Ten tests. Two observations.
Twelve traits.
Between day 49 and day 56, before Match Day, every Stokeshire puppy completes a Volhard-based aptitude evaluation. We record the exact day each puppy was tested. The raw scores are the input. The twelve Stokeshire traits are how we read them. Neither is a grade.
Family view keeps the focus on what traits mean for your household. Switch to breeder view for administration protocol, ground rules, and raw scoring reference.
Three layers,
in order.
Most programs run one test and call it temperament. The Stokeshire Method™ separates what is observed over time, what is measured in a single session, and how those numbers are translated into language a family can use.
The Developmental Confidence Circuit™ introduces age-appropriate novelty on a schedule. Handlers record how each puppy recovers afterward through the Canine Recovery Index™. Internal, and no puppy receives a published score.
A Volhard-based aptitude evaluation. Ten scored tests on a raw 1 to 6 scale, administered under controlled conditions by a trainer the puppies do not know (Volhard & Volhard, 2010). Energy level and dog friendliness are recorded separately by observation rather than scored as tests.
The raw numbers plus the two observations translate into the twelve Stokeshire traits. This is the layer families see, expressed as household fit rather than a ranking. It informs Match Day alongside developmental records, trainer notes, health information, and family requirements.
Why the layers matter. A single-session assessment describes one day under one set of conditions. Longitudinal research on pet dogs has found the predictive validity of early one-time tests to be limited for many individual behavioral traits (Riemer et al., 2014), and work in a service-dog population found improvement in ratings across the first year predicted selection while any single timepoint did not (McGarrity et al., 2016). We use the instrument because a carefully administered assessment is informative. We pair it with observation because one session cannot carry the whole picture.
Move the traits.
Watch the fit change.
This is the same logic we apply on our side, opened up so you can experiment. Set any combination of the twelve traits and see which household types that profile tends to suit. There is no winning combination, because families are not universal.
Illustrative only. This tool demonstrates how trait combinations shape household fit. It does not represent any individual puppy, does not predict adult behavior, and is not used to rank puppies.
The twelve
Stokeshire traits.
Ten come from the scored tests. Two, marked below, come from separate observation. Each is described from low to high. Higher is not better. A high prey drive is useful information about which household suits a puppy, not a mark against it.
Two scales.
Opposite directions.
This is the most common point of confusion in puppy evaluation, and it is worth being precise about. The instrument and the interpretation use numbers that run in different directions.
One to six, where 1 is the most forward and assertive response and 6 is the most withdrawn. On Social Attraction, a raw 1 is a puppy that came readily with tail up and mouthed hands. A raw 6 is a puppy that did not come at all.
A raw 4 therefore sits on the softer, more hesitant side of the range. Low numbers are not better and high numbers are not worse. The scale describes direction of response, not quality.
Each of the twelve traits is described from low to high, where high simply means more of that trait. High confidence means a confident puppy. High sound sensitivity means a sound-sensitive puppy.
Because the two scales run in different directions, a raw Volhard 4 and a Stokeshire trait rated high are unrelated values. They should never be compared to each other, and we present them separately for that reason.
The number is not the point. What matters is the pattern across all twelve traits, and whether that pattern suits the household a puppy is going home to.
The Volhard-based
aptitude evaluation.
The Volhard Puppy Aptitude Test descends from mid-century work on predicting guide dog suitability, most notably the guide dog research program described by Pfaffenberger (1963) and the developmental period research conducted at the Jackson Laboratory (Scott & Fuller, 1965; see also Dewsbury, 2012). The instrument as commonly administered was formalized by Wendy and Jack Volhard (Volhard & Volhard, 2010).
It is conventionally administered at 49 days, which is exactly seven weeks. The reasoning is that a puppy at that point has the neurological maturity to respond meaningfully while carrying comparatively little learned behavior. Testing materially earlier or later introduces variables that make results harder to interpret.
We administer it between day 49 and day 56, and we record the exact day each puppy was tested. That matters because a puppy tested on day 49 and one tested on day 55 are at slightly different developmental points, and the record should say which.
The ten scored tests
Administration ground rules
| Rule | Detail |
|---|---|
| Neutral location | A room unfamiliar to the puppies. Roughly a ten foot square area is sufficient, and it does not need to be off site. |
| One puppy at a time | Only the tester and the scorer are present. The puppies do not know the tester. |
| Independent scorer | A disinterested third party records responses and stays unobtrusive throughout. |
| Timing | Before feeding, while puppies are lively. Skip a puppy that seems unwell or is within 24 to 48 hours of vaccination. |
| Day recorded | The exact day of life is logged with every score set, between day 49 and day 56. |
| First response counts | Score only the initial natural response. Tail position, up or down, influences interpretation. |
Handler note. Keep an upbeat, friendly demeanor. The objective is to reveal the puppy's natural response, not to provoke or suppress one.
Raw score reference, all ten tests
Raw Volhard scale. 1 is the most forward response, 6 the most withdrawn. This is the instrument layer and is not the same as the Stokeshire trait scale.
| Test | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social Attraction | Came readily, tail up, jumped, mouthed hands | Came readily, tail up, pawed, licked hands | Came readily, tail up | Came hesitantly, tail down | Came hesitantly, no tail movement | Did not come at all |
| Following | Followed readily, tail up, underfoot | Followed readily, tail up | Followed readily, tail down | Followed hesitantly, tail down | Reluctant to follow | Did not follow |
| Restraint | Struggled fiercely, flailed, mouthed | Struggled fiercely | Struggled, then settled | Struggled a little, settled | No struggle, relaxed | No struggle, froze |
| Social Dominance | Jumped, mouthed, growled | Jumped, pawed, licked | Cuddled up to tester | Rolled over, licked hands | Rolled over, no licking | Ignored tester |
| Elevation | Struggled fiercely, attempted to mouth | Struggled fiercely | Struggled, then relaxed | No struggle, relaxed | No struggle, no interest | Froze, no response |
| Retrieving | Chased object, returned it | Chased object, stood over it | Chased object, played with it | Started to chase, lost interest | Looked, did not pursue | No interest at all |
| Touch Sensitivity | 8 to 10 seconds before response | 6 to 8 seconds | 5 to 6 seconds | 3 to 5 seconds | 2 to 3 seconds | 1 to 2 seconds |
| Sound Sensitivity | Listens, locates, barks, walks to it | Listens, locates, barks | Listens, locates, walks curiously | Listens, locates sound | Cringes, backs off | Ignores sound |
| Sight Sensitivity | Looks, pursues and mouths | Looks, paws and mouths object | Looks curiously, investigates | Looks curiously, tail down | Runs away or hides | Hides behind tester |
| Stability | Goes to the object, mouths it | Walks to object, sniffs | Watches, wants to investigate | Sits, looks, no approach | Little or no interest | Runs away from object |
How the ten tests map to the ten scored traits
The page states that ten of the twelve traits come from the scored tests. This is that mapping. Several traits draw on more than one test, which is why the trait layer is a reading rather than a transcription.
| Trait | Primary test | Also informed by |
|---|---|---|
| Assertiveness with Humans | Social Dominance | Restraint, Elevation |
| Confidence | Stability | Sight Sensitivity, Social Attraction |
| Motivation Level | Retrieving | Following |
| Nerve Strength | Stability | Sound Sensitivity, Elevation |
| Touch Tolerance | Touch Sensitivity | Restraint |
| Sound Sensitivity | Sound Sensitivity | — |
| Sight Sensitivity | Sight Sensitivity | — |
| Prey Drive | Sight Sensitivity | Retrieving |
| Human Focus | Following | Social Attraction |
| Tenderhearted | Social Attraction | Social Dominance, Restraint |
The remaining two traits, Energy Level and Dog Friendliness, are not derived from any test. See the next panel.
The two separate observations
Energy level. Recorded by observation rather than scored as a test. Handlers note preferred play, whether that is fetch, tug, a squeaker, or social play with other dogs, and note stamina, meaning whether a puppy tires quickly or continues until the handler ends the game.
Dog friendliness. Social style with unfamiliar dogs, forward or deferential, observed through a controlled introduction rather than a scored activity.
These two are held separately because they are observational rather than test-derived. Our records keep them in their own fields alongside the raw scores.
