Development and Validation of a Basic Ground Skills Assessment for Equine-Assisted Services

Andersen, Sarah

doi:10.26076/b74d-e482

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recommendation is to apply a reliable and valid equine evaluation procedure. One example of a reliable and valid evaluation rubric is the Basic Ground Skills Assessment for EAS equines (Andersen, 2021). This assessment provides objective and well-defined measures to score equines on ten basic ground skills competencies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equine Assessment Procedures in Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship Unmounted Programs

Andersen¹,

Pate²,

Smith³

et al. 2023

Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (Χ 2 [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

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%