Online veröffentlicht: 01. Jan. 2010
Seitenbereich: 9 - 26
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/ijom-2010-002
© 2010 Peter McKenzie published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Dog distraction is one of the more important negative issues affecting guide dog mobility. Harrison (2006) suggested that dog distraction is one of the most common reasons for rejecting dogs that are being assessed for guide dog training. That this problem continues to have an impact on guide dog mobility after the training, and placement of guide dogs is evidenced by a recent survey of guide dog users in New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Australia. Some 80% of guide dog users have had their guide dog distracted by off-lead dogs while travelling and 10% have had their dogs distracted by other dogs on lead (Attwood, Oscuro, & Heller, 2010).
Dog distraction may be defined by considering two approaches. First, a behavioural approach that describes specific behaviours, and second, a temperamental approach that attempts to identify underlying temperamental causes. One of the difficulties in defining dog distraction, and hence addressing the issue, is that there may be many underlying temperamental causes leading to different behaviours. In effect does the practitioner look for specific behaviours, or assess temperamental characteristics, which may be difficult to measure?
According to Shaddock (2008): “Dog distraction can be considered a potential guide dog’s shift in attention towards another dog that results in decreased attention to its handler and guiding responsibilities, and is manifested by changes in behaviour that negatively affect guiding work” (p. 59). Murphy (1998) defined dog distraction as one of many temperamental traits that is described as “the degree to which a dog’s attention focuses on another dog” (p. 166). Murphy (1998) described some of the behaviours associated with dog distraction as follows: erect ears, rigid tail, rapid tail movement, mouth open, lowering of the body, pulling on leash, fixed gaze, and sniffing other dogs. Some of these behaviours may also be associated with other underlying temperamental traits (Murphy, 1998).
Harrison (2006) identified three broad categories of dog distraction from a temperamental perspective: playful positive reaction, aggression, and fear response. Other underlying temperamental categories that have been suggested are dominant, submissive, and excitable (Shaddock, 2008).
Some of the behaviours described may be observed by practitioners, but have no practical impact on guide dog mobility as experienced by users. Rather than practitioners of guide dog mobility attempting to define and measure dog distraction in some quantifiable way, either from a temperamental or behavioural perspective, in this study, guide dog users have identified dog distraction as they have experienced the problem.
The term “dog distraction”, as used in this study, can best be described as a broad definition that covers a variety of behaviours, with a variety of underlying causes. As an example, a dog which is reacting negatively towards another dog out of fear, demonstrates quite different behaviour to a dog which acts positively towards another dog in a playful way. In broad terms they are both deemed to be dog distracted, and may be described that way by users. Though the dogs carry the same defining term, they may be demonstrating quite different behaviours. Thus, generalising of the definition may be one of the weaknesses of the study, particularly in Part 3 where an analysis of the independent variables that may point to a causal factor are considered.
This study was conducted retrospectively, and relied on feedback from guide dog users obtained over a nine year period. Recipients of guide dog services provided by Guide Dogs NSW/ACT are able to seek assistance for any issues they may be experiencing after the conclusion of their initial training for the working life of the dog. When assistance is requested, a referral is taken and recorded in the organisation’s database. The aftercare referral records from the organisation were used to identify the frequency of dog distraction. In effect the user has defined which behaviours were important. There are problems with this approach that will affect the reliability of the measure. For example, users will have varying degrees of tolerance for a particular behaviour. In addition, there may be specific factors relating to populations. Social, gender, cultural, or regional factors that may restrict access to services may impact on a user’s tendency to seek assistance.
For the purpose of this study, a guide dog was deemed to be dog distracted (the dependent variable) if, in the first year of service, one of the following occurred:
A client approached Guide Dogs NSW/ACT for assistance in managing dog distraction issues. A formal action (a referral) was recorded, which led to some form of training program. This process may have included telephone advice, face to face training, or the provision of some form of equipment.
An orientation and mobility (O&M) instructor initiated the referral to manage dog distraction behaviours after discussion with the user, while in the process of a follow-up visit, or unrelated visit or discussion. It is assumed that user agreement was obtained before initiating a referral.
The guide dog was retired prematurely for dog distraction, or multiple reasons including dog distraction, without a formal referral being recorded. In this case the retirement was the formal action.
The first year of service began in the month in which the dog was placed at the successful completion of the initial training program, and concluded after the end of the twelfth month, e.g., December 2001-November 2002.
