The Guide Dog As a Mobility Aid Part 1: Perceived Effectiveness on Travel Performance Janice K.F
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Guide Dog as a Mobility Aid Part 1: Perceived Effectiveness on Travel Performance Janice K.F. Lloyd, Steven La Grow, Kevin J. Stafford, and R. Claire Budge This is the first of a two-pori study that examined the effects of a guide dog as an aid to mobility; both parts are published in this issue of the IJOM The first part demonstrates the perceived effectiveness of the dog on travel performance, and the second part describes changes to travel habits, as well as advantages and disadvantages of guide dog mobility. In this first part of the study, the travel performance of 50 people who were blind or vision impaired was investigated retrospectively when participants used (a) mobility aids other than a guide dog (Le., before a dog was acquired) and where applicable, a dog they considered to be (b) a satisfactory and (c) an unsatisfactory mobility aid. Results indicated that travel pelformance was considered significantly better when using a satisfaetOlY dog compared to pre-guide dog mobility or an unsati~factory dog. Follow-up lests were conducted to determine lvhether differences in travel ability before a dog was acquired affected travel performance when using a satisfactory dog. Participants were separated into three groups (POOl; moderate and good travellers) based on their perceived travel ability pre-dog. Significant differences in travel performance were found between all three groups before a dog was used, but no differences were seen between the groups ,t!hen using a satisfactory dog. Further tests indicated that travel performance was significantly better for alllhree levels oftraveller when using a satisfactory dog compared to pre-dog mobility, with less accomplished travellers showing the greatest gains. The use ofa dog also appeared to alleviate restrictions to travel caused by some non-visual conditions. Perceived effectiveness on travel orientation and mobility (O&M) skills (La performance Grow & Weessies, 1994). In the present study, 'orientation' is defined as the abil A [ass of independent movement is one of ity to establish and maintain an awareness the greatest disadvantages faced by people of one's position in space relative to other who are newly blinded Or significantly vi objects in the environment, and 'mobil sion impaired, and its reacquisition gener ity' refers to the technical use of a mobil ally requires the traveller to acquire both ity aid that leads to purposeful movement. International Journal of Orientation & Mobility· Volume 1, Number 1,2008 17 • Collectively, O&M refers to the process of information regarding the texture and quali travelling through the environment safely ty oftlle walking surface (La Grow & Wees and efficiently (adapted from Lloyd, 2004). sies, 1994). However, although the lower The four main types of mobility aids are body is adequately protected, the cane does (a) sighted (human) guides, (b) a variety of not afford protection above the waist. De canes (long, short, rolding, telescopic), (c) spite the lack of empirical evidence, guide electronic travel aids (laser canes, sonic de~ dogs are generally thought to be effective vices) and (d) guide dogs (Parmer & Smith, mobility aids and have been credited with 1997). Such orientation devices as GPS and increasing functional mobility by providing audio-tactile maps are becoming more ac a straight line of travel, alerting the traveller cessible as technology advances. to changes in the surface oftravcl and avoid There are many anecdotal and autobiQ ing contact with both stationaty and moving graphical accounts of the differences guide obstacles in one's path of travel, including dogs have made to their handlers' lives (Ed· those above waist height (Whitstock, Franck, wards, 2002; Ireson, 1991; Lambert, 1990; & Haneline, 1997). Guide dogs are taught to Purves & Godwin, 1981; Stead, 1997; War find a safe path around obstacles and to re l1rrth & Seyfarth, 1982). However, little re fuse commands that would lead the person search could be fOllnd that validated the and dog into llnsafe situations. Dogs are also use of a dog as a mobility aid in the last 30 helpful in locating destinations by finding years_ The focus of research has been on the door\vays and remembering commonly trav long cane and techniques for its use (Blasch elled rolltes. As such, they are thought to re & De !'Aune, 1992; Bongers, Schellinger duce much ofthe stress and tension involved hout, van Grinsven, & Smithsman, 2002; La in independent travel (l.e., travel without the Grow, Kjeldstad, & Lcwnadowski, 1988; La help of a human guide) for people with vi Grow, Leung, & Lyell, 1995; Uslan & Sch sion impainnents. [n addition to being a mo reibeman, 1980; Wall & Ashmead, 2002a bility aid, dogs also provide companionship, and 2002b) and to a lesser extent, electronic increased social function, and improved travel aids (Heyes, 1984; La Grow, 1999; self-esteem and confidence (Lloyd, Budge, McKinley, Goldfarb, & Goodrich, 1994). La Grow, & Stafford, 2000; Miner, 200 I ~ A body of research evaluating these aids Muldoon, 2000; Sanders, 2000; Steffens & and O&M techniques exists (Dodds, Cart Berglel~ 1998; Zee, 1983)_ er, & Howarth, 1983; Dodds, Clark-Carter, Several studies on the mobility habits of & Howarth, 1984; Dodds, Clark-Carter, & people who were blind or vision impaired Howarth, 1986; Geruschat & Dc l'Aune, were conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. 