← Back to Research
Canine Pruritus Assessment

Owners Rated Their Dog's Itch More Consistently When Shown Their Own Previous Score

Agreement between the scale and the owner's own sense of improvement rose from 79% to 96% when the last visit's number was on the table.

Canine Pruritus AssessmentModerate evidence
Source
Veterinary Dermatology, 2019
Study type
Prospective randomised comparison of scale administration methods, with a retrospective record analysis
PAWai use
EducationalObservation Support
Last reviewed
September 2, 2026
Next scheduled review
September 2, 2027
Version
Topic v1.0 · Knowledge v1.0
⚠ Not for decision-making — for education and visit preparation only

Plain-English summary

If your dog is being treated for itching, someone will eventually ask whether it is better. That question is harder than it sounds — you are comparing today against a memory of several weeks ago, which is exactly the kind of comparison people are worst at.

This 2019 study tested a small intervention: let the owner see the number they gave last time, before they give a new one. Agreement between the score change and the owner's own sense of whether the dog had improved rose from 79% to 96%.

The finding is genuinely interesting for anyone who keeps a health record — and it comes with a caveat sharp enough that it deserves stating alongside the number rather than after it.

What the study found

One hundred and ninety-two pruritic dogs were enrolled prospectively, with a further 196 examined retrospectively. Owners were randomly assigned to five groups, and Pruritus Visual Analog Scale scores were recorded across two consecutive visits.

The groups differed in how the scale was presented. Group A saw their previous scores before completing the scale. Group B completed it, were then shown their previous scores, and asked to repeat it. Group C completed it as normally reported, with no reference to previous scores. Group D completed the visual scale plus a 0–10 verbal scale.

Agreement with the owner's perception of improvement varied sharply by method. Group A reached 96% average agreement with a kappa of 0.81. Group B reached 80% before seeing previous scores and 82% after. Group D reached 85% (kappa 0.47). Group C — the standard approach, with no previous score shown — was lowest at 79% and a kappa of 0.37.

In Group D, the visual and verbal scales did not differ significantly from each other (P = 0.56).

The retrospective analysis, looking across at least three consecutive visits, found much weaker agreement overall: 50.8% average and a kappa of 0.25. The best values, 63% and 0.355, occurred at visit intervals of 30 to 60 days.

The authors' conclusion is modest and specific: showing owners previous scores could improve how the scale captures the owner's perception of their dog's itching level.

What this study cannot tell you

This is the important part, and it runs against the conclusion a record-keeping product would like to draw.

The study measured agreement between the change in score and the owner's own reported perception of improvement. It did not measure whether either of those corresponds to the dog's actual itch. An owner who sees they wrote 7 last time and believes the treatment is working may write 4 this time partly because that is the shape of the story — anchoring, not observation. This design cannot separate a genuinely better assessment from a more internally consistent one.

So "seeing the previous score improves the record" is supported. "Seeing the previous score makes owners more accurate about their dog" is not, and should not be claimed.

The retrospective agreement of 50.8% across real consecutive visits is also a sobering number. In ordinary practice, across ordinary intervals, owner scoring and owner perception line up about half the time.

Finally, this is a single-centre study of dogs already under care for itching, using one scale. It says nothing about detecting skin disease, and nothing about what any particular score means clinically.

What pet owners should track

If your dog is under treatment for itching, the useful record is short and dated:

  • The score your veterinarian's tool produces, kept with its date so you can see it at the next visit
  • Where on the body your dog is scratching, licking or chewing, and whether that has moved
  • Whether the itching is worse at particular times of day or year
  • Any change in treatment, with the date it started — this is the anchor everything else is read against
  • Aim to review roughly monthly if your vet agrees; agreement in this study was best at 30–60 day intervals

Bring the previous number with you. On this evidence, having it in front of you changes how you answer.

What PAWai can help organize

This is the rare study that speaks directly to what a health record is for: the previous number, available at the moment you are asked for the next one. PAWai keeps scores and observations with their dates so that comparison is a reading rather than a recollection. PAWai does not score your dog's itch, does not administer the Pruritus Visual Analog Scale, and does not interpret what a score means. The scale belongs to your veterinarian, and as this study shows, the value is in the record being available at the visit — not in an app producing a number of its own.

Disclaimer

PAWai organizes information and educates pet owners. PAWai does not diagnose conditions or recommend treatment. Always consult a licensed veterinarian for medical decisions about your pet.

Citation

Young, A. J., Torres, S. M. F., Koch, S. N., Eisenschenk, M. N. C., & Rendahl, A. K. (2019). Canine Pruritus Visual Analog Scale: how does it capture owners' perception of their pet's itching level? Veterinary Dermatology, 30(5), 377. https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.12761

Strzok, E., Torres, S. M. F., Koch, S. N., & Rendahl, A. K. (2022). Validation of the 0–10 verbal numeric scale for assessment of pruritus severity in dogs. Veterinary Dermatology, 33(3), 203. https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.13062

Frequently asked questions

Does keeping a record actually make my reporting better?

It made it more consistent in this study. Owners who saw their previous score before rating again showed 96% agreement with their own perception of whether the dog had improved, against 79% for owners scoring without that reference. But consistency is not the same as accuracy — see the caveat below, because it matters.

Couldn't showing the old score just bias the new one?

Yes, and this study cannot rule that out. It measured agreement between the score change and the owner's sense of improvement, not whether either matched the dog's actual itch. An owner shown a previous 7 may anchor to it and produce a number that fits their story rather than the dog. The finding is real; the interpretation needs this caveat.

How long can I wait between assessments?

In the retrospective part of this study, agreement across consecutive visits averaged only 50.8%, and the best figures came at visit intervals of 30 to 60 days. Longer gaps appear to make the comparison less reliable.

Is a simple 0-10 number as good as the visual scale?

In the group that completed both, the visual analog scale and a 0-10 verbal scale did not differ significantly. A separate 2022 validation found the verbal scale valid but not interchangeable with the visual one, so a clinic will generally want you to stay on whichever tool it uses.

Should I be scoring my dog's itch at home?

Only if your veterinarian asks you to, and using the tool they give you. This study is about how the scale behaves in a clinic across follow-up visits, not about home scoring, and itch has many causes that need diagnosis before any number is meaningful.

Sources

Related Research