Imagine this clinical scenario: you are a vet working at a busy cat adoption centre. At a staff meeting to discuss novel methods of enrichment for the cats, a colleague suggests the use of clicker training. They note that they have heard anecdotal evidence suggesting it can reduce stress and improve adaptability in cats. You are intrigued by the idea but decide to consult the evidence before deciding whether to implement it.
The evidence
Two papers were reviewed that studied the use of clicker training on shelter cats and its impact on stress. One was a prospective randomised clinical trial (Gourkow and Phillips, 2016) and the other was a before-and-after study with each cat acting as its own control (Grant and Warrior, 2019).
Gourkow and Phillips (2016) studied 15 “frustrated” cats from an initial cohort of 250 cats, from which they classified each cat as either “content”, “anxious” or “frustrated”. Only cats that were considered “frustrated” were selected for the study. Cats were classified as “frustrated” if they displayed any of the following behaviours during more than 10 percent of their awake time: vocalisation, escape attempts, visual scanning, pushing objects, pacing or aggression against humans.
The study consisted of two groups: the treatment group and the control group. The treatment group underwent clicker training sessions four times per day for 10 days, while the control group did not receive any interaction at all. The cats’ behaviour was assessed by reviewing daily video footage and classified as either “content”, “frustrated” or “apathetic” using an ethogram devised by the authors. The outcomes studied were behavioural indicators of stress and physiological indicators of stress.
Grant and Warrior (2019) studied 12 domestic cats at a rehoming centre. All of the cats were subjected to a six-session clicker training programme with no control group. Each cat received six 10-minute clicker training sessions over a period of two weeks and had multiple socialisation sessions with volunteers over this period. The cats’ behaviour was assessed before they had received any clicker training and after they had completed every session of clicker training.
A t-test was used to analyse the amount of time each cat spent in various behavioural categories both before and after the course of clicker training. The outcomes studied were: time spent in the “exploratory” and “inactive” behavioural categories; time spent near the front of their cage; and whether contact was possible following a human approach test (HAT). All of the outcomes studied were recorded before and after the training programme.
Limitations of the evidence
The lack of enrichment received by the control group creates a severe confounding effect when assessing the efficacy of clicker training, or whether interaction or being outside a cage has had an effect
Both studies reviewed had limitations that weakened the overall quality of evidence. Each study had small sample sizes and a lack of meaningful control groups. Gourkow and Phillips (2016) used a sample size of 15, and the control group was not meaningful: the control group had no interaction at all, while the treatment cats had clicker training sessions at least four times a day. The lack of enrichment received by the control group creates a severe confounding effect when assessing the efficacy of clicker training, or whether interaction or being outside a cage has had an effect. Grant and Warrior (2019) studied 12 cats, with every cat used as its own control. It is therefore difficult to ascertain whether clicker training was responsible for the cats’ improved exploratory behaviours.
Gourkow and Phillips (2016) also studied cats that were deemed to be “frustrated” which limits the applicability of the evidence in this case, where we are examining the impact of clicker training on stress rather than frustration. The study also fails to state which experimenter assessed the cats’ emotional states, raising the possibility of bias if one reviewer both trained and assessed the same cats.
Grant and Warrior (2019) had several confounding factors, such as the cats continuing to receive interaction during the study which raises the possibility that the cats were becoming more accustomed to their environment; this may have affected their behaviour. Despite this limitation, the authors still interpreted the results as being due to clicker training. They also do not state which experimenter assessed the cats, raising the possibility of bias.
Summary of findings
The findings of both papers found that indicators of stress in shelter cats had reduced following clicker training. However, these findings must be considered in conjunction with the limitations of both studies.
Gourkow and Phillips (2016) found that both behavioural and physiological indicators of stress indicated that clicker training had had a positive impact. When compared with the control group the treatment group were found to be more likely to be “content”, to reach a “content” rating quicker and to remain “content”, as well as having a greater S-IgA level in their stool and a lesser likelihood of developing upper respiratory disease.
Grant and Warrior (2019) found that there was an increase in “exploratory” behaviour and time spent at the front of their cage after clicker training. They also found that there was a significant decrease in “inactive” behaviour following training.
Conclusion
There is weak evidence to suggest that clicker training reduces stress in shelter cats; however, this must be considered in the context of the limitations
There is weak evidence to suggest that clicker training reduces stress in shelter cats; however, this must be considered in the context of the limitations laid out above, which limit their attribution to clicker training alone. Indeed, it is possible that other forms of cognitive enrichment – such as human interaction and increased familiarity with their environment – had an impact on the outcomes. Further studies with robust study design, larger cohorts, fewer confounding factors and less scope for bias are required to improve the strength of evidence.
| The full Knowledge Summary can be read in RCVS Knowledge’s open access journal Veterinary Evidence. |
Disclaimer
The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise; patient’s circumstances and owner’s values; country, location or clinic where you work; the individual case in front of you; and the availability of therapies and resources.
