One form of test is the competition. A dog and handler are put into a completely controlled situation and they are evaluated on their ability to accomplish a standard set of objectives. These are useful tests, but the artificiality of these tests don't always translate into what the dog and handler can do in the real world. In some ways, the performances can be determined to be an illusion since you can manufacture a picture in a competition that looks like the real thing, but isn't.
Another form of test would be a performance standard for some kind of professional work. Goals are set, the team is put to task, and evaluators determine whether the standards have been met. All professional work should have a standard. While not perfect, if the standards reflect real world challenges, they are worth the effort and documentation. The assumption is that the test, and the evaluators, fairly determine acceptable vs. unacceptable.
Service dogs sometimes are tested. I would suggest that some work is so critical to the survival of the disabled person, that the testing must be rigorous and fair, and show some kind of validation on the street. For example, I would want some kind of valid evaluation before a dog was placed with a blind person. Similarly, with a dog that was trained to be a diabetic alert dog. Hopefully the testing has been successful in determining the minimum standards for approval.
Therapy dogs are usually tested. While not as rigorous as any of the above, some kind of screening is a good idea before dogs are used for this purpose. There are various testing organizations.
There are more and more "certification" programs popping up, either by individuals or through various associations. The ones by individuals are going to only be as good as the individuals teaching them. Most aren't very good, in my opinion... and are very expensive. The associations are often guided by political motives, and they skew their testing based upon the latest politically correct methods rather that what is good for dogs and the owners. I currently don't see much value in these certification tests.
With pet dogs, there are a few tests, such as a Canine Good Citizen evaluation. Whether these reflect a standard that is useful beyond the test itself is something the owner should decide. The hope for the CGC was that it would be a gateway to open up more opportunities for dogs to go places, such as being approved by landlords. There has been some success along those lines, but in my opinion, this effort hasn't been widely adopted. Maybe it needs more public relations efforts. Maybe the CGC hasn't been sufficiently predictive for whatever uses it was intended. I haven't done a deep dive into this. I think testing like this could be usefully applied if the standards have been validated for certain purposes.
For all dogs, there are also tests that should be done along the way when in training. I do this continually when working with a dog and owner. I test progress before I add additional levels of difficulty. I don't believe all dogs can be made to fit into a fixed, step-by-step program. The training should fit the dog, not the other way around. For some dogs, I have to go at a problem backwards, or sideways, or slowly, or in some innovative way to break through learning barriers. Thus, a training program might have some goals, and further along, a dog might attain this or that level of performance. But the testing along the way wouldn't be as rigorous as, say, the testing done on a finished service dog. The problem with a lot of training programs is that all the dogs are walked through the same exact steps. Unfortunately, many dogs can't follow along that path, and so the owners will eventually get discouraged and quit. This can be a big problem for dogs that are put on a timeline, such as those in most board and train programs, or in the typical group classes. A big problem comes when there is a deadline and the dog isn't keeping up.
Testing, therefore, can either be useful or a waste of time. It is harder for novices to tell the difference.
Plan accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment