Login
Registrati
Reimposta password
Pubblica & Distribuisci
Soluzioni Editoriali
Soluzioni di Distribuzione
Temi
Architettura e design
Arti
Business e Economia
Chimica
Chimica industriale
Farmacia
Filosofia
Fisica
Geoscienze
Ingegneria
Interesse generale
Legge
Letteratura
Linguistica e semiotica
Matematica
Medicina
Musica
Scienze bibliotecarie e dell'informazione, studi library
Scienze dei materiali
Scienze della vita
Scienze informatiche
Scienze sociali
Sport e tempo libero
Storia
Studi classici e del Vicino Oriente antico
Studi culturali
Studi ebraici
Teologia e religione
Pubblicazioni
Riviste
Libri
Atti
Editori
Blog
Contatti
Cerca
EUR
USD
GBP
Italiano
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Carrello
Home
Riviste
Vision Rehabilitation International
Volume 3 (2010): Numero 1 (January 2010)
Accesso libero
Dog Distraction Quantified
Peter McKenzie
Peter McKenzie
| 01 gen 2010
Vision Rehabilitation International
Volume 3 (2010): Numero 1 (January 2010)
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Articolo precedente
Articolo Successivo
Sommario
Articolo
Immagini e tabelle
Bibliografia
Autori
Articoli in questo Numero
Anteprima
PDF
Cita
CONDIVIDI
Pubblicato online:
01 gen 2010
Pagine:
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.