Methodological Standards and Strategies for Establishing the Evidence Base of Animal-Assisted Therapies

Kazdin, Alan E.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801292-5.00027-4

Cited by 22 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, researchers in the field of anthrozoology have been calling for higher level standards in research for a number of years (Chur‐Hansen et al, ). With regards to quantitative approaches, including experimental designs, Kazdin () lists randomisation to conditions, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, strong control and comparison groups, the use of treatment manuals and protocols, assessment of treatment integrity, the use of multiple (reliable and valid) outcome measures, the evaluation of both clinical significance as well as statistically significant change, and follow‐up or longitudinal data collection. There are some promising signs that some progress is being made: for example, Srinivasan et al () in their systematic review of equine therapy for people with ASD were the first to report of the size of treatment effects by calculating effect size estimates and their 95% confidence intervals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An umbrella review of the evidence for equine‐assisted interventions

Stern

Chur‐Hansen

2019

Australian Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To establish the evidence base for animal-assisted interventions, and specifically, hippotherapy and other interventions involving horses, in the context of improving biological, physical, psychological and social functioning, and outcomes in humans. Method: A review of systematic reviews (an umbrella review) was carried out using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and following PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were any interventions that included a live horse, for humans of any age and for any therapeutic purpose. Service and assistance horses and people who were incarcerated were excluded. Systematic reviews with a clearly articulated and comprehensive search strategy, with evidence of critical appraisal, both qualitative and quantitative and mixed methods, and in English were considered. Results: Of 19 systematic reviews considered eligible for inclusion, 13 were included in this umbrella review. These 13 systematic reviews covered 79 individual studies of equine-assisted interventions, including primarily hippotherapy and therapeutic horse riding. Participants included children with cerebral palsy, children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder, adults with multiple sclerosis, elderly people, adults post-stroke, people with spinal cord injury, adults with serious mental illness, adults with balance problems, people with brain disorders, breast cancer survivors, and obese women. Conclusions: The evidence for equine-assisted interventions for adults and children across a range of conditions and presentations is equivocal. The current evidence base is marred by multiple methodological weaknesses and thus, therapeutic interventions that include a horse cannot be asserted as best practice at this time. Rigorous research is indicated to determine the utility of equine-assisted interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An umbrella review of the evidence for equine‐assisted interventions

Stern

Chur‐Hansen

2019

Australian Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, few studies investigate mechanisms of change in AAIs [ 55 , 56 ]. In fact, May et al (2016) [ 3 ] systematic review of AATs for youth found only 2.2% of studies had tested for mediators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Limitations include lack of control groups, small samples with weak statistical power, lack of pre-test data, and use of outcome measures and treatment structures that are not comparable across studies [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Thus, the replicability and generalisability of their findings can be questioned [ 55 ]. Methodological limitations in AAI research may explain why reviews of ASD interventions rarely include AAI research [ 4 ], or only include them as “unestablished treatments”.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of a Horse Riding Intervention on the Social Functioning of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Harris

Williams

2017

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports a case-control study of a horse riding intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A sample of 26 children, aged 6 to 9 years, were assigned to either the intervention (n = 12) or control group conditions (n = 14). Pre- and post-tests were carried out using the Childhood Autism Rating Scale, Second Edition (CARS2) and the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Community Edition (ABC-C). An observational measure of compliance and behaviour during the horse riding sessions was completed for the intervention group. There was a significant reduction in the severity of ASD symptoms and hyperactivity from pre- to post-test for the intervention group only. These results indicate that the intervention improves some aspects of social functioning for children with ASD.

show abstract

“…As positive attention to AAIs has increased, researchers repeatedly have emphasized that media claims, statements by the pet products industry, and public perceptions of AAIs go beyond the available evidence (e.g., Anestis, Anestis, Zawilinski, Hopkins, & Lilienfeld, ; Crossman, ; Herzog, ; Serpell, McCune, Gee, & Griffin, ). Common problems that limit the status of AAI research include failure to control for basic threats to validity (e.g., change over time), insufficient statistical power, and failure to disentangle the effects of the animals from other aspects of the interventions (Crossman, ; Kazdin, ; Marino, ). Consequently, researchers have routinely called for more rigorous research and more tempered claims about the benefits of AAIs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%