Combinar las dos dimensiones de la justicia: redistribución y reconocimiento

The first section of the questionnaire asked for a small amount of general demographic information about the participants including their visual status and history of guide dog use. Participants were also asked what they expected the dog to do for them in terms of mobility, social-function and companionship, and what behaviours and physical characteristicsS they would ideally like a guide dog to have, in order of importance. Data was also collected on their previous experience with pets.

It is suggested in the literature (R. D. Goddard & Villanova, 1996; C. Robson, 1993) that beginning a questionnaire with routine demographic questions should be carefully considered as participants can construe this as dull. However, it seemed prudent to do so here as guide dog usage can be an emotive issue and the researcher did not wish to begin with sensitive questions. In addition, for reasons of etiquette, the interview was initiated with issues pertaining to the person and not the dog.

6.3.2

Section

Information on each guide dog used

This section asked participants about the first guide dog they acquired, which was repeated for subsequent dogs, where applicable, in chronological order. The

4 Results have been provided via publication in Outlook, the magazine of the RNZFB, and verbally via the RNZFB's Telephone Information Services network, as the research has progressed. A summary of the final results will also be mailed to the participants when the thesis is completed.

S As far as possible, responses to questions pertaining to behavioural and physical characteristics were coded in keeping with the RNZFB's GDS' Canine Temperamental, Behavioural and Physical Analysis, as

6 -The Survey: Method grammatical tense was changed from past to present where appropriate. For example, the question "What was good about this dog's behaviour?" was asked if the dog had been used previously, while "What is good about this dog's behaviour?" was asked for the dog currently being used.

General dog demographics were recorded, as was status of dog ownership6, whether or not each trainee handler-dog team graduated as a working team, and as some participants received their dogs overseas, the country of origin was documented. Participants were asked if their partnership with a specific dog had ceased, and if so, why. Also recorded were the time spent waiting to receive a dog, training issues, workload, what was good and bad about each dog behaviourally and physically (see footnote 5 in this chapter), resolution of problems, how expectations regarding guide dog use were met, friends and family's attitudes towards the dog, compatibility concerning mobility (work related) and non-mobility issues, and overall assessment of the match. The canine section ended with issues regarding the end of the relationship and how this affected the participants' desire to use another dog.

Further demographic information concerning the time participants received each of their dogs was recorded retrospectively, as was the relationship participants had with their guide dog instructors at these times. The participants were asked to 'self-report' on the amount (none, a little or a lot) of residual vision useful for mobility they had when they received each of their dogs, as per the pragmatic approach of Gray and Todd (1968) and Kirchner, Johnson, and Harkins (1997). Section 2 of the questionnaire was finished by asking participants about their dogs' names, which, unless the dog is a trained pet are named as puppies by the RNZFB 's GDS, as this was deemed a neutral way of ending an interview concerning one dog before embarking on another dog or a different section.

6 Privately owned pets that are trained and validated by the RNZFB 's GDS as qualified guide dogs, remain the legal property of the owner. See the Glossary of Terms for an explanation of a Guide Dog Handler-Owner versus a Guide Dog Handler, where, in the latter case, the dogs are the legal property of the RNZFB. Note: For the purposes of this research, all persons who use guide dogs are referred to as handlers.

6.3.3

Section

Guide dog rating

To ascertain what dog factors were important, participants were asked to gauge what they liked best and least concerning their dogs. Participants who had used more than one dog were asked to identify their most and least favourite dogs, and to state what was the best quality of the favourite dog and the worst quality of the least favourite dog. If only one dog was used, the most and least favourite qualities were recorded for that particular dog.

6.3.4

Section

Travel (mobility)

This section aimed to empirically determine the participants' perceptions of their travel skills and travel habits before and after a dog was acquired, and the efficacy of the dog as a mobility aid.

