Connexion
S'inscrire
Réinitialiser le mot de passe
Publier & Distribuer
Solutions d'édition
Solutions de distribution
Thèmes
Architecture et design
Arts
Business et économie
Chimie
Chimie industrielle
Droit
Géosciences
Histoire
Informatique
Ingénierie
Intérêt général
Linguistique et sémiotique
Littérature
Mathématiques
Musique
Médecine
Pharmacie
Philosophie
Physique
Sciences bibliothécaires et de l'information, études du livre
Sciences des matériaux
Sciences du vivant
Sciences sociales
Sport et loisirs
Théologie et religion
Études classiques et du Proche-Orient ancient
Études culturelles
Études juives
Publications
Journaux
Livres
Comptes-rendus
Éditeurs
Blog
Contact
Chercher
EUR
USD
GBP
Français
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Panier
Home
Journaux
Vision Rehabilitation International
Édition 3 (2010): Edition 1 (January 2010)
Accès libre
Dog Distraction Quantified
Peter McKenzie
Peter McKenzie
| 01 janv. 2010
Vision Rehabilitation International
Édition 3 (2010): Edition 1 (January 2010)
À propos de cet article
Article précédent
Article suivant
Résumé
Article
Figures et tableaux
Références
Auteurs
Articles dans cette édition
Aperçu
PDF
Citez
Partagez
Publié en ligne:
01 janv. 2010
Pages:
9 - 26
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21307/ijom-2010-002
© 2010 Peter McKenzie published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Table 1.
Percentage of dogs with dog distraction referrals by calendar year.
Figure 1.
Percentage of dogs with dog distraction referrals by calendar year.
Figure 2.
Number of dogs associated with aftercare issue (N = 280).
Figure 3.
Major aftercare issues associated with dogs placed in calendar years 2000 to 2003.
Figure 4.
Major aftercare issues associated with dogs placed in calendar years 2004 to 2006.
Figure 5.
Major aftercare issues associated with dogs placed in calendar years 2007 to 2008.
Table 2.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by region.
Table 3.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by dog breed.
Table 4.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by dog sex and user gender (Golden Retrievers excluded) n = 243.
Table 5.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by breeder quantity of dogs.
Table 6.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by puppy raiser experience.
Table 7.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by puppy raiser numbers.
Table 8.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by training intake assessment score.
Figure 6.
Percentage of dogs with dog distraction referrals by assessment score.
Table 9.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by puppy raising variable and assessment score.
Table 10.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by supervising instructor.
Table 11.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by batch type.
Table 12.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by training type.
Table 13.
Percentage of dogs with dog distraction referrals by program instructor.
Table 14.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by user age.
Table 15.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by user experience.