Pacific University CommonKnowledge School of Graduate Psychology College of Health Professions 4-12-2006 Perceptions of Guide Dog Users on eir Dogs’ Impact on eir Lives Mei Ling Wong Pacific University is Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Health Professions at CommonKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Graduate Psychology by an authorized administrator of CommonKnowledge. For more information, please contact CommonKnowledge@pacificu.edu. Recommended Citation Wong, Mei Ling (2006). Perceptions of Guide Dog Users on eir Dogs’ Impact on eir Lives (Doctoral dissertation, Pacific University). Retrieved from: hp://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/160
77
Embed
Perceptions of Guide Dog Users on Their Dogs' Impact on Their Lives
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Pacific UniversityCommonKnowledge
School of Graduate Psychology College of Health Professions
4-12-2006
Perceptions of Guide Dog Users on Their Dogs’Impact on Their LivesMei Ling WongPacific University
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Health Professions at CommonKnowledge. It has been accepted forinclusion in School of Graduate Psychology by an authorized administrator of CommonKnowledge. For more information, please [email protected].
Recommended CitationWong, Mei Ling (2006). Perceptions of Guide Dog Users on Their Dogs’ Impact on Their Lives (Doctoral dissertation, PacificUniversity). Retrieved from:http://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/160
Perceptions of Guide Dog Users on Their Dogs’ Impact on Their Lives
AbstractSince 1929, dogs have been trained in the United States to guide the blind and visually impaired. While thereare numerous testimonials and personal accounts on how dog guides change the individual lives of their blindhandlers, there is a paucity of research on this topic. The intent of this study was to conduct a survey of dogguide users and specifically ask about their beliefs on how a dog guide has affected their life. The results of thissurvey provide quantitative data that support the conclusion that for the most part dog guide users believethat their dogs have positively changed their life. The two areas identified as problematic are the dog receivingattention while working and individuals being less likely to go somewhere if they are unable to take their dog.
Degree TypeDissertation
Rights
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
CommentsLibrary Use: LIH
This dissertation is available at CommonKnowledge: http://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/160
If you have downloaded this document directly from the web or from CommonKnowledge, see the“Rights” section on the previous page for the terms of use.
If you have received this document through an interlibrary loan/document delivery service, thefollowing terms of use apply:
Copyright in this work is held by the author(s). You may download or print any portion of this documentfor personal use only, or for any use that is allowed by fair use (Title 17, §107 U.S.C.). Except for personalor fair use, you or your borrowing library may not reproduce, remix, republish, post, transmit, ordistribute this document, or any portion thereof, without the permission of the copyright owner. [Note:If this document is licensed under a Creative Commons license (see “Rights” on the previous page)which allows broader usage rights, your use is governed by the terms of that license.]
Inquiries regarding further use of these materials should be addressed to: CommonKnowledge Rights,Pacific University Library, 2043 College Way, Forest Grove, OR 97116, (503) 352-7209. Email inquiriesmay be directed to:. [email protected]
This dissertation is available at CommonKnowledge: http://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/160
indoors, getting into the garbage] have limited my activity”) speaks to a
different aspect of working a dog, that none the less may stem from similar
roots, the relationship with the dog. Four individuals indicated that
although their current dog guide had specific nuisance characteristics they
had either experienced worse problems in the past, or feared similar or
worse problems in a future dog. One individual gave voice to a fear of
acknowledging her dog’s behavior problems as she feared her dog guide
56
school would encourage her to retire her dog as opposed to working with
her on solving the problem.
Question 9 in the survey (“The routine financial costs of my dog
guide [veterinary bills and food] have caused me financial hardship”), did
not produce any individual comments. While the majority of dog guide
schools in the Unitted States provide services at no charge to their
graduates, and some even allot an annual veterinary stipend, the costs of
a dog guide cannot be ignored. It would be beneficial to survey dog guide
users on the costs of their dog guide and how they manage, for example,
unexpected veterinarian bills. Additional questions in this regard may
include whether they have had to borrow money from friends or family,
take out loans, and/or neglect other expenses in order to meet the needs
of their dog.