With the exception of (C), a guide dog aftercare program, or guide dog resource program was recorded in the organisation’s database. Referrals not acted on (a nil program), or casual comments (noted during follow up visits, or other unrelated programs) were not counted as incidents of dog distraction. Guide dog incidents that mentioned dog distraction did not count unless a referral was taken to manage dog distraction. Non working situations, for example barking at another dog next door while in the back yard were not counted as dog distraction. For the purpose of this study, for a dog to be regarded as dog distracted, (a) the behaviour must have been serious enough for formal action (a referral) to be taken; (b) the user initiated the action, or at least agreed to action being taken.
All dogs that commenced training after the opening of the organisation’s new training centre in 2000, and were placed as guide dogs up until the end of calendar year 2008 were used in this study, with the following conditions:
Dogs had to be sourced from breeders identified as such in the organisation’s database;
Dogs must have completed the routine puppy raising period;
Dogs retired, and then reinstated with another user, were only included on their initial placement;
Imported dogs were not included in this study.
Three hundred and two dogs fitting the above criteria had been placed with users during this period. In 22 cases, dogs were exported interstate, client files were destroyed, or moved to other geographical regions outside of NSW. Two hundred and eighty dogs remained. Although not all dogs worked for a full year they were included in the study. Dogs included Labrador and Golden Retrievers of both sexes.
From the organisation’s database, the following data relating to each dog and corresponding user were retrieved: (i) date of placement (ii) dog training batch (iii) dog sex (iv) dog breed (v) breeder code (vi) puppy raiser code (vii) supervising trainer (viii) region of user file location (ix) user gender (x) user age, and (xi) user experience (1st, 2nd, 3rd, or subsequent dogs) were all recorded. From each dog’s file, dog distraction assessment scores at training intake were recorded. From each user file, program type (regional or domiciliary) and names of program instructor/s were obtained. From the user file, all aftercare and guide dog resource referrals were examined for a period of two years, after placement date. If any referral mentioned dog distraction specifically, or alluded to difficulty working a guide dog in the presence of other dogs, this note was recorded as dog distraction, and marked as occurring in the first, or second year, or both if applicable. Some referrals alluded to the possibility of dog distraction without specifically mentioning the term. In these cases the author examined documentation associated with the referral to ascertain whether or not the referral related to dog distraction. As an example, a guide dog resource referral issued the user with a Halti head piece. The referral gave no reason for issuing the aid, but reference to the proceeding follow-up visit indicated that dog distraction was likely to be the reason for issuing the equipment. In some cases the referral stated “difficulties managing the dog”. Again reference to associated paperwork was used to clarify the situation. On some referrals multiple problems were listed. If any mention of dog distraction occurred on these referrals, then this was counted as dog distraction. The author’s interpretation in these cases may affect the reliability of the measure. From a sample of the populations of dogs from three of six regions (approximately half the population), 38 referrals were taken over the period for dog distraction. Twenty-six of these self referred, and 12 were referred by Guide Dogs’ staff. Of the 38 referrals counted as dog distraction, 35 specifically mentioned dog distraction, three required interpretation by the author, and were included as dog distraction. Another three that required interpretation were rejected as they were considered unrelated to dog distraction.
Reasons for limiting the recording period to the first year of service were first, this period follows immediately after the period when both the dog and user are trained, and is more likely to reveal problems that may have been present in the training process. Second, the initial 12 month period is punctuated by face to face follow-up visits where users have a greater opportunity to discuss problems they may be having. Finally, to extend the time period to two, or three years would delay the data gathering and obtaining of results.
Records of the 280 dogs included in the study were marked with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as to whether or not they were associated with dog distraction referrals in the first, second, or both years of service.
Eighty (28.6%) out of the 280 dogs placed over the period were reported as being dog distracted in the first year of service. Table 1 identifies referrals for each year over the period. There were only three dogs placed in 2000 that had been solely trained at the new training centre. As these dogs were placed in December 2000 they were included in the group of dogs placed in 2001.
Table 1.
Percentage of dogs with dog distraction referrals by calendar year.
Of the dogs placed until the end of 2007, 71 (29.7%) dogs were dog distracted in the first year of service. Ten of these dogs retired during the first year of service, eight for reasons that were either solely for, or included, dog distraction. Of the 61 dogs from the original dog distracted group that commenced a second year, 22 (36.1%) were associated with dog distraction referrals in the second year of service. In summary, 30 dogs (42.3%) that were dog distracted in the first year were either retired for dog distraction reasons, or remained dog distracted in the second year.
