Associations between motor laterality and noise sensitivity have been reported in the literature. Fearfulness, including noise sensitivity, is one reason for failure of guide dogs during training. Furthermore, convention dictates that dogs work to the left of their handlers, even though this may disadvantage some perfectly useful dogs. So, knowing a given animal's laterality may be predictive of its fearfulness and usefulness as a guide. Motor laterality in potential guide dogs (n=88) was determined using two methods: the KongTM Test (the current benchmark test) and our innovation, the First-stepping Test. KongTM studies record 50 paw-uses during foraging from a rubber cylinder, which can take up to 4 hours per dog. First-stepping bypasses hunger and simply records the first foot advanced after standing with both forelegs level. Unlike the KongTM Test, 50 observations can be obtained in 20 minutes. First-stepping exposed more significant paw preferences (71.6%; p<0.001) than the KongTM (40.9%; p=0.21). Using a one sample t-test, it showed a marginally non-significant tendency for a right population bias (p=0.065) whereas the KongTM Test indicated an ambidextrous population (p=0.40). Slightly over half the dogs (55.7%) showed a significant paw preference in one test but not the other. Of the 28.4% of dogs showing a consistent paw preference in both tests, only 44.0% had a significant bias. Direction (p=0.98) and strength (p=0.77) of lateralisation were not correlated between the two tests. These results concur with previous laterality studies by showing that motor bias changes with task complexity. The difference in population biases observed is likely to reflect different motivation and action patterns between the two tests; foraging in the KongTM, and locomotory in First-stepping. Compared with the KongTM, the First-stepping Test is quicker and more discriminating as demonstrated by its exposure of a significant left or right paw preference in more dogs.