Have a personal or library account? Click to login

The Guide Dog as a Mobility Aid Part 1: Perceived Effectiveness on Travel Performance

Vision Rehabilitation International
Volume 1 (2008): Issue 1 (January 2008)
By:
Open Access
|Jan 2008

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

Paired-samples t-tests on mean scores for travel performance across three conditions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Non-visual visual conditions restricting participants’ (N = 50) independent travel.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/ijom-2008-003 | Journal eISSN: 2652-3647
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 17 - 33
Published on: Jan 1, 2008
Published by: Guide Dogs NSW/ACT
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Clinical medicine,
Physical and rehabilitation medicine

© 2008 Janice K.F. Lloyd, Steven La Grow, Kevin J. Stafford, R. Claire Budge, published by Guide Dogs NSW/ACT
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 1 (2008): Issue 1 (January 2008)Next article