Table of Contents
Abstract
The Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale (Glanville et al., 2023) is an original inventory/questionnaire designed to understand the potential drivers of companion dog owner behavior, with implications for improving dog welfare. This 30-item instrument measures a potentially powerful and unique motivator that encompasses both cognitive and affective dimensions, representing the integration of moral obligations and attentive care. The development of the scale was based on Schwartz’s (1977) Norm Activation Model (NAM) and the Pet Care Competency model (PCC; Glanville, Hemsworth, & Coleman, 2020). The scale has been evaluated in a sample of companion dog owners, and its factor structure, reliability, and validity have been reported.
Keywords
Pet Care Competency Model, Norm Activation Model, Duty Beliefs-Personal Norms, Efficacy, Ascription of Responsibility, Problem Awareness, Awareness of Impact, Duty of Care, Companion Dog Owners, Dogs, Interspecies Interaction, Models, Motivation, Pets, Social Norms, Values, State Trait Level Measures
Authors
Glanville, Carmen R.; Hemsworth, Lauren M.; Hemsworth, Paul H.; Coleman, Grahame J.
Purpose
The primary purpose of this scale is to understand the potential drivers of companion dog owner behavior, which has significant implications for enhancing dog welfare.
Validity
Construct Validity: The correlations between the duty of care subscales and dog-owner relationship scores were generally weak to moderate. Relationships with attachment to pet scores varied from weak to strong.
Reliability
Internal Consistency: The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the subscales ranged from .73 to .87, indicating good internal consistency.
Factor Analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis: Of the six proposed subscales, four demonstrated psychometrically satisfactory results. These include:
Personal Norms (Duty Beliefs): One factor accounted for 35.8% of the total variance.
Ascription of Responsibility: A single-factor solution accounted for 47.44% of the variance.
Efficacy: One factor accounted for 59.96% of the variance.
Awareness of Need: The final 10-item, two-factor solution (Problem Awareness and Awareness of Impact) accounted for 43.58% of the variance.
Structural Equation Modeling: All items were entered into the Structural Equation Model (SEM) according to the hypothesized model structure. The model demonstrated excellent relationships between model elements and good model fit, with the following fit indices: PCMIN/DF = 1.824, CFI = .947, RMSEA = .043, SRMR = .0458.
Instrument: Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale
Test Type: Original Inventory/Questionnaire
Format: Most items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Somewhat disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Somewhat agree, Agree, and Strongly agree. All items, except for the first, from the Ascription of responsibility subscale are rated on a 5-point scale: Not at all responsible, Partly responsible, Somewhat responsible, Very responsible, and Completely responsible.
Language Available: English
Population Group: Human (Male and Female)
Age Group: Adulthood (18 years & older)
Population Details: Respondents are dog owners located in Australia.
Test Methodology: Test Validity, Construct Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Structural Equation Modeling.
Keywords
Pet Care Competency Model; Norm Activation Model; Duty Beliefs-Personal Norms; Efficacy; Ascription of Responsibility; Problem Awareness; Awareness of Impact; Duty of Care; Companion Dog Owners; Dogs; Interspecies Interaction; Models; Motivation; Pets; Social Norms; Values; State Trait Level Measures.
Authors
Author ORCID Identifier:
Glanville, Carmen R.: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0754-0822
Hemsworth, Lauren M.: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7752-8917
Hemsworth, Paul H.: No data is Available
Coleman, Grahame J.: No data is Available
Affiliation:
Glanville, Carmen R.: Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne
Hemsworth, Lauren M.: Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne
Hemsworth, Paul H.: Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne
Coleman, Grahame J.: Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne
Email addresses:
Glanville, Carmen R.: [email protected]
Hemsworth, Lauren M.: No data is Available
Hemsworth, Paul H.: No data is Available
Coleman, Grahame J.: No data is Available
Correspondence Address: Glanville, Carmen R.: [email protected]
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
Permissions: The scale may be used for Research/Teaching purposes.