Although individuals were not surveyed on specific reasons that
might relate to a hesitancy to bring up problems or concerns related to
their dog guide, some hypotheses may include: a strong attachment to
their current dog; not being ready to start over with a new dog; the
inconvenience and time demand of having to train and bond with a new
dog; and, possibly, fears about the subsequent dog having similar or
worse problems. The theme seemed to be that individuals viewed their
relationship with their dog as a partnership and felt that they could
compromise on such issues as pace, because they were not emotionally
ready to part with their current dog.
57
All participants in this study indicated obtaining their dog guide from
a training facility such as The Seeing Eye, Inc., Guide Dogs for the Blind,
Inc., Leader Dogs for the Blind, Inc., etc. Surveying individuals who chose
alternative training methods, such as self-training a dog or working with
private dog trainers may also shed light on some possible issues as to
why they chose alternate training ooptions. Hypotheses include: inability to
leave home for 3 to 4 weeks; preferring to not reside in a group dormitory
setting during training; additional health concerns; fear of the facility
repossessing the dog; and lack of ability of training facilities to provide
breed preferences, etc.
All of the aforementioned are areas for future research.
Additionally, research in this area could be furthered by dog guide training
facilities conducting surveys of first time users’ pre- and post-training.
Pertinent data collection points might include pre-training, during training,
immediately following training, and then at 3- or 6-month intervals for the
first year. Possible areas of inquiry might include overall activity level,
amount and distance of travel, duration of travel time to same locations
pre- and post-dog, use of public transit, and social contact. Social contact
may be measured by having the same individual travel in the same
location with a white cane and then with a dog at the same time of day
and social contact could be measured by avoidance or acknowledgement,
such as smiling, verbal comment, offering assistance, etc.
58
In summary, this survey provides basic quantitative data on how
dog guide handlers perceive the effects of their dog on their life. The
twelve items identifying positive aspecst of working with a dog guide all
yielded mean responses that were 6.0 or above, suggesting that for most
participants they would somewhat or strongly agree with these benefits. Of
the ten items in the survey that identified possible negative aspects of
working with a dog guide, eight of ten yielded mean responses on the low
end of the scale. This suggests that, despite the fact that these are
potentially negative aspects of working with a dog, the participants for the
most part, indicated that these were minimal, as responses primarily
corresponded with strongly disagree to slightly disagree. The two items
that were considered possible negative aspects of working with a dog that
yielded means in the neutral range concerned the attention the dog
receives while working and not going places if unable to bring their dog.
These are two areas that need both further exploration through research
as well as education to the public. It should be noted that for the last
survey item, item 22 (“I believe having a dog guide has positively changed
my life”), responses were only on the high end of the scale (5 to 7) and 83
(94.3 percent) selected 7 corresponding to strongly agree. Therefore,
although some areas of increased responsibility and inconvenience have
been identified, overall, the survey participants believe their dog has had a
positive influence on their life.
59
References
Akiyama, H., Holttzman, J. M., & Britz, W. E. (1986). Pet ownership and health status during bereavement. Omega: An International Journal for the Study of Dying, Death, Bereavement, Suicide, and Other Lethal Behaviors. 17 (2), 187-193.
Allen, K., & Blascovich, J. (1996). The value of service dogs for people
with severe ambulatory disabilities. Journal of the American Medical Association, 275 (13), 1001-1006.
American Foundation for the Blind. (2004, June 21). Retrieved from
www.afb.org Banks, M. R., & Banks W. A. (2002). The effects of animal assisted
therapy on loneliness in an elderly population in long term care facilities. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, 57A (7), M428-M432.
Beck, A. M., Seraydarian, L., & Hunter, G. F. (1986). The use of animals in
the rehabilitation of psychiatric impatients. Psychological Reports, 8, 63-66.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw. B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive
therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press. Beyersdorfer, P. S., & Birkenhauer, D. M. (1990) The therapeutic use of
pets on an Alzheimer’s unit. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Care and Related Disorders and Research, 5, 13-17
Bird, C. (1988, Dec.). The jobs you do. Modern Maturity, 31, 40-46. Boyette, L. W., Cannela, K. C., Archea, C., Sharon, B., & Del’Aune, W.