Eleven (5.2%) of the dogs commencing the second year that had been free of dog distraction in the first year became dog distracted in the second year. This finding indicates that if dog distraction is to become a problem as identified by clients in the first two years of service, then it is more than six times more likely to emerge in the first year of placement, than the second. Table 1 and Figure 1 identify the frequency of dogs associated with referrals for each year over the period.
Figure 1.
Percentage of dogs with dog distraction referrals by calendar year.
The available user files associated with all the dogs in the study were examined to assess the frequency of dog distraction as an issue in comparison with other behavioural issues. From the organisation’s database all aftercare and resource referrals were obtained for one year after placement for each dog. From each referral the issue(s) was recorded as written on the referral. Since this study was concerned with dog distraction as a behavioural issue, and this part of the study compared dog distraction with other behavioural issues, referrals concerned with equipment replacement, health, and aftercare non-problematic training were excluded. For example, a common aftercare referral was for escalator training. However, escalator training was considered add-on training for the original program, not considered to be problematic, and hence excluded. For each dog, a list of problems was created for the first year of service. At the end of this process a list was compiled showing the number of dogs associated with each behavioural issue. Multiple referrals for the same problem attached to one dog over the year were ignored. If a dog recorded two dog distraction referrals then the dog was recorded as having dog distraction and the number of referrals was not considered important. Non-working, or off-duty issues were compiled as one group.
Of 280 dogs, 179 (63.9 %) were associated with aftercare issues. Figure 2 identifies the most important aftercare issues across the entire period. Dog distraction as an issue has the highest frequency of dogs with referrals throughout the study period.
Figure 2.
Number of dogs associated with aftercare issue (N = 280).
The population of dogs was divided into three groups in an attempt to identify issues that may have changed proportionally over the period. Figures 3 to 5 identify the most important aftercare issues in each time period. The percentages of dogs placed in each period that were associated with all aftercare referrals were 60.4%, 66.1%, and 65% respectively, indicating a fairly consistent problem rate over the period.
Figure 3.
Major aftercare issues associated with dogs placed in calendar years 2000 to 2003.
Figure 4.
Major aftercare issues associated with dogs placed in calendar years 2004 to 2006.
Figure 5.
Major aftercare issues associated with dogs placed in calendar years 2007 to 2008.
This section of the study investigated a range of variables associated with the establishment of a guide dog team, including dog variables, training variables, and user variables that may be related to dog distraction referrals. There may be many other factors influencing dog distraction in guide dogs which were not covered by this study. In addition, as the study was retrospective, it was not always possible to control for the effects of confounding factors, as would be possible when conducting a planned experiment. The effects of any possible hidden or confounding variables should be considered when interpreting the results. Chi Squared testing was used to analyse the results. All testing results assumed p < .05 as significant. Cramer’s V was used to determine the strength of association for those variables that were significant.
There were six regional locations over the period in which dog behaviour was recorded. The files from Sydney East, Sydney West, Hunter, Northern, Southern (ACT & Albury), and Central West regions were examined. Caution should be taken when interpreting the results of this part of the study. As an example, a user may have lived in the Sydney region when the first year of dog use occurred. When the data were collected client files might have been in another region. If dog distraction did occur in Sydney, this would have been assigned to the current region where the file was kept at the time of collecting data. Additionally, some users may cross regional boundaries on a regular, even daily basis, for example users residing in the Hunter region and working in Sydney. The dog distraction incident leading to the referral may have taken place in a different region to that of their file location. No attempt was made in this study to clarify any errors that may have been recorded due to the above factors. Table 2 identifies dog distraction referral rates by region. There was no significant difference between the five regions with respect to the frequency of dog distraction referrals.
Table 2.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by region.
Two breeds of dog were used. Of the 280 dogs placed, there were 243 Labrador Retrievers and 37 Golden Retrievers.
When a guide dog is matched to a particular user, matching staff may select a particular sex of dog to be more suitable for a particular gender of user, for a variety of reasons. These may include attempts to minimise dog distraction. As dogs are not randomly placed with clients, decisions made during matching might introduce a bias that would affect the results of any test that looks at one variable in isolation. There may also be a similar confounding factor introduced when analysing the effects of using either of the two breeds available (Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers). As an example, if matching staff held a belief that one breed was generally less prone to dog distraction behaviours than another, then they might deliberately place that breed into situations that they believe will be more likely to minimise dog distraction issues – so disadvantaging that particular breed with regard to the purposes of this study. Randomised matching of dogs would remove this factor, though the process would be difficult to implement. As the study was conducted retrospectively, it was impossible to control for any possible matching bias.
