Validation of a method for assessing the ability of trainee specialist search dogs

Abstract

To date, there are few validated tests for quantifying the ability of working dogs, and none documented for use on specialist search dogs. Such tests are essential to the empirical examination of ways to improve the efficiency of search dogs, a process critical to meet the increased demand for search dogs in a climate of global terrorist threat. This paper describes the development of a standard search task, which provides a systematic method for assessing the effectiveness of arms and explosives search dogs following training. This is the first documented use of ethological techniques to validate traditional ratings, which are based on handlers’ opinions. The subjects were 26 male Labrador retrievers, which had completed 10 weeks of standardised search training to enable them to indicate the presence of a range of target scents (explosives). At the end of the training period each dog's ability to complete a standardised search task was assessed. The efficiency with which the dog searched and located a range of target scents, along with their concurrent behaviour, was recorded on videotape and assessed via both subjective and objective measures. Subjective ratings made by scientists were very similar to those made by experienced trainers, and produced two uncorrelated factors; general search ability, and ability to work without false indications. Objective ethological assessment of the dogs’ behaviour produced four measures; free search thoroughness, location ability, systematic search behaviour, and mean number of false indications. The majority of these measures correlated significantly to the trainers’ ratings of the dogs as taken throughout the training. The strongest correlation was with the subjective rating for general search ability. Of the four objective measures, free search thoroughness and location ability, combined with a smaller contribution from systematic search behaviour, also correlated strongly with the trainers’ ratings of the same dogs. False indications were, however, apparently not reflected in the ratings of general search ability. This suggests that the standard search task provides similar, but more detailed information compared to the more traditional subjective method of assessing ability. We conclude that the standard search task method is a useful tool for future search dog research and ability assessments.