(1995). Reliability and validity of the physical exercise profile (PEP). Medical Science Research, 23, 499-501.
Bradburn, N. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago,
IL: Aldine Publishing Co. Brickel, C. M. (1984). The clinical use of pets with the aged. Clinical
Gerontologist, 2 (4), 72-75. Cairl, R. E., Pfeiffer, E., Keller, D. M., Burke, H., & Samis, H. V. (1983). An
evaluation of the reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment Inventory. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 31, 607-612.
60
Camp, M. M. (2001). The use of service dogs as an adaptive strategy: A
aualitative study. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55 (5), 509-517.
Carabellese, C., Appollonio, I., Rozzini, R., Bianchetti, A., Frisoni, G. B.,
Frattola, L., et al. (1993). Sensory impairment and quality of life in a community elderly population. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 41, 401-407.
Casten , R. J., Rovner, B. W., & Edmonds, S. E. (2002). The impact of
depression in older adults with age-related macular degeneration. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 399-406.
Chevigny, H. (1947). My eyes have a cold nose. New Haven, CT: Brant &
Brout. Clark-Carter, D. D., Heyes, A. D., & Howarth, C. (1986). The efficiency
and walking speed of visually impaired people. Ergonomics, 29 (6), 779-789.
Davis, C., Lovie-Kitchin, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Psychosocial
adjustment to age-related macular degeneration. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 89 , 16-27.
Delta Society. (1996). Standards of practice for animal-assisted activities
and therapy. Renton, WA: Delta Society. Eames, E., Eames, T., & Diament, S. (2001). Guide dog teams in the
United States: Annual number trained and active, 1993-1999. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95 (7), 434-437.
Eddy, J., Hart, L. A., & Boltz, R. P. (1988). The effects of service dogs on
social acknowledgements of people in wheelchairs. Journal of Psychology, 122 (1), 39-45.
Edelman, R. J. (1984). Disablement and eye contact. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 58, 849-850. Ellsworth, R. (1975). Consumer feedback in measuring the effectivness of
mental health programs. In M. Guttentag (Ed.), Handbook of evaluation research (pp. 239-274). London: Sage Publications.
Evans, R. L. (1983). Loneliness, depression, and social activity after
determination of legal blindness. Psychological Reports, 52, 603-608.
61
Fitzgerald, R. G. (1970). Reactions to blindness: An exploratory study of
adults with recent loss of sight. Archives of General Psychiatry, 2Z, 370-379.
Fitzgerald, R. G., Ebert, J. N., & Chambers, M. (1987). Reactions to
blindness: A four-year follow up study. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 64, 363-378.
Folse, E. B., Minder, C. C., Aycock, M. J., & Santana, R. T. (1994). Animal
assisted therapy and depression in adult college students. Anthrozoos, 7 (3), 188-194,
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-Mental State:
A practical guide for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198.
Folstein, M. F., Romanoski, A. J., Nestadt, G., Chahal, R., Merchant, A.,
Shapiro, S., et al. (1985). Brief report on the clinic reappraisal of the diagnostic interview schedule carried out at the John Hopkins site of the epidemiological catchment area program of the NIMH. Psychological Medicine, 15, 809-814.
Gallagher, D. (1986). The Beck Depression Inventory and older adults:
Review of its development and utility. Clinical Gerontologist, 5, 149-163.
Garrity, T. F., Stallones, L., Marx, B., & Johnson, T. P. (1989). Pet
ownership and attachment as supportive factors in the health of the elderly. Anthrozoos, 3 (1), 35-44.
Gitlin, L. N., Mount, J., Lucas, W., Weirich, L. C., & Gramberg, L. (1997).
The physical costs and psychosocial benefits of travel aids for persons who are visually impaired or blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 9, 347-359.
Golub, D. B. (2003). Practice report: Exploration of factors that contribute
to a successful work experience for adults who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 774-778.
Guide Dogs for the Blind Inc. (2004, May 7). Retrieved from
www.guidedogs.com Harrington, P. (1990). Guide Dogs for the Blind: Looking ahead. San
Rafael, CA: Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc.
62
Hart, L. A., Hart, B. L., & Bergin, B. (1987). Socialing effects of service dogs for people with disabilities. Anthrozoos, 1 (1), 41-44.
