↓ Skip to main content

An Investigation of the Complexities of Successful and Unsuccessful Guide Dog Matching and Partnerships

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Investigation of the Complexities of Successful and Unsuccessful Guide Dog Matching and Partnerships
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2016.00114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janice Lloyd, Claire Budge, Steve La Grow, Kevin Stafford

Abstract

Matching a person who is blind or visually impaired with a guide dog is a process of finding the most suitable guide dog available for that individual. Not all guide dog partnerships are successful, and the consequences of an unsuccessful partnership may result in reduced mobility and quality of life for the handler (owner), and are costly in time and resources for guide dog training establishments. This study examined 50 peoples' partnerships with one or more dogs (118 pairings) to ascertain the outcome of the relationship. Forty-three of the 118 dogs were returned to the guide dog training establishment before reaching retirement age, with the majority (n = 40) being categorized as having dog-related issues. Most (n = 26) of these dogs' issues were classified as being behavioral in character, including work-related and non-work-related behavior, and 14 were due to physical causes (mainly poor health). Three dogs were returned due to matters relating to the handlers' behavior. More second dogs were returned than the handlers' first or third dogs, and dogs that had been previously used as a guide could be rematched successfully. Defining matching success is not clear-cut. Not all dogs that were returned were considered by their handlers to have been mismatched, and not all dogs retained until retirement were thought to have been good matches, suggesting that some handlers were retaining what they considered to be a poorly matched dog. Almost all the handlers who regarded a dog as being mismatched conceded that some aspects of the match were good. For example, a dog deemed mismatched for poor working behavior may have shown good home and/or other social behaviors. The same principle was true for successful matches, where few handlers claimed to have had a perfect dog. It is hoped that these results may help the guide dog industry identify important aspects of the matching process, and/or be used to identify areas where a matching problem exists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 19 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 12%
Psychology 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Philosophy 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 22 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,892,632
of 24,837,702 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#358
of 7,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,025
of 432,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#5
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,837,702 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 432,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.