For the purpose of this part of the study, Labradors were compared with Golden Retrievers with no attempt made to consider any confounding factors. There were 25 male Golden Retrievers and 12 females. The Golden Retrievers were placed with 27 women and 10 men. The ratio of dogs to bitches that commenced training was not known. However, male placement exceeded females by two to one.
Table 3 identifies differences between the available breeds. There was no significant difference between Golden Retrievers and Labradors with respect to dog distraction referrals. This result applies to the dogs available to Guide Dogs NSW/ACT over the period, and may not be replicated elsewhere.
Table 3.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by dog breed.
In attempting to eliminate one possible confounding variable when analysing the effects of dog sex, and user gender, and considering the low numbers of Golden Retrievers, this breed was removed from this part of the analysis, and as such, any conclusions drawn are specific to Labrador Retrievers.
Table 4 identifies dog distraction referral frequencies for dog sex and user gender. A significant difference was found between the gender of user and sex of dog. Further pairwise comparisons of each group from Table 4 revealed that the significant differences occurred between the following groups: men with bitches vs. women with dogs (χ2 = (1, n = 64) = 8.787, p = .003; Cramer’s V = 0.37), men with bitches vs. women with bitches (χ2 = (1, n = 119) = 5.834, p = .016; Cramer’s V = 0.22), and men with bitches vs. men with dogs (χ2 = (1, n = 122) = 5.427, p = 0.019; Cramer’s V = 0.19). In summary, when men are matched to female Labradors, they have a significantly lower frequency of dog distraction referrals when compared against all other groups. Whether or not the dog distraction behaviour is reduced because of user gender/dog sex characteristics, or whether or not the reduction in referrals is simply a function of the ability of men to manage the smaller average size of bitches, in relation to larger male dogs, are matters for further study. These results may say more about the size of the dog than the sex. However, if the findings are related to dog size, then they are not replicated when female handlers are using either sex of dog. It should be noted that in the matching process 73.4% of dogs are placed with men and 73.9% of bitches are placed with women. The practise of biasing dogs towards male users, and bitches towards female users seem to contradict the results. If dog distraction is the only consideration when matching, then it may be better to reverse the bias, and place bitches with male clients where possible. Similar analysis using Golden Retrievers could not be conducted due to the small population, and small expected frequencies.
Table 4.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by dog sex and user gender (Golden Retrievers excluded) n = 243.
The dogs that had been placed over the period were provided by 68 breeders. The numbers supplied by each breeder ranged from one dog to 24 dogs. The relatively low numbers for most breeders made it difficult to determine any differences between individual breeders with respect to dog distraction. All breeders were ranked into two groups, according to how many dogs they had provided, that were placed with users. The ranking into groups would determine whether or not there were any differences between regular and occasional providers of dogs. Fifty-nine breeders provided up to eight dogs each over the period, totalling 145 dogs. Nine breeders provided between nine and 24 dogs each, totalling 135 dogs. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to dog distraction referrals (Table 5).
Table 5.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by breeder quantity of dogs.
Each dog is raised by volunteers for a period of approximately 12 months before being returned to the organisation for assessment and training. As the number of dogs that individual puppy raisers had raised was limited, it was not possible to compare individuals against each other for success. The author attempted to explore any differences based on experience; the assumption (perhaps incorrect) is that having raised more than one dog would result in higher levels of skill.
Fifty-six of the dogs had multiple puppy raisers prior to intake. The puppy raisers for the remaining 224 dogs were segregated into three groups based on experience namely the number of dogs they had raised. One hundred and forty-nine puppy raisers raised one dog each. Twenty puppy raisers raised two dogs each. Five puppy raisers raised three dogs each. Three puppy raisers raised four dogs each, and one puppy raiser raised five dogs. The puppy raisers were split into three groups namely those who had raised one, two, and more than two dogs respectively. Observed frequencies are presented in Table 6. Puppy raiser experience was not significantly related to the frequency of dog distraction referrals.
Table 6.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by puppy raiser experience.
A number of dogs had multiple puppy raisers for unknown reasons. This disruption may, or may not have been related to the dogs’ later behaviour. Alternatively, the dogs’ earlier behaviour may have caused the puppy raisers to return the dogs prematurely. All dogs were segregated into two population groups based on whether or not they had one or more puppy raisers. Observed frequencies are presented in Table 7. Dogs with multiple puppy raisers were significantly more likely to be associated with dog distraction referrals in year one.
Table 7.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by puppy raiser numbers.