Raw composite patterns
Composite patterns in the raw Volhard scale, read across all ten tests. These describe the instrument layer, so the direction is the reverse of the Stokeshire trait scale.
| Raw pattern | Household indication | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Mostly 1s | Working or highly experienced handler | High drive, confident, forward. Tends to need consistent structure and clear leadership. |
| Mostly 2s | Active, structured home | Outgoing and trainable with guidance. Generally does well with children and continued socialization. |
| Mostly 3s | Most families, including first-time owners | Adaptable and even tempered, with moderate energy and social needs. |
| Mostly 4s | Quiet, calm, predictable homes | Softer and more sensitive. Tends to thrive where routines are steady rather than in loud or chaotic settings. |
| Mostly 5s and 6s | Experienced, patient handlers | Markedly cautious or withdrawn. Generally benefits from gentle handling and a carefully selected placement. |
| Mixed | Individual analysis | Mixed patterns are read trait by trait rather than averaged. This is common and is not a problem in itself. |
What each household
tends to need.
This table is the reference behind the simulator above. It describes tendencies rather than rules, and a single trait rarely decides a placement on its own.
| Household | Traits that tend to help | Traits that tend to complicate |
|---|---|---|
| With young children | Human focus, high touch tolerance, strong nerve strength, low sight and sound sensitivity | High prey drive, very high energy, low touch tolerance, low nerve strength, extreme tenderheartedness |
| Young adults | Moderate to high energy, confidence, strong nerve strength, motivation to work with a person | Very low energy, low confidence, high sound and sight sensitivity |
| Retired | Human focus, low sight and sound sensitivity, moderate energy | High prey drive, very high energy, low human focus, low touch tolerance |
| Emotional support | Lower energy, high tenderheartedness, low sound and sight sensitivity | Low nerve strength, low confidence, low touch tolerance, high prey drive, high energy |
| Service work | High confidence, high motivation, strong nerve strength, low sound and sight sensitivity | High prey drive, low confidence, low nerve strength |
| Therapy work | High touch tolerance, human focus, low sound and sight sensitivity | Extreme tenderheartedness may struggle in intense emotional environments |
| Facility work | High touch tolerance, human focus, low sound and sight sensitivity | Very low assertiveness, extreme tenderheartedness |
The therapy dog
candidate profile.
Therapy and facility work asks more of a dog than family companionship does, and the profile that suits it is specific. The pattern below is what we look for, and it is worth noting that the most affectionate puppy in a litter is not automatically the strongest candidate.
What the profile looks like
Medium engagement. Balanced assertiveness with polite manners. Comfortable in close proximity, often settling alongside a person, and able to honor boundaries.
Confidence. Proactive in novel settings. Explores with curiosity and engages readily rather than hanging back.
Motivational drive. Sustains attention, responds to requests, and works with a partner rather than independently.
Nerve strength and recovery. Composed under stimulus. May startle briefly, then returns to a settled state and resumes exploring. Recovery matters more here than the absence of a reaction, which is the same principle behind the Canine Recovery Index™.
Tenderhearted nature. Emotionally attuned, offering proximity during human distress. Moderate to high suits emotional support work well, while extreme tenderness can leave a dog overwhelmed in clinical settings.
What tends to rule a candidate out
High prey drive, extreme energy, very high assertiveness, low nerve strength, or low confidence. Extreme tenderheartedness is also a consideration rather than an asset, because a dog that absorbs distress without recovering is not well served by intense emotional environments.
None of these makes a puppy less suitable as a family companion. It makes a specific working role the wrong assignment.
What this evaluation
does not do.
Genetics contribute meaningfully to temperament, with heritability estimates for most canine behavioral traits generally falling in the low to moderate range (Hradecká et al., 2015). Early experience builds on that foundation. Neither the breeder nor the owner controls every variable that follows, and we do not guarantee temperament, trainability, coat characteristics, or adult size and weight.
Research following pet dogs from puppyhood into adulthood has found the predictive validity of early one-time assessments to be limited for many individual traits (Riemer et al., 2014), a finding consistent with earlier work in service-dog selection (Wilsson & Sundgren, 1997). We treat the evaluation as one informative input rather than a forecast.
Scores describe how a puppy responded on the day she was tested. Puppies continue developing, and what we record between day 49 and day 56 is a starting point for matching rather than a settled account of the adult dog.
There is no winning score and no best puppy. Each profile suits some households better than others, which is the entire purpose of matching. Puppies are never advertised by score.
