
ment (Factor II: M = 6; SD = 0). In addition, the
owners agreed with the level of collaboration
(Factor III: M = 5.4; SD = 0.2) and found the DIG
0
10
20
30
40
50
Cumulative Behavioral Issues
Door
halfway
open
Door
Fully
open
Owner
leaving
0
10
20
30
40
50
Cumulative Sitting
0
10
20
30
40
50
Cumulative Lying
510 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
10
20
30
40
50
Cumulative Distress
Trials
Shayla
BL DRA (Sitting) DRA (Lying)
10 20 30 40 50
Trials
Toby
BL DRA (Sitting) DRA (Lying)
Figure 2. Results of Treatment for Shayla and Toby
76 USING THE DOGGY ISSUES AND GUIDANCE (DIG) ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR INFORMING ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
assessment to be very feasible (Factor IV: M =
5.8; SD = 0.2).
The owners of Toby and Shayla completed
a second social validity questionnaire follow-
ing their participation in the entire assessment
and treatment process (see Table 3). Shayla
and Toby’s owners indicated that their dog’s
behavioral issues were very important to them
(7 of 7). Shayla’s (1 of 7) and Toby’s (2 of 7) own-
er’s rated the use of punishment procedures as
not acceptable. Both owners were highly satis-
ed (7 of 7) with the amount of improvement
seen in their dogs’ behavioral issues and obe-
dience. Both owners believed the treatment
was highly acceptable (7 of 7). The owners
reported that their dogs were highly likely to
exhibit behavioral issues before the behavioral
treatment (7 of 7) and, after the introduction
of the behavioral treatment, Shayla’s reported
behavioral issues to be less of a concern (2 of
7) while Toby’s owner provided a more neutral
rating (4 of 7). Both owners rated it highly likely
(7 of 7) that they would suggest this behavioral
treatment to others with similar issues.
Discussion
These results provide evidence to support
the use of the DIG assessment as a tool for
Factors & Questions Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 Owner 4
Factor I: Acceptability
1 6 5 6 6
6 6 6 6 5
7 6 6 6 5
9 6 6 6 6
10 6 6 6 6
17 6 6 6 6
21 6 5 6 5
Factor II: Understanding
3 6 6 6 6
5 6 6 6 6
19 6 6 6 6
Factor III: Setting Trainer Collaboration
2 6 6 6 6
4 6 6 6 6
8 4 4 4 6
12 6 6 6 5
14 6 6 6 6
20 5 4 6 4
Factor: IV: Feasibility
11 5 6 6 5
13 5 6 6 6
15 6 6 5 6
16 6 5 6 6
18 5 6 6 6
Table 2
Results of the URP-A (Modied for Dogs)
77
LAURA VILLEGAS · JOSHUA JESSEL · FELIPE MAGALHÃES LEMOS
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
identifying ecologically relevant, problematic
contexts that could potentially be contribut-
ing to behavioral issues. The functional analy-
sis for two dogs validated the owner-informed
environmental contingencies consisting of
antecedent variables that evoke behavioral is-
sues and preferred events that reinforce those
issues. The behavioral issues were then re-
duced for the two dogs who experienced the
functional analysis using a cooperation skills
training approach that taught appropriate re-
placement behavior including sitting and lying
down.
Previous research on functional analyses for
behavioral issues of dogs tended to use three
conditions (escape, attention, and tangible)
testing for sensitivity to general classes of rein-
forcement (e.g., Dorey at al., 2012; Mehrkam et
al., 2020). These functional analyses required
an extended number of sessions, which could
potentially delay introduction of an eective
treatment. The functional analysis used in the
current study evaluated a single test condition
incorporating an individualized contingency
informed by an open-ended interview and
was conducted in a total of ve trials. Thus, the
use of this specic preparation could improve
overall eciency during the assessment pe-
riod and reduce exposure to behavioral issues
that could cause a safety concern.