At the end of the puppy raising period, and before training commences at the training centre, each dog is assessed for its training suitability. One of the selection criteria is in relation to dog distraction. Each dog is given one of four scores. If a dog’s score is zero, then there has been no evidence of dog distraction behaviour observed during the assessment period. If the score is one, then there has been evidence of dog distraction, though considered to be at low levels. If the score is two, then dog distraction behaviour that has been observed is considered to be a concern, and to be reviewed as training progresses. A score of three indicates that the dog distraction behaviour observed is of unacceptable levels, and the dog is rejected from training. These scores are recorded in the dog’s file. Therefore, any dog that has been placed as a guide dog will have a score between zero and two. Twenty-one of the population had no scores recorded, leaving 259 available dogs for this part of the study. Six dogs scored zero at assessment. One hundred and forty-three dogs scored one, and 110 scored two. As the zero scores were few in number, they were included with the group scoring one, leaving two groups of dogs namely those with high levels of dog distraction (2), and those with no, or low levels of dog distraction (0/1). Observed frequencies are presented in Table 8. Dogs with high assessment scores on intake were significantly more likely to be associated with dog distraction referrals in year one. The reliability of this measure may be affected in the following way. Each training batch will have an instructor making the judgement of the dog’s score. A dog scored low by one instructor may be scored high by another. In addition, a relative judgement may be made within a batch. For example, a dog may be scored low in one group because it appears low in dog distraction behaviour when compared with other dogs in the batch. The same dog when placed in a different group may appear to be high in dog distraction behaviours. Nevertheless, despite these issues, there is a significant difference between assessment scores, in the expected direction.
Table 8.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by training intake assessment score.
Figure 6 demonstrates the relationship between low and high assessment scores over the period. It should be noted that dogs with high assessment scores are higher than low scoring dogs in every year of the study. It should also be noted that, as seen in year 2004, other factors are at play, as both low and high scoring dogs drop significantly in this year.
Figure 6.
Percentage of dogs with dog distraction referrals by assessment score.
There appears to be a significant relationship between dogs with high assessment scores and dog distraction referrals, and dogs that have had multiple puppy raisers. As both these variables emerge in the pre-intake stage, and may be confounding each other, a multifactorial analysis was conducted. Observed frequencies for single/multiple puppy raised dogs vs. assessment scores are shown in Table 9. Further, pair-wise comparisons of each group from Table 9 revealed that the significant differences occurred between the following groups: dogs with multiple puppy raisers and high assessment scores vs. dogs with multiple puppy raisers and low assessment scores .(χ2 = (1, n = 53) = 4.83, p = .028; Cramer’s V = 0.30); dogs with multiple puppy raisers and high assessment scores vs. dogs with single puppy raisers and high assessment scores .(χ2 = (1, n = 110) = 4.81, p = .028; Cramer’s V = 0.21); dogs with multiple puppy raisers and high assessment scores vs. dogs with single puppy raisers and low assessment scores .(χ2 = (1, n = 152) = 12.33, p = .0004; Cramer’s V = 0.28). In summary, dogs that have been raised by multiple puppy raisers and have been scored high at intake are significantly more likely to be associated with dog distraction referrals against all other groups. It may be that a third behavioural factor is at play that contributes to high assessment scores and leads to puppy raisers returning particular dogs.
Table 9.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by puppy raising variable and assessment score.
Dogs are trained in solo batches by one instructor, or double batches, where multiple instructors are involved in the training of each dog. In the latter case at least one instructor is nearly always under the supervision of a more senior instructor. Some dogs are carried over into subsequent batches, and as such have multiple trainers impacting on their behaviour. For this reason it seemed pointless to examine the performance of individual instructors who were recorded on the database as the designated trainer of a particular dog. Solo batches (trained by one instructor) would be an exception. However, in these cases, the number of dogs trained by individual (solo) instructors was too small to obtain any meaningful findings. Therefore, this part of the study examined two aspects of the training. First, the dogs from the batches of the three most productive supervising instructors over the period were compared. Second, dogs from solo (unsupervised) batches were compared with dogs from supervised batches. The dogs for this part of this study were from 33 batches over the period.
An analysis of the dogs from the three most productive supervising instructors over this period was undertaken to see whether or not there were any differences between supervising instructors. Three instructors were responsible for the training of 136 placed dogs from 13 batches. Observed frequencies are shown in Table 10. There was no significant difference in dog distraction referral rates between the three supervising instructors.
Table 10.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by supervising instructor.
