Table of Contents
Abstract
The Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale (DCCD-OS), developed by Glanville et al. in 2023, is a 30-item psychological inventory designed to systematically assess the motivational drivers behind responsible companion dog ownership behaviors. The instrument focuses specifically on the concept of Duty of Care, which is conceptualized as a powerful, unique motivator integrating both cognitive (moral obligations) and affective (attentive care) dimensions of responsibility toward the pet.
The theoretical foundation of the DCCD-OS rests upon Schwartz’s (1977) Norm Activation Model (NAM) and the Pet Care Competency model (PCC; Glanville, Hemsworth, & Coleman, 2020). Initial evaluation was conducted using a sample of companion dog owners, resulting in reported data concerning its robust factor structure, internal consistency, and construct validity for research aimed at improving dog welfare outcomes.
Keywords
Duty of Care, Companion Dog Owners, Norm Activation Model, Pet Care Competency Model, Duty Beliefs, Personal Norms, Efficacy, Ascription of Responsibility, Problem Awareness, Awareness of Impact, Interspecies Interaction, Motivation, Psychometrics, Social Norms, Values.
Authors
Glanville, Carmen R.; Hemsworth, Lauren M.; Hemsworth, Paul H.; Coleman, Grahame J.
[quads id=5]
Purpose
The fundamental purpose of the DCCD-OS is to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying motivational and cognitive factors that drive companion dog owner behavior. By quantifying the sense of Duty of Care felt by owners, researchers can better predict engagement in positive caregiving practices and intervention success.
Ultimately, the development and application of this scale hold significant implications for enhancing dog welfare. Understanding the psychological mechanisms that motivate care enables targeted interventions and educational programs designed to foster more responsible pet ownership.
Construct
The DCCD-OS measures the overarching construct of Duty of Care, defined as a unique, integrated motivator rooted in both moral obligation and active, attentive responsibility toward the companion dog. This construct is operationalized through five distinct subscales, derived from the integration of the Norm Activation Model and the Pet Care Competency model.
These subscales capture different facets of the owner’s responsibility framework:
Duty Beliefs (Personal Norms): Reflecting the moral obligation the owner feels towards the dog’s well-being.
Problem Awareness: The owner’s recognition that the dog’s current welfare state could potentially be improved.
Awareness of Impact: The understanding that the owner’s actions directly influence the dog’s behavior and welfare outcomes.
Efficacy: The perceived ability or competence of the owner to implement changes that will positively affect the dog’s life and health.
Ascription of Responsibility: The extent to which the owner takes personal accountability for various emotional and behavioral states of the dog (e.g., loneliness, anxiety, problem behaviors).
Validity
The scale developers conducted rigorous testing to establish the validity of the DCCD-OS. Specifically, Construct Validity was assessed by examining the relationships between the duty of care subscales and existing measures of dog-owner relationships and attachment.
The correlations between the duty of care subscales and general dog-owner relationship scores were observed to be generally weak to moderate, suggesting that the DCCD-OS measures a distinct psychological construct separate from mere relationship quality. Furthermore, relationships with scores relating to attachment to the pet varied from weak to strong, supporting the idea that duty of care is related to, but not synonymous with, emotional attachment.
Reliability
The internal consistency of the DCCD-OS subscales was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. These coefficients demonstrated satisfactory results, ranging from .73 to .87 across the measured subscales.
These values indicate that the items within each respective subscale are highly intercorrelated and reliably measure the intended underlying dimension of the Duty of Care construct.
Factor Analysis
Both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were utilized to confirm the dimensionality and structure of the scale. Initial EFA indicated that four of the six initially proposed subscales demonstrated psychometrically sound results:
Personal Norms (Duty Beliefs): A single factor solution accounted for 35.8% of the total variance.
Ascription of Responsibility: This dimension was represented by a single-factor solution, accounting for 47.44% of the variance.
Efficacy: One factor was identified, explaining 59.96% of the variance.
Awareness of Need: This subscale resolved into a final 10-item, two-factor solution (Problem Awareness and Awareness of Impact), collectively accounting for 43.58% of the variance.
The subsequent Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis confirmed the hypothesized model structure, with all items fitting well within the proposed framework. The model exhibited excellent relationships between its elements and demonstrated good overall model fit, evidenced by favorable fit indices: PCMIN/DF = 1.824, CFI = .947, RMSEA = .043, and SRMR = .0458.
Instrument
Test Type: Original Inventory/Questionnaire
Format: The DCCD-OS employs a mixed rating format. Most items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Somewhat disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Somewhat agree, Agree, and Strongly agree. Items within the Ascription of Responsibility subscale (AR2 through AR10) utilize a 5-point scale measuring responsibility: Not at all responsible, Partly responsible, Somewhat responsible, Very responsible, and Completely responsible. Note that AR1 is an exception and uses the 7-point scale.
Language Available: English
Population Group: Human (Male and Female)
Age Group: Adulthood (18 years & older)
Population Details: Respondents in the validation study were specifically companion 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, Motivation, Values.
[quads id=5]
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 Email addresses:
Glanville, Carmen R.: Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne ([email protected])
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
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
Reference’s
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
[quads id=5]
Items of the Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale
IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.
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 (2025). Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale. Psychological Scales & Instruments Database. Retrieved from https://db.arabpsychology.com/scales/duty-of-care-in-companion-dog-owners-scale/
Mohammed looti. "Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale." Psychological Scales & Instruments Database, 31 Oct. 2025, https://db.arabpsychology.com/scales/duty-of-care-in-companion-dog-owners-scale/.
Mohammed looti. "Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale." Psychological Scales & Instruments Database, 2025. https://db.arabpsychology.com/scales/duty-of-care-in-companion-dog-owners-scale/.
Mohammed looti (2025) 'Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale', Psychological Scales & Instruments Database. Available at: https://db.arabpsychology.com/scales/duty-of-care-in-companion-dog-owners-scale/.
[1] Mohammed looti, "Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale," Psychological Scales & Instruments Database, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, October, 2025.
Mohammed looti. Duty of Care in Companion Dog Owners Scale. Psychological Scales & Instruments Database. 2025;vol(issue):pages.