Participants were asked to respond to a I5-item questionnaire that rated their travel perfonnance before (retrospective data) they became guide dog handlers and when using a dog (current or retrospective data depending which, if any, dog was being used at the time of interview). The following five travel perfonnance indicators were measured in three ways as described in the next paragraph (a) orientation, (b) mobility, (c) O&M, (d) difficulty7 with travel, and (e) limitations7 to travel. Participants were infonned that travel perfonnance pertained to independent travel with or without a mobility aid excluding a sighted guide, and the definitions for orientation, mobility, and O&M were explained as described in the Glossary of Tenns.

Unlike the second section of the questionnaire (as described in section 6.3.2 of this chapter) where each dog was measured individually, this part was designed to measure dogs together in a general fashion - the rationale being to avoid making the questionnaire too large. Also, as discussed earlier in this chapter (section 6.2.3) the pilot study participants, who had used more than one dog, had initially been asked to answer questions pertaining to the time they used a dog in tenns of their overall experience. However, the pilot study identified that participants found it difficult to rate dogs they

7 The terms 'difficulty' and 'limitation' were adapted from a Difficulty and Limitation Scale (Blasch, De

I' Aune & La Grow, 1995) that investigated the effects of O&M training on specific long cane travel skills thought to be positively affected by O&M training (La Grow & Craig, 2(00).

6 -The Survey: Method

considered to be satisfactory mobility aids with unsatisfactory ones collectively. Therefore, the questions were designed to elicit two responses if applicable, that is; when using 'satisfactory' dogs separately from 'unsatisfactory' dogs, regardless of how many dogs were in each category. For example, a participant who had experienced two satisfactory dogs and one unsatisfactory dog had his or her performance on each of the five travel skills measured in three ways (1) before using a dog, (2) when using the satisfactory dogs and (3) when using the unsatisfactory dog. Each of the three dimensions was measured on a 1 to 10 rating scale with opposite poles of that skill at either end (i.e. 'very poor performance' and 'excellent performance').

How often participants travelled was not considered an indicator of travel performance, as it was understood from the researcher's fieldwork that there were many factors involved when making the decision to travel such as the weather, the dogs' needs, work habits etc. Therefore, travel frequency was measured separately, using the same methodology as travel performance.

The decision to ask the participants to recollect their travel skills from before they received a dog, as opposed to their current situation when travelling independently without a dog, was made as the use of a dog may cause the handler's travel skills with other mobility aids (e.g. a long cane) to diminish through a lack of practise, thus affecting outcome. In addition, all four of the participants who were pilot tested stated that they never or almost never used other mobility aids when they had a dog.

In addition to assessing travel performance and frequency of travel, a series of open ended questions were asked in which participants identified any mobility aids used, journeys avoided and access problems to specific environments. Participants were asked to respond to these questions from their experiences with guide dogs in general under two conditions, that is, when travelling before acquiring a dog and when using a dog (without being split into experiences with satisfactory and unsatisfactory dogs). Satisfaction with long cane O&M training prior to acquiring a dog was recorded, and any non-visual conditions that affected mobility such as hearing loss or problems with balance were noted and how these conditions restricted mobility were measured before and when using a dog. The section ended with participants being asked to list the advantages and disadvantages of using a guide dog compared to other mobility aids.

6.3.5

Section

Quality of life

This section enquired about the dogs' effects on quality of life issues such as social function, adjustment to sight impairment, general health, fitness, and mental health. Participants who had experienced the end of a partnership, and hence a period of non­ guide dog assisted mobility, were asked how this affected their quality of life; those who had not had this experience were asked to project how they might feel at this time. Like the previous section on travel (section 6.3.4), this section was designed to measure dogs together in a general fashion for reasons of expedience.

6.3.6

Section

Service delivery and miscellaneous

The final section of the questionnaire comprised miscellaneous questions concerning issues that the participants in the pilot study suggested be incorporated. These issues included the pre-allocation of dogs before training is begun (to facilitate emotional bonding), the venue where training of handler and dog should take place, the re­ matching of dogs that were returned by previous handlers, legal ownership of dogs and whether expectations of guide dog use changed according to the experience of the handler. The interview ended by assessing how satisfied participants were with the services provided by the RNZFB' s GDS, and suggestions were asked as to how GDS might improve the matching process and other services.