The Guide Dog as a Mobility Aid Part 2: Perceived Changes to Travel Habits

This study, which was conducted in two parts, investigated the effectiveness of the guide dog as an aid to mobility in terms of the heterogeneous population now using them, via inferential (part 1) and descriptive (part 2) statistics. The first part (Lloyd, La Grow, Stafford, & Budge, 2008) focused on the efficacy of the dog on travel performance, while this second part examines the dogs’ affects on travel habits including mobility aids used, how often and how far people travel, avoidance of journeys and problems with access before and after receiving a guide dog. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of using dogs are identified. An overview of mobility aids and factors affecting mobility can be found in Lloyd et al., (2008).

The method of participant recruitment is described in the first part of this study (Lloyd et al., 2008). Hence, 50 current and/or previous guide dog handlers from across New Zealand participated.

A series of open-ended questions were asked in which participants identified (a) any mobility aids used, (b) the intensity of their travel, (c) journeys avoided and (d) access problems to specific environments when travelling with mobility aids other than a guide dog (i.e., before a guide dog was acquired) before and when using a dog. For reasons of expedience, responses pertained to experiences with guide dogs in general, that is, without being split into satisfactory and unsatisfactory dogs as in the first part of this study (Lloyd et al., 2008). Finally (e) the advantages and disadvantages of dogs compared to other mobility aids were noted. As in part one, participants were informed that travel pertained to independent travel only, and not when travelling with another person as a guide.

Before acquiring a dog, human guides and long canes were the mobility aids used by most participants in this study, with the long cane being used most frequently. Once a dog was acquired, almost all the participants preferred to use the dog as their primary mobility aid, although human guides and long canes were still employed on occasion when it was more convenient. This pattern is similar to Steffens and Bergler’s (1998) observations of guide dog usage.

Results of the present study support Jackson et al., (1994), Refson et al., (1998, 1999) and Refson et al., (2000) finding that dog handlers were more mobile than were other groups of vision impaired travellers. Participants in the present study travelled more often and further once they used guide dogs. Those with poor long cane skills were more confident with a dog, but those with good long cane skills also perceived travel to be easier, faster, less stressful and more enjoyable. In addition to confidence and self-esteem, and the enjoyment of having a travel companion, there are other reasons for a person to travel more with a dog than without including the dogs’ needs for exercise and toileting or, for example, because a person’s place of work may have moved to a further location. The present study clarifies that travel increased mainly because people wanted to travel more and because they were capable of doing so, not because they must.

Similar to Delafield (1974), the present study found improvements in mobility in terms of lower stress and greater safety when a dog was used. However, unlike Delafield, travelling with a dog was considered more efficient than when travelling with other mobility aids. This difference may be due to the greater variation in travel skill among participants in the present study, as formal O&M training is not mandatory for guide dog applicants in New Zealand, but would have been for the six subjects in Delafield’s (1974) UK study. It would be interesting to explore any associations between pre and post guide dog mobility on how much O&M training was received before acquiring a dog, as well as variables such as time spent working with a dog, and onset and severity of visual status.

Anecdotal support for an increase in performance and efficiency is offered by Lambert (1990, p. 158), who, although he was an accomplished long cane traveller, wrote:

More participants (including those who readily travelled independently) avoided certain journeys and had more problems with access before they acquired a dog than after, although for different reasons. Dogs enabled independent travel for everyone who did not travel independently before acquisition, although some people avoided unfamiliar routes. For those who travelled independently before acquiring a dog, the dog facilitated travelling in the dark (for people with night blindness due to such conditions as retinitis pigmentosa or diabetic retinopathy) or walking just for pleasure. However, as Warnath and Seyfarth (1982) also noted, the dogs were not a panacea for carefree travel. Places where other dogs might interfere with the guide dog’s work were eschewed, as was travelling in bad weather to avoid the inconvenience of a soiled dog. Dogs were not always welcome in others’ homes or cars, and were too large to fit comfortably on public transport or under a desk at work. As revealed by Deshen and Deshen (1989) and Steffans and Bergler (1998), dogs in the present study were also preferred to the long cane in congested places, as a cane could be stepped on and required more room to manoeuvre. However, the present study suggests that congested areas remain a problem for any mode of travel.

Participants had more problems finding doorways and gaining entry to public transport while keeping one’s balance without a dog. The majority of access problems encountered when using a dog were related to social situations such as being denied permission to enter public places like hotels, pubs and public transport, despite the provisions in law. Therefore, further advocacy for legislation would seemingly be beneficial. In addition, the finding that access for some was limited by the dog being too large to fit on public transport, suggests that it might behove guide dog schools to breed smaller dogs.

