Click on “Download PDF” for the PDF version or on the title for the HTML version.


If you are not an ASABE member or if your employer has not arranged for access to the full-text, Click here for options.

Equine Assessment Procedures in Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship Unmounted Programs  Open Access

Published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.org

Citation:  Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health. 29(2): 99-108. (doi: 10.13031/jash.15457) @2023
Authors:   Sarah Andersen, Michael L. Pate, Judy Smith, Holly Clement, Rose Judd-Murray
Keywords:   Equine-assisted services, Equines, Evaluations, Risk Assessments, Safety.

Highlights

Survey data collected from equine-assisted services programs that offer unmounted (ground) programs document the need for standardized equine safety evaluations.

36.7% of respondents used an objectively defined method (i.e., used a defined percentage, number, rating scale, or yes/no checklist that must be achieved by the equine prior to them entering the program), while 63.3% did not use an objectively defined method.

Common equine safety concerns were biting/nipping, spooking from external stimuli, and stepping on a person‘s foot.

Abstract. The Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship International (PATH Intl.) is an organization that supports equine-assisted services (EAS). As the standard setting organization for EAS programs, PATH Intl. established evaluation metrics to ensure the safety of both humans and equines. One of the standards, Equine Management and Welfare Standard 2 (EQM-2), calls for EAS programs to have an unbiased equine assessment process. This standard can be implemented in different ways depending on program policies. Survey data was collected on each type of center with regard to the implementation of the equine assessment standard in unmounted (ground) activities, as well as self-reported safety and equine evaluation procedures for unmounted (ground) activities. The primary research objective was to identify differences between PATH Intl. Premier Accredited Member Centers and PATH Intl. Member Centers. No significant differences were found between center types except for incidents of human injury (Χ2[2] = 9.908; p =.007). Both types of centers had a variety of responses related to the implementation of their evaluation procedures, including, but not limited to, how many individuals evaluate each equine, the type of assessment tool, and the frequency of evaluations. Future studies should examine the different evaluation methods in depth to determine an objective standard for equine evaluation procedures in EAS programs and how best to keep human participants safe during therapeutic services.

(Download PDF)    (Export to EndNotes)