Identifying Sources of Potential Bias When Using Online Survey Data to Explore Horse Training, Management, and Behaviour: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Owner-reported behavioural observations form an essential part of the veterinarians’ diagnosis and treatment plan. The way we train and manage horses affects their behaviour and, in turn, their health and welfare. Current horse training and management practices are largely driven by traditional techniques and longstanding methodologies. These approaches generally lack an evidence base for evaluation purposes. The absence of evidence and evaluation contributes to the persistent use of risky practices and this, in turn, increases risk of potential harms for both horse and rider, and fuels questioning of the equine industry’s current social license to operate. Objective evidence is required to make training and management decisions based on demonstrable best practice. Large-scale experimental or intervention studies using horses are generally not practical because of the associated costs and logistics of gaining ethical approval. Small studies generally lack statistical power and are subject to the effects of many forms of bias that demand caution in the interpretation of any observed effects. An alternative to collecting large amounts of empirical data is the use of owner-reported observations via online survey. Horse owners are ideally placed to report on the domestic equine triad of training, management, and behaviour. The current article highlights three sources of potential bias in a systematic review of literature on large-scale online studies of horse owners’ observational reports that met the following selection criteria: English-language, published, peer-reviewed articles reporting on studies with over 1000 respondents and open access to the survey instrument. The online surveys were evaluated for three common forms of bias: recall, confirmation, and sampling bias. This review reveals that online surveys are useful for gathering data on the triad of horse training, management, and behaviour. However, current use of online surveys to collect data on equitation science (including horse training, management, and behaviour) could be improved by using a standardised and validated tool. Such a tool would facilitate comparisons among equine and equitation science studies, thus advancing our understanding of the impacts of training and management on horse behaviour. The authors of the current review suggest the use of a standardised behavioural and management assessment tool for horses. Such a tool would help define what constitutes normal behaviour within geographically disparate populations of horses, leading to improvements in rider safety and horse welfare.

Age-Related Changes in the Behaviour of Domestic Horses as Reported by Owners

“…However, the horses in their studies were individually observed and scored for boldness by the experimenters rather than from scores based on owner-reported observations, as the current study did. The use of owner-reported observations may be considered a more accurate representation of boldness in horses than one-off tests results [52]. This may explain the difference among the studies.…”

“…In previous studies, when asked to recall events within a three-to six-month period, respondents scored a three-out-of-five for recall, whereas respondents reporting events within a week of their occurrence scored a five-out-of-five for recall [54,[74][75][76][77][78][79][80]. Previous investigations into the potential sources of bias inherent in equine behavioural data collection [52] revealed three main sources: recall, confirmation and sampling bias. As a validated instrument [46], E-BARQ attempts to minimise their impact.…”

Reported Motivations and Aims of Australian Dog Breeders—A Pilot Study

“…For example, in asking whether breeders took responsibility for various aspect of their puppies' future, we may have overlooked the prospect that some respondent may have interpreted this as total responsibility, whereas others may have interpreted it as partial responsibility. Other possible sources of bias with online surveys of animal owners, including the prospect that participants may sanitise their responses have been discussed elsewhere [27].…”

Who’s Getting a Head Start? Mesocephalic Dogs in Still Images Are Attributed More Positively Valenced Emotions Than Dogs of Other Cephalic Index Groups

“…The current study has some limitations. Although the sample size for this study ( n = 2445) was relatively large, the methods of sampling were not optimal for generalisability of the findings, with some unavoidable biases potentially introduced by online sampling [ 62 ]. Additionally, few of the current participants were male (9%), though this female bias replicates demographic imbalances reported in similar studies [ 4 ], so the current results are likely comparable with those in the existing companion animal literature.…”