1989; Guth, Hill, & Reiser, 1989; Harder & The followirlg studies, which were mainly Michael, 2002; Long, Riser, & Hill, 1990; conducted in the USA, were cited in an un Tellevik, Mal1insen, Storl1ilokken, & Elm pLiblished Ph.D_ thesis (Delafield, 1974) and erskog, 2000). showed that guide dog handlers had better When used properly, the long cane wiH mobility than had cane uscrs (Gray & Todd, provide the traveller with approximately 1968), as well as a more positive attitude one metre of warning of obstacles or drop towards blindness, greater social skllls, and oITs in the path oftravcl, while transmitting fewer feelings of inadequacy (Bauman, 18 Intemational Journal of Orientation & Mobility' Volume 1, Number 1. 2008 1954), higher levels of employment (Corbett (1986) designed and used an instrument, & Keld, 1957; Fine.stone, Lukoff, & White tile Percentage of Prefen'ed Walking Speed, man, 1960; Gowman, 1957), better levels which measured the ratio of a person's ac of education. health, intelligence, emotional tual walking speed to his or her preferred stability and were from a higher social class walking speed ifvision impairment was not (Finestonc et ai., 1960). Delafield (1974) an impediment. Despite a small sample size, pointed out that although these differences the researchers found that guide dog han ,vere impOItant, these researchers did not at dlers (n =: 3) walked significantly faster than tempt to verify where they came from. for long cane users (n "" 3), and only handlers example, the differences may have repre reached their optimal efficiency. sented the result of using a guide dog (ei As part of a study on the ophthalmic and ther directly or indirectly), or alternatively, visual profile of guide dog handlers and resulted from the people who applied and/or other vision impaired adults in Scotland, the were selected to be trained with a dog already health and social circumstances of handlers being highly motivated and well adjusLed were compared with those of patients at a to. v ision loss (non-causal). Consequently, low vision clinic, and clients of rehabilita Delafield (1974) tested the hypothesis that it tion social services (Refson, Jackson, Du was the training with and the subsequent use soir, & Archer, 1998, 1999). 1ll0! handlers of a guide dog that belped the handlers ad were found to be more mobile than either of just to their disability by improving mobil tbe other groups, but were also younger, fit i1)" self-esteem and social illteractions. By ter and healthier: findings that are consistent llsing a longitudinal design, Delafield (1974) with a previous study on the visual, health [onnd that when a long cane user became a and social status of guide dog handlers in guide dog handler, there were improvements Northern Ireland (Jackson et aL, 1994). Ref in self-esteem, social function and mobility: son, et al. (2000) compared mobility habits the latter improving considerably in terms of of guide dog handlers and long cane users stress and safety, but not necessarily efficien who had retinitis pigmentosa and found that cy. However, the small sample size (N = 6) 93% of handlers travelled independently dai may have been representative of only a se ly compared to 65% oflong cane users. This lect group of travellers and quite different to result suggests that in terms of frequency, that which might be found today. The eligi handlers were more mobile than long cane bility criteria used by guide dog schools has users. However, the use of the dog cannot be evolved in recent times, with schools now considered causative, nor did this study ad accepting a much more heterogeneous group dress how many ofthejoumeys were for the (i.e., a broader age band with both younger dogs' needs. Some long cane users in this and older applicants accepted, a wider range and in Lloyd et aI's. (2000) study rejected of visual conditions and amount of residual the idea ofllsing a dog, because they thought vision useful for mobility, and Jess accom that their mobility was not sufficiently im plished long cane travellers). Therefore, paired or because they felt they had too past findings might not be replicable with much vision. contemporary guide dog handlers. More re Despite the many advantages of long cently, Clark-Carter, Heyes, and Howarth cane mobility, disadvantages associated • Intemalionai Journal of Orientation & Mobility· Volume 1 , Number 1, 2008 19 - with its use include a high reguirement of A recent study by Kirchner, Gerber, and concentration, feel ings of stress and insecu Smith (2008) stated that community acces rity, and loss of orientation (Steffens & Ber sibility for people with vision and motor gler, 1998).