Many more advantages than disadvantages were identified for the use of a guide dog. Most advantages related to the dog’s abilities as a mobility aid and facilitator of independent travel. However, as for other service dogs and pets, the dog was also important as a companion and a catalyst for social interactions, and they added to one’s sense of self-worth (Eddy, Hart, & Boltz, 1998; Hart, Hart, & Bergin, 1987; Messent, 1983). Steffans and Bergler (1998) and Refson et al., (1999) reported similar advantages concerning guide dogs in terms of categories and frequency of response, which agree with the anecdotes of many blind or vision impaired travellers (Edwards, 2002; Ireson, 1991; Purves & Godwin, 1981; Warnath & Seyfarth, 1982) and the qualitative findings of Lloyd, Budge, La Grow, & Stafford (2000), Miner (2001), Muldoon (2000), Sanders (1999, 2000) and Zee (1983). The good was often taken with the bad. For example, although participants in the present study described the increase in social interactions to be advantageous, it was also considered objectionable for the public to interact with the dog without the handlers’ permission, especially when the dog was working.

The finding that a third of participants appreciated not having to use a long cane once they acquired a dog, because in addition to being uncomfortable the cane was considered to be embarrassing visually and acoustically, endorses Deshen and Deshen’s (1989) comments that cane users felt stigmatised in society. However, Lambert’s (1990) commentary on becoming a guide dog handler suggests that because dogs, unlike the long cane or electronic mobility aids, are highly interactive and sociable, the psychological issues that relate to cane travel, such as anxiety, embarrassment and dependence-independence conflict, also relate to entrusting safety to a “mere canine”. This is an interesting juxtaposition as like Edwards (2002), for whom the acquisition of a dog, and subsequent ability to “come out” as a blind person, came as a relief, as carrying a cane did not effectively signal her limited vision to other people, participants in the present study felt it was advantageous to “look more obviously blind”. It was also felt that the dog does not have the same connotations of disability that the long cane has, as the dog does not signal helplessness or evoke pity. Although the effect of psychological factors on mobility outcomes for the long cane are unclear (Beggs, 1991; Clark-Carter, Heyes, & Howarth, 1986) addressing these psychosocial processes seem to be, as Lambert (1990) also suggests, important for a good outcome with a dog and should be considered by counsellors and educators in the field.

Most of the disadvantages found related to the demands of having and caring for an animal, which have also been noted to affect owners of other service dogs (Valentine, Kiddoo, & LaFleur, 1993) and pets in New Zealand (Fifield & Forsyth, 1999). The inconveniences of making travel plans with a guide dog is likely to become more pronounced as more handlers travel with their dogs nationally and internationally. Disadvantages also quantified in the present study and by Refson et al., (1999) included distress at the end of the partnership and problems associated with having the dog in social situations. Similar disadvantages have also been reported in qualitative studies (Lloyd et al., 2000; Miner, 2001; Sanders, 1999).

The monetary costs of breeding and training guide dogs are not usually borne by the handler, but maintaining a dog through its working life is. Interestingly, although these costs are steep (Edwards, 2002; Lloyd, 2004; Wirth & Rein, 2008), only a small number of participants mentioned maintaining the dog as disadvantageous. Perhaps, for some people the costs may be neutralised by benefits to quality of life such as being able to travel to their place of work.

Other limitations were that dogs had a relatively short working life (also identified by Rimbault and Romero, 1994) and were more difficult to replace than other mobility aids. In addition, the present study noted that the handlers’ cane skills deteriorated through a lack of practice and that travel was less safe if the dog did not perform well. The latter effect being due in part to handlers becoming disoriented and being unable to locate the shoreline as they did not have a cane to identify the edges of footpaths, walls and so forth. In contrast to the disadvantages of owning pet dogs, guide dog handlers did not mention a lack of space, rental agreement restrictions, disgruntled neighbours or worry about welfare (Bergler, 1988), roaming, fighting (Stafford, Erceg, Kyono, Lloyd, & Phipps, 2003) or unwanted litters of pups.

The fact that similar advantages and disadvantages have been reported by various sources using different methodologies suggests that these are key areas associated with the use of guide dogs, at least in western cultures. Disadvantages found in non-western studies included guide dogs being viewed by the public as dirty and handlers feeling different from their neighbours (Deshen & Deshen, 1989; Nippon Foundation for the Blind Research Overview, 1998).

The present study has identified a number of novel findings that will be of interest to those in the guide dog and the O&M field. As evidenced in the first part (Lloyd et al., 2008), people who use guide dogs evidently believe that a satisfactory dog enhances travel performance, regardless of one’s ability in O&M. This second part indicates that independent travel is easier and more enjoyable with a dog than without and the dog extends travel possibilities. However, the findings in both parts are limited as they rely on the participants being able to accurately recollect past events. As previously mentioned, it would be useful to further investigate these changes over real time before and after a dog is acquired. In addition to a longitudinal study, more objective methods could be used to measure change in travel performance and not solely depend on the participants’ perceptions. A triangulation of methods using qualitative as well and quantitative methodologies would deepen understanding of the concepts being examined.