Hart, L. A., Zasloff, R. L., & Benfatto, A. M. (1995). The pleasures and
problems of hearing dog ownership. Psychological Reports, 77, 969-970.
Heyl, V., & Wahl, H. W. (2001). Psychosocial adaptation to age-related
vision loss: A six-year prospective. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 739-748.
Hickford, J. (1973). Eyes at my feet. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Horowitz, A., Teresi, J. A., & Cassell, L. A. (1991). Development of a
vision screening questionare for older people. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 17, 37-56.
Hu, W. (2001, October 7). A nation challenged: Survivor: Violent sounds of
an escape from the 71st floor. The New York Times, 1B, 10. Hunt, S.J., Hart, L.A., & Gomulkiewicz, R. (1992). Roll of small animals in
social interaction between strangers. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 245-256.
Jackson, A. J., Murphy, P. J., Dusoir, T., Dusoir, H., Murdock, A., &
Morrison, E. (1994). Ophthalmic, health and social profile of guide dog owners in Northern Ireland. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics 14 (4), 371-377.
Karlsson, J. S. (1998). Self-reports of psychological distress in connection
with various degrees of visual impairment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92, 483-490.
Katcher, A., Friedmann, E., Goodman, M., & Goodman, L. (1983). Men,
women, and dogs. California Veterinarian, 37, 14-17. Kleck, R., Buck, P. L., Goller, W. L., London, R. S., Pfeiffer, J. R., &
Vukcevic, D. P. (1968). Effect of stigmatizing conditions on the use of personal space. Psychological Reports, 23, 111-118.
Kongable, L. G., Buuckwalter, K. C., & Stolley, J. (1989). The effects of
pet therapy on the social behavior of institutionalized Alzheimer’s clients. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 3, 191-198.
Kuusisto, S. (1998). Planet of the blind: A memoir. New York: The Dial
Press.
63
Lago, D., Kafer, R., Delaney, M., & Connell, C. (1988). Assessment of
favorable attitudes towards pets: Development and preliminary validation of self report pet relationship scales. Anthrozoos, 1 (4), 240-254.
Lawton, M.P. (1975). The Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale: A
revision. Journal of Gerontology, 30, 85-89. Long, R. G., Boyett, L. W., & Griffin-Shirley, N. (1996). Older persons and
community travel: The effect of visual impairment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 90, 302-313.
Maddison, D., & Viola, A. (1968). The health of widows in the year
following bereavement. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 12, 297-306.
Manning, A. (2004, January 29). Pair of eyes on four legs: Vinnie the dog
gives musician independence, companionship. USA Today, p. 08d. Marston, J. R., & Golledge, R. G. (2003). The hidden demand for
participation in activities and travel by persons who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 475-488.
Messent, P. R. (1983). Social facilitation of contact with other people by
pet dogs. In A. H. Katcher & A. M. Beck (Eds.), New perspectives on our lives with companion animals (pp. 351-359). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Miner, R. J. (2001). The experience of living with and using a dog guide.
Review (Washington), 32 (4), 183-190. Naderi, S., Miklosi, A., Doka., & Csanyi, V. (2001). Co-operative
interactions between blind persons and their dogs. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 74 (1), 59-80.
Nicholson, J,. Kemp-Wheeler, S., & Griffiths, D. (1995). Distress arising
from the end of a guide dog partnership. Anthrozoos, 8 (2), 100-110.
Paulhus, D. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of percieved controls.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1253-1265. Putnam, P. (1979). Love in the lead: The fifty-year miracle of the seeing
eye (1st ed.) New York: Dutton.
64
Radloff, L. S., & Teri, L. (1986). The center for epidemiological studies depression scale with older adults. Clinical Gerontology, 5, 119-135.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press. Rovner, B. W., & Ganguli, M. (1998). Depression and disability associated
with impaired vision: The MoVIES Project. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 46, 617-619.
Rovner, B. W., Zisselman, P. M., & Shmuely-Dulitzki, Y. (1996).
Depression and disability in older people with impaired vision: A follow-up study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 44, 181-184.
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability,
validity and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA
Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472-480.