Eciency is often a concern among those
who conduct functional analyses and dierent
formats have been found to impact eciency
dierently (Jessel et al., 2021). Interestingly,
Jessel et al. found that trial-based formats are
not necessarily that ecient and required a
range between 92 min and 158 min to con-
duct. However, it is important to note that
trial-based formats often relied on conducting
either 20 or 40 trials before completing the as-
sessment. We only conducted ve trials dur-
ing the functional analysis in the current study
because of concerns among owners and the
safety of their dogs. In addition, there is some
evidence to suggest that functional analyses
incorporating ve trials can successfully iden-
tify functional relations (Dowdy et al., 2021).
Future researchers may want to consider re-
ducing the number of trials to determine if a
ve-trial analysis is feasible and would improve
overall measures of eciency.
It is important to point out that the coop-
eration skills training utilized reinforcement
for teaching skills and was meant to consider
Table 3
Results of the Social Validity Questionnaire
Questions Shayla Toby
Importance for Treating Behavioral Issues 7 7
Acceptability of Punishment 1 2
Satised with Improvement in Behavioral Issues 7 7
Satised with Improvement in obedience 7 7
Acceptability of DIG assessment and Cooperation Skills Training 7 7
Exhibited Behavioral Issues Before Cooperation Skills Training 7 7
Exhibited Behavioral Issues After Cooperation Skills Training 2 4
Refer DIG assessment and Cooperation Skills Training to Others 7 7
78 USING THE DOGGY ISSUES AND GUIDANCE (DIG) ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR INFORMING ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
the needs of both owners and dogs. Green-
ebaum (2010) discusses the traditional domi-
nance-based training model vs reinforcement-
based modication training. The traditional
dominance-based training method uses a
human-centric approach in which dogs play a
secondary role to humans. This includes alpha-
dog training styles, physical/ psychological
intimidation, obedience/ dominance training
(choke collars, prongs, e-collars). Acceptability
of these methods has decreased as the social
construct of pets change dynamically. As a
result, reinforcement-based modication ap-
proaches that are dog centric have emerged.
These methods focus on developing a rela-
tionship between pet and owner in which the
needs of both are considered. The DIG assess-
ment tool, functional analysis, and coopera-
tion skills training developed in this study use
a reinforcement-based approach to decrease
behavioral issues that is becoming more so-
cially acceptable. In addition, we attempted
to arrange the context in a way in which the
dog could “choose” to participant, discontinu-
ing any treatment when signs of disinterest
began to occur. This takes into consideration
the needs of both the pet and owner, as the
dog’s treatment is created based on the needs,
they are expressing by engaging in behavioral
issues.
A limitation of this study is the distress
measure. The accuracy of this measure is a
limitation because signs of distress/ happiness
are dicult to identify in non-human partici-
pants. In fact, we originally included measures
of happiness, but dierentiating between
happiness and distress became problematic
to operationally dene when some behaviors
indicative of either tend to overlap. Some re-
searchers have attempted to develop indexes
of happiness and unhappiness in humans
(Dillon & Carr, 2007; Parsons et al., 2012) as a
measure of aect during treatment implemen-
tation. Parsons et al. (2012) used an alternating
treatments design to identify indexes of hap-
piness and unhappiness in non-vocal people
with autism. First, a survey was used to collect
data from at least three caregivers regarding
situations in which the participant displayed
happiness/unhappiness. This information was
used to create operational denitions for hap-
piness and unhappiness. Afterwards, two con-
ditions were presented- one during which had
been described as a happiness and another as
an unhappiness situation. Results support this
process for identifying individualized indices
of happiness and unhappiness in nonvocal
people with autism. When using human par-
ticipants, it is easier to determine the emotions
they are feeling. More research is necessary to
identify emotions in pets and determine meas-
ures of distress.
