Cognitive test batteries in animal cognition research: evaluating the past, present and future of comparative psychometrics
For the past two decades, behavioural ecologists have documented consistent individual differences in behavioural traits within species and found evidence for animal “personality”. It is only relatively recently, however, that increasing numbers of researchers have begun to investigate individual differences in cognitive ability within species. It has been suggested that cognitive test batteries may provide an ideal tool for this growing research endeavour. In fact, cognitive test batteries have now been used to examine the causes, consequences and underlying structure of cognitive performance within and between many species. In this review, we document the existing attempts to develop cognitive test batteries for non-human animals and review the claims that these studies have made in terms of the structure and evolution of cognition. We argue that our current test battery methods could be improved on multiple fronts, from the design of tasks, to the domains targeted and the species tested. Refining and optimising test battery design will provide many benefits. In future, we envisage that well-designed cognitive test batteries may provide answers to a range of exciting questions, including giving us greater insight into the evolution and structure of cognition.
KeywordsCognitive test battery Psychometric testing Comparative cognition General intelligence g factor Individual variation
RCS was funded by a Marsden Fast-Start grant from the Royal Society of New Zealand (Grant number VUW1304).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Crocker L, Algina J (1986) Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
- Deaner R, Van Schaik C, Johnson V (2006) Do some taxa have better domain-general cognition than others? A meta-analysis of nonhuman primate studies. Evol Psychol 4:149–196Google Scholar
- Nawroth C, von Borell E, Langbein J (2015) “Goats that stare at men”: dwarf goats alter their behaviour in response to human head orientation, but do not spontaneously use head direction as a cue in a food-related context. Anim Cogn 18:65–73. doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0777-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Osborne JW, Costello AB (2004) Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 9:8Google Scholar
- Powlesland RG (1997) Protocols for monitoring New Zealand robins. Dep Conserv Tech Ser 13:1–14Google Scholar
- Shaw RC, MacKinlay RD (2016) Destruction of a North Island robin (Petroica longipes) nest by a little spotted kiwi (Apteryx owenii). Notornis 63:46–49Google Scholar
- Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behaviour, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar