4.2 Article

Spanish validation of the Fe-BARQ questionnaire: A replication study

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jveb.2021.09.002

Keywords

behavior analysis; cat behavior; Fe-BARQ; questionnaire; Spanish; validation study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Fe-BARQ is a validated survey instrument for understanding cat behavior, with its Spanish version also demonstrating good reliability and validity. The study reveals that various factors such as age, outdoor access, household structure, and breed can influence cat behavior.
The Fe-BARQ is a survey instrument designed to improve understanding of feline behavior that has been validated within a US population but not within a Spanish one. The Spanish version was translated and subjected to the same validation process, replicating the procedure described in the original research. Exploratory Factor Analysis of 816 questionnaire responses to 100 behavioral questions/items extracted the same 23 distinct factors that were reported in the original questionnaire, measuring most of the more common dimensions of cat behavior. Twenty two of the 23 factors demonstrated adequate-high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.6). The Spanish version of Fe-BARQ showed good inter-and intra-observer reliability across both extracted factors and items, and strong construct validity, showing a relationship between behavior problems reported by owners and their scale scores, confirming a loss of activity and an increase of inappropriate elimination issues with age, the relationship between predatory behavior and outdoor access, and less tolerance to contact in single cat households than in multicat households. Furthermore, behavioral differences among breeds were also confirmed. These results confirm the validity of the Spanish version of Fe-BARQ for use within a Spanish population. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available