Search

Research Library Search

About this Research Library

The National Canine Research Council Research Library houses, in one searchable database, scholarly materials in our areas of interest and expertise. Our goal is to make available descriptions of studies from the peer-reviewed literature in order to inform discourse and enable ongoing research through accurate representations of sources.1 We provide links to the abstracts and where to purchase full texts (some of which are open access). We hope that the Research Library will also be useful to journalists, persons engaged in canine-related occupations, grant makers, and any interested researchers or readers. We invite all those interested to make use of the Research Library, which is searchable by Author, Content Type, and Topic.

To meet the standards for inclusion in the research library, research papers must generally be:

  • The product of authoritative institutions such as major U.S. and international universities, research organizations or governmental bodies.
  • Based on rigorous research and/or widely cited in the literature on the topic.
  • Published in a peer-reviewed journal.

We do not attempt to include every study that meets these criteria. This is neither practical nor desirable in our effort to streamline the literature review process for scholars. Instead, we have included the most comprehensive works, those that can be considered seminal in each area when such exist. We have also included those that are the most frequently cited in the literature whether or not the project’s methodological rigor merits this recognition.

The three content types in the Research Library are:

  • Literature review: These are National Canine Research Council authored reviews of each topic which summarize the most important findings, along with brief summaries and analyses of the most commonly cited and the most authoritative studies to date.
  • Peer reviewed research: Each such document is a more substantial National Canine Research Council summary and analysis of each study mentioned in the literature review including strengths and limitations of the study itself, along with discussion of the use of sources cited within the paper where appropriate. These are also searchable by the study author’s name.
  • Policy paper: These are National Canine Research Council’s Policy paper booklets authored by Janis Bradley, Council Director of Communications and Publications.

We strongly encourage you go back to the original sources to confirm that you agree with our analysis. When making attributions to material found after using this Research Library, the original source material should be cited. Material quoted directly from the Research Library should be credited to the National Canine Research Council. If you have questions or comments please contact us. 


1. For a sample analysis of how findings can be distorted by poor choice and use of cited material, see the 2016 open access paper in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior, “Who is minding the bibliography? Daisy chaining, dropped leads, and other bad behavior using examples from the dog bite literature.” All three authors are affiliated with National Canine Research Council.

  • Reset
  • Categories

  • Types

Featured Authors

Featured Articles

Relevance of Breed

in selecting a companion dog

Behavior Evaluation

No better than flipping a coin

Visual Breed Identification

A literature review

Browse Collection By Category

behavior evaluation

Summary & Analysis: Comparison of SAFER behavior assessment results in shelter dogs at intake and after a 3-day acclimation period

This 2015 study by Bennett et al. offers one of the few direct investigations into the test-retest reliability of a widely used shelter behavior evaluation, the SAFER assessment, and raises serious concerns about its consistency and practical value. By administering the test to the same dogs just three days apart, the researchers found that scores often shifted substantially, sometimes in ways that could alter adoption or euthanasia decisions. While some subtests showed moderate agreement, others—especially those intended to detect aggression or fear—had poor reliability. Behavioral changes were neither consistently in one direction nor clearly attributable to stress reduction, therefore undermining assumptions that behavior stabilizes with time in the shelter. These findings reinforce the conclusion that behavior evaluations like SAFER lack the consistency needed for high-stakes decision-making. In practice, this means that the outcome of a dog’s life may depend more on the timing of the test than the dog’s actual personality, thereby highlighting the need to rethink reliance on standardized behavior assessments in sheltering contexts.

Read More »

Summary & Analysis: Fatal and near-fatal animal bite injuries

This 1991 study by Clarke et al. has a very small sample size (two canine-related cases) and lacks contextual factors. The cases cannot be extrapolated to the greater dog-bite-related fatalities literature or population. We include it in the research library because it has been cited many times in anti-pit-bull literature.

Read More »

Dog Bite-Related Fatalities: A Literature Review

DBRFs are extremely rare, and because research indicates that they are largely preventable and may disproportionately affect children, there has been a push to better understand the circumstances and variables that contribute to such incidents.

Read More »

Enrichment centered on human interaction moderates fear-induced aggression and increases positive expectancy in fearful shelter dogs

This 2019 study by Willen et al. provides strong evidence that “fear-induced aggression” in dogs housed in shelters is highly modifiable, raising critical concerns about the validity and ethical implications of behavior evaluations used to determine whether the dogs are “adoptable.” The researchers found that a simple human intervention—30 minutes of positive human interaction per day over five days—more than doubled the number of fearful dogs who passed the Safety Assessment For Evaluating Rehoming (the SAFER assessment). In addition to calling into question the reliability of commonly used instruments like SAFER, these findings suggest that many dogs labeled as aggressive and sometimes euthanized may, in fact, be experiencing fear that can be alleviated through brief, human engagement. The study also demonstrated shifts in dogs’ emotional states, as measured through provocative battery testing, further reinforces that behavior observed in stressful shelter environments may not reflect how a dog will behave in a home. Although the study’s design introduced some confounding variables that may distort or mask the effects of others (e.g., music, scent, and room environment), its takeaway is clear: behavior evaluations conducted without first addressing stress can produce misleading results that carry life-or-death consequences. This research underscores the need to rethink the role of behavior assessments in shelters and prioritize practices that support dogs’ emotional wellbeing before making outcome decisions.

Read More »

What is the evidence for reliability and validity of behavior evaluations for shelter dogs? A prequel to “No better than flipping a coin.”

This 2019 review by Patronek et al. of studies claiming to validate or support the reliability of canine behavior evaluations used in animal shelters is the most comprehensive review to date. Their findings are unequivocal: no current evaluation demonstrates the scientific rigor necessary to justify its use for predicting individual dog behavior or guiding high-stakes outcomes. Through detailed analysis of 17 peer-reviewed studies, the authors show that meaningful inter-rater, test-retest, and inter-shelter reliability is largely absent, and that claims of validity—whether construct, convergent, or predictive—are weak, methodologically flawed, or based on misunderstood statistical concepts. They clarify key distinctions between predictive validity (correlations at the group level) and predictive ability (accuracy for individuals), exposing how inflated expectations for behavior tests persist despite high false-positive rates and poor real-world applicability. They argue that without strong, replicable evidence of both reliability and validity across shelter contexts, behavior evaluations lack the scientific foundation required for determining dogs’ fates and should not be used as such.

Read More »