Commercial Use: No
Fee: No
Test Year: 2023
Web Site: creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
References
Glanville, C. R., Hemsworth, L. M., Hemsworth, P. H., & Coleman, G. J. (2023). Duty of care in companion dog owners: Preliminary scale development and empirical exploration. PLoS ONE, 18(5), Article e0285278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285278
Items of the Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale
Number of Items: This measure consists of 30 items.
Subscales: The scale comprises the following subscales:
Duty Beliefs (personal norms)
Problem Awareness
Awareness of Impact
Efficacy
Ascription of Responsibility
Please note, this scale consists of 5 sub-scales which represent distinct aspects of the duty of care model. The items in each subscale can be summed to produce a score for that element but these sub-scale scores are not to be combined. i.e., DO NOT sum all items in the scale for an overall ‘duty of care’ score.
Key: DB= Duty beliefs (personal norms) PA= Problem Awareness AoI= Awareness of Impact E=Efficacy AR= Ascription of Responsibility
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements.
| Item | Statement | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Somewhat disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Somewhat agree | Agree | Strongly agree |
| DB1 | I feel a strong personal obligation to ensure my dog is happy | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| DB2 | I feel a strong personal obligation to ensure my dog is healthy | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| DB3 | If you bring an animal into your home, it is your duty to make sure they are happy | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| DB4 | In the same way that people have basic rights, like food, medical care, and housing, so to do dogs. | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| DB5 | My dog trusts me, so I must live up to that trust | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| DB6 | My obligations to my dog stem from them being a part of the family | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| DB7 | We don’t have any particular obligations or duties to our dogs | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| PA1 | My dog could lead a better life than they currently lead | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| PA2 | My dog could be happier | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| PA3 | My dog’s welfare could be better | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| PA4 | My dog could be healthier | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AoI1 | If my dog does not get enough mental stimulation their welfare will suffer | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AoI2 | How I manage my dog affects his/her behaviour | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AoI3 | Providing toys/puzzles/enrichment items helps keep dogs occupied and not engaging in problem behaviours | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AoI4 | If my dog does not get enough exercise their welfare will suffer | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AoI5 | Providing good care for my dog improves their behaviour | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AoI6 | AN.Gen_2 Problem behaviours in dogs (e.g. destructive behaviours, excessive barking) are often the result of their needs not being met | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| E1 | There are things I could do to improve my dog’s life | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| E2 | There are things I could do to make my dog happier | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| E3 | There are things I could do to make my dog healthier | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AR1* | During challenging times like financial hardship, changes in personal circumstances, or when time is limiting, it is reasonable to lower our expectations for dog care and welfare. | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| *Note: AR1 is agree-disagree, whereas AR2-AR10 are below. |
To what extent would you/do you feel responsible for the following:
| Item | Statement | Not at all responsible | Partly responsible | Somewhat responsible | Very responsible | Completely responsible |
| AR2 | If [dog’s name] felt insecure or afraid | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AR3 | If [dog’s name] was anxious | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AR4 | If [dog’s name] was depressed | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AR5 | [dog’s name] ‘s mental state | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AR6 | [dog’s name] being free of fear | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AR7 | If [dog’s name] was lonely | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AR8 | If [dog’s name] engaged in problem behaviours like destroying things or excessive barking | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AR9 | If [dog’s name] was bored | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| AR10 | If [dog’s name] was aggressive to other people or dogs | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
Cite this article
Mohammed looti (2026). Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/duty-of-care-in-companion-dog-owners-scale/
Mohammed looti. "Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 6 Apr. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/duty-of-care-in-companion-dog-owners-scale/.
Mohammed looti. "Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/duty-of-care-in-companion-dog-owners-scale/.
Mohammed looti (2026) 'Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/duty-of-care-in-companion-dog-owners-scale/.
[1] Mohammed looti, "Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, April, 2026.
Mohammed looti. Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.