Sanders, C. R. (2000). The impact of guide dogs on the identity of people
with visual impairments. Anthrozoos, 13 (3), 131-139.
Serpell, J. A. (2000). Animal companions and human well-being: An historical exploration of the value of human-animal relationships. In A. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 3-19). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Snaith, R., Ahmed, S., Mehta, S., & Hamilton, M. (1971). Assessment of
the severity of primary depressive illness. Psychological Medicine, 1, 143-149.
Southeastern Guide Dogs, Inc. (2001). 2000/2001 Annual Report.
Palmetto, FL. Steffens, M. C., & Bergler, R. (1998). Blind people and their dogs, An
empirical study on changes in everyday life, in self experience, and in communication. In C. C. Wilson & D. C. Turner (Eds.), Companion animals in human health (pp.149-157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
65
Stewart, B. (2003, June 1). Communities; It takes a special dog for a needy elder. The New York Times, 14NJ, 6.
Sullivan, R. (2003, July 7). Leading the blind. The New Yorker, 26. Sullivan, T., & Gill, D. L. T. (1976). Tom Sullivan’s adventure’s in
darkness. NewYork: McKay. The Seeing Eye, Inc. (2004 September 7). Retrieved from
www.seeingeye.org Thompson, T. L. (1982). Gaze toward and avoidance of the handicapped:
A field experiment. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 188-196. Valentine, D. P., Kiddoo, M., & LaFleur, B. (1993). Psychosocial
implications of service dog ownership for people who have mobility or hearing impairments. Social Work in Health Care, 19 (1), 109-125.
Warnath, C., & Seyfarth, G. J. (1982). Guide dogs: Mobility tool and social
bridge to the sighted world. Journal of Rehabilitation, 48, 58-61. Wechsler, D. (1987). WMS-R: Wechsler Memory Scale--Revised: Manual.
San Antonio, TX. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Willer, B., Ottenbacher, K. J., & Coad, M. L. (1994). The community
integration questionnaire: A comparative examination. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 103-111.
Worthington, M. G. (1974). Personal space as a function of the stigma
effect. Environment and Behavior, 6 (3), 289-294. Zasloff, R. L., & Kidd, A. H. (1994). Loneliness and pet ownership among
single women. Psychological Reports, 75, 747-752. Zung, W. A. (1965). A self rating depression scale. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 12, 63-70.
66
Appendix A
PACIFIC UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT TO ACT AS A RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
A Survey on the Perceptions of Guide Dog Users on Their Dogs’ Impact on Their Lives
Investigator’s contact information Mei Ling Wong, MS (student PsyD. Candidate) 4234 SE 112
th Ave., Portland, OR 97266
H: (503) 760-8184 e-mail [email protected] Catherine Miller, Ph.D. (faculty dissertation supervisor) School of Professional Psychology 2004 Pacific Avenue, Forest Grove, OR 97116 O: (503) 352-2114 [email protected]
1. Introduction & Background information You are invited to take a survey on how guide dog users believe their dog has impacted their life. You are receiving this survey packet because you have contacted the primary researcher Mei Ling Wong and have expressed interest in participating in this survey. Please read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. This study is being conducted by: Mei Ling Wong, M. S. of Pacific University’s School of Professional Psychology. The purpose of this survey is to find out from guide dog users how they perceive their dog’s impact on their life.
2. Procedures If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to complete two parts of a survey. The two parts of the survey should take no longer than 15 minutes to complete.
3. Risks & Benefits There may be some risks and benefits to participating in this research. This survey asks questions about your perceptions of your relationship with your guide dog and how he/she may impact your life. You may find yourself evaluating or critiquing your guide dog during or after completing this survey. If you develop concerns about your dog’s performance after participation in this study please contact your dog’s trainer, the counselor at your guide dog school, or the GDUI empathizer’s list. Possible benefits include increased knowledge and research on the effect and impact of guide dogs on the lives of blind and visually impaired individuals.