Another limitation of this study is that only
2 out of the 5 participants completed the func-
tional analysis and treatment. The other three
participants only completed the interview
portion. Although owners may approve of the
interview process, it is important to ensure
that the interview serves a particular purpose
for informing eective treatment. This concept
has been dened as treatment validity or util-
ity (Hayes et al., 1987). Treatment validity de-
scribes the degree to which an assessment
contributes to a benecial treatment outcome.
79
LAURA VILLEGAS · JOSHUA JESSEL · FELIPE MAGALHÃES LEMOS
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
In other words, if the use of an assessment
positively impacts a treatment outcome, then
it has utility. More conclusions could be drawn
from the data regarding treatment validity
if all participants had completed all parts of
the study (DIG assessment, functional analy-
sis, and treatment). In addition, the treatment
informed by the DIG assessment can be com-
pared to those using arbitrary treatment strat-
egies to improve behavioral issues. Beyond
treatment ecacy, it is quite possible that the
owners will likely prefer completing the DIG
assessment because it shows an attempt to
collaborate with them rather than dictate how
to treat their dog. However, future research in-
cluding comparative measures of social valid-
ity are required to support such claims.
Finally, it is important to point out that this
study was a direct evaluation of the ecacy of
the DIG assessment for informing individual-
ized treatments reducing behavioral issues in
dog. The SCEDs served this purpose well, iden-
tifying causal relations and supporting the
notion that the DIG assessment can work as
intended. However, we are limited in what we
can interpret regarding the external validity of
the ndings without a larger sample size. That
is, we are unable to determine under what con-
ditions and with what dogs or owners the DIG
assessment will work as intended. To address
this limitation, future researchers may want to
consider larger scale, between-group designs
to answer experimental questions regarding
the generality of the methods we introduced.
References
Cameron, D. (1997). Canine dominance-
associated aggression: Concepts, incidence,
and treatment in a private behavior
practice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,
52(3-4), 265- 274. doi:10.1016/s0168-
1591(96)01127-6
Chafouleas, S. M., Miller, F. G., Briesch, A. M.,
Neugebauer, S. R., & Riley-Tillman, T. C.
(2012). Usage Rating Prole – Assessment.
Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2019).
Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd Edition).
Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education.
Dillon, C. M., & Carr, J. E. (2007). Assessing
indices of happiness and unhappiness in
individuals with developmental disabilities:
A review. Behavioral Interventions, 22(3),
229–244. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.240
Dorey, N. R., Rosales-Ruiz, J., Smith, R., &
Lovelace, B. (2009). Functional analysis
and treatment of self injury in a captive
olive baboon. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 42(4), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.2009.42-785
Dorey, N. R., Tobias, J. S., Udell, M. A., & Wynne, C.
D. (2012). Decreasing dog problem behavior
with functional analysis: Linking diagnoses
to treatment. Journal of Veterinary Behavior,
7(5), 276-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jveb.2011.10.002
Dowdy, A., Tincani, M., & Fisher, A. G. (2021).
Interrater reliability and convergent validity
of the trial-based functional analysis.
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders,
5(1), 61-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s41252-020-00174-7
Farmer-Dougan, V. (2014). Functional analysis
of aggression in a black-and-white rued
lemur (Varecia variegata variegata).
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science,
17(3), 282– 293. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10888705.2014.917029
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. (2009). Variations of
multiple baseline designs and combination
designs. In J. R. Ledford, & D. L. Gast (Eds.),
Single subject research methodology in
behavioral sciences (pp. 382-416). Routledge.
80 USING THE DOGGY ISSUES AND GUIDANCE (DIG) ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR INFORMING ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
Greenebaum, J. B. (2010). Training dogs and
training humans: Symbolic interaction
and dog training. Anthrozoös, 23(2), 129–
0x12682332909936
Hall, N. J., Protopopova, A., & Wynne, C. D.
(2015). The role of environmental and
owner-provided consequences in canine
stereotypy and compulsive behavior.
Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 10(1), 24-35.
doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2014.10.005
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003).
Functional analysis of problem behavior:
A review. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 36(2), 147–185. h t t p s : / / d o i .
org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147
Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment
of problem behavior: Dispelling myths,
overcoming implementation obstacles,
and developing new lore.Behavior Analysis
org/10.1007/BF03391818
Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., &
Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful
improvements in problem behavior of
children with autism via synthesized
analyses and treatments. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 47(1), 16-36. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/jaba.106
Hayes, S. C., Nelson, R. O., & Jarrett, R.
B. (1987). The treatment utility of
assessment: A functional approach to
evaluating assessment quality. American
Psychologist,42(11), 963–974. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.11.963
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman,
K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a
functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197-209.
https:// doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-
197 (Reprinted from “Toward a functional
analysis of self-injury”, 1982, Analysis and
Intervention in Developmental Disabilities,
2, 3-20.)
Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S., Jr.
(2009). Strategies and tactics of behavioral
research (3rd ed.). Routledge/Taylor &
Francis Group.
Jessel, J., Hanley, G. P., Ghaemmaghami, M.,
& Carbone, M. J. (2021). On the eciency
and control of dierent functional analysis
formats. Education and Treatment of
Children. Advanced Online Publication.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/
s43494-021-00059-x
Martin, A. L., Bloomsmith, M. A., Kelley, M. E.,
Marr, M. J., & Maple, T. L. (2011). Functional
analysis and treatment of canine aggression
11 analysis and treatment of human-
directed undesirable behavior exhibited by
a captive chimpanzee. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 44(1), 139–143. https://
doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-139
Mehrkam, L. R., Perez, B. C., Self, V. N., Vollmer, T.
R., & Dorey, N. R. (2020). Functional analysis
and operant treatment of food guarding
in a pet dog. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 53(4), 2139-2150. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.720
Morris, K. L., & Slocum, S. K. (2019). Functional
analysis and treatment of self‐injurious
feather plucking in a black vulture (Coragyps
atratus). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
52(4), 918-927. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.639
New York Consolidated Laws, Agriculture and
Markets Law - AGM 121. (n.d.). Retrieved
October 13, 2020, from https://codes.
findlaw.com/ny/agriculture-and-markets-
law/agm-sect-121.html
Parsons, M. B., Reid, D. H., Bentley, E., Inman, A.,
& Lattimore, L. P. (2012). Identifying indices
of happiness and unhappiness among
adults with autism: Potential targets for
Behavioral Assessment and Intervention.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(1), 15–25.
Perone, M., & Hursh, D. E. (2013). Single-case
experimental designs. In G. J. Madden, W.
V. Dube, T. D. Hackenberg, G. P. Hanley, & K.
A. Lattal (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior
analysis, Vol. 1. Methods and principles
(pp. 107–126). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13937-
005
Pfaller-Sadovsky, N., Arnott, G., & Hurtado-
Parrado, C. (2019). Using principles from
81
LAURA VILLEGAS · JOSHUA JESSEL · FELIPE MAGALHÃES LEMOS
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 183
applied behaviour analysis to address an
undesired behaviour: Functional analysis
and treatment of jumping up in companion
org/10.3390/ani9121091
Protopopova, A., & Wynne, C. D. (2015).
Improving in-kennel presentation of
Shelter Dogs through response-dependent
and response-independent treat delivery.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(3),
590–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.217
Winslow, T., Payne, S. W., & Massoudi, K. A.
(2018). Functional analysis and treatment of
problem behavior in 3 Animal Shelter Dogs.
Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 26, 27–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.04.004
Yin, S., Fernandez, E. J., Pagan, S., Richardson, S.
L., & Snyder, G. (2008). Ecacy of a remote-
controlled, positive-reinforcement, dog-
training system for modifying problem
behaviors exhibited when people arrive
at the Door. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science, 113(1-3), 123–138. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.11.001
