Assessment versions
| Version | Questions | Dimensions | Primary output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free 4D | 20 | E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P | Four-letter profile, axis results, and shareable summary |
| Pro 6D | 60 | Four core axes plus A/S and C/R | Six-axis profile, interpretation, owner guidance, and report tools |
Question design
- Questions describe owner-observable situations such as greetings, walks, novelty, routine changes, emotional tone, and time apart.
- Each item belongs to a declared axis and points toward one pole or the other.
- Response choices range from strong agreement to strong disagreement, with a neutral or depends option.
- The assessment references published owner-questionnaire and canine-personality research, but it does not reproduce the original C-BARQ questionnaire or scoring system.
Scoring and tie handling
- Directional responses add weight to one side of the paired axis.
- Neutral responses add no directional weight.
- Scores are converted into display percentages while the letter reflects the stronger side. These percentages, including any confidence display, are arithmetic summaries of submitted answers, not calibrated probabilities or diagnostic confidence.
- When an axis is exactly tied, the app asks one direct clarifying observation instead of silently assigning a default letter.
- Incomplete answer sets are rejected by the server rather than scored as a complete result.
What published research supports — and what it does not
Hsu and Serpell studied the development and validation of an owner questionnaire. Wilkins and colleagues compared the long and shortened C-BARQ in the same dog-owner pairs. These studies support using carefully developed owner reports in canine behavior research; their findings apply to the questionnaires they studied.
Fratkin and colleagues synthesized studies of personality consistency over time. Consistency varied across studies and conditions, so a single owner report should not be treated as an immutable identity.
Rocha’s paired axes, letters, item wording, weights, display percentages and tie clarifiers are product design choices. The cited studies do not validate those choices, establish equivalence to C-BARQ, or demonstrate diagnostic accuracy. No independent psychometric validation of Rocha is presented on this page.
Interpretation limits
The result describes the submitted observations at a point in time. It cannot establish cause, diagnose anxiety, assess pain, determine breed, or predict behavior in every environment.
Owner reports can be affected by memory, available situations, expectations, and recent events. Results should be compared with repeated observations and updated context.
If a dog shows sudden change, sustained distress, aggression risk, self-injury, or impaired daily functioning, seek veterinary or appropriately qualified behavior support.
Version and editorial control
Content and source-boundary revision: 2026-10-08. The scoring description documents the current product rules; this revision does not claim a new clinical or psychometric validation. Material changes to the question set, axes or scoring should update this page.
Expert review remains pending. Checking a source is an editorial step, not review or endorsement by its authors or a qualified clinician.
Page-level evidence and guidance
- Hsu & Serpell (2003): owner-questionnaire development and validation
Location: Abstract — Procedure and Results
Source checked: 2026-10-08
Access: Author abstract via PubMed; full article not reviewed
Limits: Validation concerns the studied questionnaire factors, not Rocha’s items, paired axes, letters or scoring.
- Wilkins et al. (2024): long and shortened C-BARQ comparison
Location: Materials and methods; Results — Table 3; Discussion — limitations
Source checked: 2026-10-08
Access: Full article checked
Limits: Compares existing C-BARQ versions in a self-selected sample; it does not validate Rocha or provide an individual diagnostic rule.
- Fratkin et al. (2013): Personality consistency in dogs — meta-analysis
Location: Results — Overall Consistency in Dog Personality; Discussion — Limitations and Recommendations
Source checked: 2026-10-08
Access: Full article checked
Limits: Pooled results vary by design and population; they do not validate Rocha or establish a fixed personality for an individual dog.
- Rocha assessment methodology (product self-description)
Location: Assessment versions; Scoring and tie handling; Interpretation limits
Source checked: 2026-10-08
Access: Product documentation and current scoring rules checked; not expert review
Limits: Product documentation is not independent psychometric validation, veterinary review or diagnostic evidence.
Evidence boundaries
- Research evidence: Published studies evaluate specified owner questionnaires; their validation does not transfer automatically to a different assessment.
- Research evidence: A meta-analysis finds personality consistency varies across the included studies and conditions.
- Product framework: Rocha’s paired axes, letters, weights, display percentages and tie clarifiers are documented product rules.
- Limit: No independent psychometric validation of Rocha is presented here; display percentages are not diagnostic probabilities.