4. Alternatives Advantageous to Participants Not applicable
5. Compensation You will not receive payment or compensation for your participation.
6. Promise of Privacy The records of this study will be kept private. Survey results will be kept confidential. Participants will each be assigned a number by which their inventory is identified, and only the investigator will have access to the corresponding names and numbers. No names will be used to identify participants in the results of this study and no names of participants will be given to guide dog schools, trainers, or other organizations. If the results of this study are to be presented or published, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a participant.
7. Voluntary Nature of the Study
67
Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with Pacific University. If you decide to participate, you are free to not answer any question or withdraw at any time without prejudice or negative consequences. If you choose to return an incomplete inventory the available data may be used in this study. You may also choose to not return the survey.
8. Compensation & Medical Care Not applicable
9. Contacts & questions The investigator, Mei Ling Wong, will be happy to answer any questions you may have at any time during the course of the study. The supervisor of the investigator of this study can also be reached, Catherine Miller, PhD., at the school of Professional Psychology, Pacific University at 503-352-2114.
Statement of Consent I have read and understood the above. All my questions have been answered. I am 18 years of age or older and give consent for my participation. I have been given a copy of this form to keep for my records. ____________________________________________ ________________________ Participant’s Signature Date Mei Ling Wong, MS. March 19, 2005 Investigator’s Signature Date Mei Ling Wong, MS
Appendix B
68
Participant #
Survey Please use the following Likert scale of 1 to 7 to rate your level of disagreement or agreement to each of the statements below. Scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = neutral or no impact; 5 = slightly agree; 6 = somewhat agree; 7 = strongly agree. 1. I consider my dog guide a companion and friend. ________ 2. Using a dog guide is my preferred choice of mobility. ________ 3. Using a dog guide has caused chronic physical pain or discomfort such as in my arms, shoulders, or other area of my body or has caused me to need a medical procedure such as a surgery. __________ 4. With the advent of recent technology devices for mobility, such as talking GPS receiver or talking signs, a dog guide will soon be a mobility tool of the past. ________ 5. I am more likely to go for a walk for exercise or leisure with my dog guide than with my cane. ________ 6. I am more likely to walk longer distances with my dog guide than with a cane. ________ 7. Even with my dog guide I cannot walk at my preferred walking speed. ________ 8. My dog’s behavior problems (barking, relieving indoors, getting into the garbage) have limited my activity. ________ 9. The routine financial costs of my dog guide (veterinary bills and food) have caused me financial hardship. ________ 10. Having a dog guide has allowed me to be more involved in my community or to take part in recreational or social activities. ________ 11. Having a dog guide has allowed me to take part in activities such as attending classes, volunteering, or working. ___________
12. I have made friends and acquaintances through my dog guide. ________ 13. My dog guide is more work (i.e. grooming, health care needs, behavior problems) than beneficial. ________ 14. My dog guide has facilitated social interactions that have allowed me to get needed assistance, such as directions, help in a store, catching the correct bus, etc. ________
15. The attention my dog guide receives while working is a nuisance. ________ 16. My dog guide has caused stress or strain in my family relationships. _______ 17. I am more likely to take public transportation without another person present when traveling with a dog guide. _________ 18. I feel more confident traveling with my dog guide than without him or her. ________
69
19. If I cannot take my dog guide with me (for whatever reason) I am less likely to go somewhere. ________ 20. I feel safer traveling with my dog guide than without him or her. ________ 21. The retirement, loss, or death of my current dog guide will be so painful that I will not get another dog guide. ________ 22. I believe having a dog guide has positively changed my life. __________
Background Questionnaire The following questions are optional: Age: ________ Gender: Female _________ Male _________ Ethnic Background: Caucasian________ African American________ Latino________ Native American________ Asian American/Pacific Islander________ Other_________ Prefer to not answer __________ Type of living situation: Alone________ With spouse or partner________ With other family member________ Roommate_______ Assisted Living________ Other________ Prefer to not answer __________ Primary environment you live in and work your dog in. (note if your living and work environments are different please select both that apply to you). Rural________ semi-rural________ town________suburban________ City or urban ________ Age when determined legally blind ________ Age when you received your first dog guide ________ How many dog guides have you had?________ (note: please only include dogs you have graduated with and or worked for at least a three month period). Where did you obtain your current dog guide? Self-trained________ Private trainer________ School trained ________ Name of school is optional________________________________________