All dogs were segregated into two groups based on training batch type (supervised or solo group). The purpose of this segregation was to determine if there was a difference between trainers working unsupervised on solo batches and trainers working under supervision. Sixty dogs were placed from eight solo batches, and 214 dogs placed from 22 supervised batches over the period. Six dogs were trained in batches which were neither solo, nor supervised. Observed frequencies are presented in Table 11. There was no significant difference in dog distraction referral rates for dogs trained in supervised or solo batches.
Table 11.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by batch type.
Guide dog users are trained in one of two settings. Training either takes place from their homes (domiciliary training) or away from home (regional training). Regional training usually consists of group training in a class, followed by post-class training in the individual user’s domestic setting. Those users who train in a regional setting usually, but not always, have more than one instructor involved in their training. Often training takes place with a new instructor under the supervision of a more experienced instructor, and post-class training can be, and often is conducted by a third instructor. The first part of this section analysed whether or not the difference in training setting had any relationship to outcomes. It was not possible to determine training type in four cases leaving 276 remaining for this part of the study. Observed frequencies are presented in Table 12. There was no significant difference in dog distraction referral rates for users trained in either domiciliary or regional settings.
Table 12.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by training type.
The second part of this section analysed differences in program instructor. Most regional training involved input from more than one instructor. For this reason only domiciliary programs were used for this part of the study. In addition, many programs are conducted by an instructor under supervision. There were also some programs conducted by instructors who had only completed a small number that influenced statistically inconclusive results. For this reason the four most experienced instructors were compared. They had completed 22, 18, 17, and 13 domiciliary programs respectively over the period totalling 70 programs. The results shown in Table 13 demonstrate there were differences between the four program instructors. Further pair-wise comparisons between each group from Table 12 revealed that the significant differences occurred between the following instructors: Instructor D vs. Instructor A (Fishers Exact test p = .007); Instructor D vs. Instructor C (Fishers p = .009); and Instructor D vs. Instructor B (p = .05). In summary, Instructor D produced significantly better results when compared with Instructors A and C.
Table 13.
Percentage of dogs with dog distraction referrals by program instructor.
All users were classified by age into deciles. The age group under 20 years were too small to provide meaningful results. These were combined with those in the 20-29 year age group. All those over 70 years were combined as one group for the same reason. The ages of two users were unknown and excluded from this part of the study. Observed frequencies are shown in Table 14. There was no significant difference in dog distraction referral rates for dogs that were used in the different age categories.
Table 14.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by user age.
All users were segregated into four groups based on experience. The measure of experience was based on whether or not the dog in the study was their first, second, third, fourth, or subsequent dog. Observed frequencies are shown in Table 15. There was no significant difference in dog distraction referrals rates for users based on their experience.
Table 15.
Observed frequencies of dog distraction referrals by user experience.
This study found that of 280 guide dogs placed with users from 2000 to 2008, 80 (28.6%) were associated with dog distraction referrals in the first year of guiding work.
Dog distraction was the most frequent behavioural problem mentioned on aftercare referrals over the entire period and remained so throughout the period. This was followed by toileting and off-duty issues.
Fourteen variables that may have had an impact on dog distraction outcomes including dog, training, and client variables were examined. Of the variables considered in this study, there were no significant differences found between the following: regions of operation, dog breed used by the organisation, occasional vs. regular supplier, puppy raiser experience, training batch supervisors, training batch type, program training type, client age, and client experience.
Significant differences were found in the following areas. Men using female Labradors have a significantly lower frequency of dog distraction referrals against all other combinations (Golden Retrievers were not considered in this part of the study). Whether or not dog distraction behaviour in bitches is actually reduced when working with men or whether or not men are more able to physically manage the same level of behaviour is a subject for further study. Nevertheless, the practise of biasing male Labradors towards male handlers contradicts these findings, at least in regard to dog distraction referral rates.
Dogs raised by multiple puppy raisers, which had high training intake assessment scores, were significantly more likely to be associated with dog distraction referrals.
Finally, of the four senior instructors who had completed the highest number of domiciliary training programs, one instructor was associated with a significantly lower frequency of dog distraction referrals when compared with two of the other instructors.
This study has found no single factor fully addresses the problem of dog distraction. Two variables that may affect the dog’s behaviour prior to training intake suggest that some traits exist early in the dog’s life, which carry through to the working guide dog, and are not fully addressed in training. The two remaining variables suggest that the matching phase and program delivery phase of guide dog service delivery may be important areas of intervention when addressing this problem.