Login
Registrati
Reimposta password
Pubblica & Distribuisci
Soluzioni Editoriali
Soluzioni di Distribuzione
Temi
Architettura e design
Arti
Business e Economia
Chimica
Chimica industriale
Farmacia
Filosofia
Fisica
Geoscienze
Ingegneria
Interesse generale
Legge
Letteratura
Linguistica e semiotica
Matematica
Medicina
Musica
Scienze bibliotecarie e dell'informazione, studi library
Scienze dei materiali
Scienze della vita
Scienze informatiche
Scienze sociali
Sport e tempo libero
Storia
Studi classici e del Vicino Oriente antico
Studi culturali
Studi ebraici
Teologia e religione
Pubblicazioni
Riviste
Libri
Atti
Editori
Blog
Contatti
Cerca
EUR
USD
GBP
Italiano
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Carrello
Home
Riviste
Vision Rehabilitation International
Volume 1 (2008): Numero 1 (January 2008)
Accesso libero
The Guide Dog as a Mobility Aid Part 1: Perceived Effectiveness on Travel Performance
Janice K.F. Lloyd
Janice K.F. Lloyd
,
Steven La Grow
Steven La Grow
,
Kevin J. Stafford
Kevin J. Stafford
e
R. Claire Budge
R. Claire Budge
| 01 gen 2008
Vision Rehabilitation International
Volume 1 (2008): Numero 1 (January 2008)
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Articolo precedente
Articolo Successivo
Sommario
Articolo
Immagini e tabelle
Bibliografia
Autori
Articoli in questo Numero
Anteprima
PDF
Cita
CONDIVIDI
Pubblicato online:
01 gen 2008
Pagine:
17 - 33
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21307/ijom-2008-003
© 2008 Janice K.F. Lloyd et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Table 1.
Paired-samples t-tests on mean scores for travel performance across three conditions.
Table 2.
Paired-samples t-tests on mean scores for travel performance for three groups across two conditions.
Table 3.
Paired-samples t-tests on mean scores for specific travel performance indicators when travelling with a mobility aid other than a dog and a satisfactory dog.
Table 4.
Paired-samples t-tests on mean scores for specific travel performance indicators when travelling with a mobility aid other than a dog and an unsatisfactory dog.
Table 5.
Paired-samples t-tests on mean scores for travel frequency across three conditions.
Figure 1.
Distributions of differences in travel performance and frequency of travel when travelling with a mobility aid other than a dog (N = 50), and when using a satisfactory (n = 47) and an unsatisfactory (n = 16) dog.
Figure 2.
A comparison of mean scores for travel performance indicators (including frequency of travel) when travelling with mobility aids other than a dog (N = 50), and when using a satisfactory (n = 47) and an unsatisfactory (n = 16) dog.
Table 6.
Non-visual visual conditions restricting participants’ (N = 50) independent travel.