Dogs commonly show a temporary decline in trainability during adolescence, generally around eight months of age (Asher et al., 2020). Continued socialization matters as well, since dogs with less socialization in puppyhood tend to show more fear of strangers and greater noise sensitivity as adults (Puurunen et al., 2020). Ongoing training, socialization, and veterinary care remain necessary after a puppy goes home.
Temperament
glossary.
The descriptive words we use with families when talking about a puppy, distinct from the twelve scored and observed traits above.
Ten descriptive terms we use with families
Tenderhearted. Emotionally attuned, responds sensitively to human cues. Often a fit for families seeking a compassionate companion.
Confident. Self-assured in new places and situations, adaptable, sometimes takes a leading role at home.
Playful. Game-oriented and readily initiates interaction. Suits active families and homes with children.
Curious. Keen to explore and investigate, which tends to accompany a strong learning mindset.
Calm. Composed amid stimulation, a steadying presence in quieter households.
Adaptable. Transitions smoothly between environments, routines, and people.
Affectionate. Seeks closeness and touch, bonds closely with family members.
Independent. Comfortable spending time alone and does not require constant interaction.
Sensitive. Stronger responses to touch or sound, benefits from gentle handling and predictable environments.
Observant. Watches before engaging. Thoughtful, sometimes cautious, with measured decisions.
Disclaimer. We aim to produce healthy, well-socialized puppies with reasonably predictable coat types and sizes. Each puppy is an individual, and genetics, environment, and training all shape outcomes. We do not guarantee temperament or disposition, trainability or obedience, coat color, texture, or lower-allergen characteristics, or adult size and weight. Our observations and scores inform matching and are not guarantees. Ongoing positive-reinforcement training, socialization, and veterinary care are recommended to help every puppy thrive.
References.
American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. (2008). AVSAB position statement on puppy socialization. American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior.
Asher, L., England, G. C. W., Sommerville, R., & Harvey, N. D. (2020). Teenage dogs? Evidence for adolescent-phase conflict behaviour and an association between attachment to humans and pubertal timing in the domestic dog. Biology Letters, 16(5), 20200097. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2020.0097
Dewsbury, D. A. (2012). A history of the behavior program at the Jackson Laboratory: An overview. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021376
Hradecká, L., Bartoš, L., Svobodová, I., & Sales, J. (2015). Heritability of behavioural traits in domestic dogs: A meta-analysis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 170, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.06.006
Lensen, R. C. M. M., Moons, C. P. H., & Diederich, C. (2019). Physiological stress reactivity and recovery related to behavioral traits in dogs (Canis familiaris). PLOS ONE, 14(9), e0222581. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222581
McGarrity, M. E., Sinn, D. L., Thomas, S. G., Marti, C. N., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Comparing the predictive validity of behavioral codings and behavioral ratings in a working-dog breeding program. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 179, 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.03.013
Pfaffenberger, C. J. (1963). The new knowledge of dog behavior. Howell Book House.
Puurunen, J., Hakanen, E., Salonen, M. K., Mikkola, S., Sulkama, S., Araujo, C., & Lohi, H. (2020). Inadequate socialisation, inactivity, and urban living environment are associated with social fearfulness in pet dogs. Scientific Reports, 10, 3527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60546-w
Riemer, S., Müller, C., Virányi, Z., Huber, L., & Range, F. (2014). The predictive value of early behavioural assessments in pet dogs: A longitudinal study from neonates to adults. PLOS ONE, 9(7), e101237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101237
Scott, J. P., & Fuller, J. L. (1965). Genetics and the social behavior of the dog. University of Chicago Press.
Volhard, J., & Volhard, W. (2010). Dog training for dummies (3rd ed.). Wiley Publishing.
Wilsson, E., & Sundgren, P.-E. (1997). The use of a behaviour test for the selection of dogs for service and breeding. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 53(4), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01174-4
A family-run breeding and development program in Medford, Wisconsin, established 2020, structured around temperament stability, genetic diversity, and COI analysis. Licensed by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, license 514401-DS. James on LinkedIn
A shared standard
is the point.
Families deserve to see the instrument rather than a summary of it. Breeders deserve a protocol worth adopting. Publishing both, including the limits, is how a method earns the name.