Exploring horseback riding as a means to build physical competence among adolescent girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horseback riding is a novel, physically-based intervention that deemphasizes physical appearance and focuses on overall enjoyment. While evidence supports the effectiveness of riding in improving self-esteem and confidence in a number of special populations, there is little research into whether riding can help to improve the physical self-perceptions of adolescent girls. PURPOSE: The purpose was to explore the use of horseback riding to enhance physical competence in adolescent girls. METHODS: Participants included adolescent girls (N=3; Mage=13) engaged in a 12-week riding program, their parents (N=3), and their riding instructors (N=2). The girls and their parents completed pre- and post-program qualitative semi-structured self-reports while riding instructors completed post-program questionnaires. All measures explored the girls' riding experiences and how they related to their perceptions of physical competence, body image and self-efficacy. RESULTS: Thematic analysis was used and the child and parent reports were examined for convergent and divergent themes and then triangulated with the riding instructors' responses. All three sources highlighted an increased level of physical skill and confidence among the participants post program; this was directly related to positive experiences with the horse. While the girls' felt their physical skills had improved, the parents and riding instructors spoke to an improvement in self-confidence among the girls. Other notable themes were openness to new experiences, fun, and formation of new bonds. CONCLUSION: These findings provide initial evidence that horseback riding can help adolescent girls develop physical competence through mastery experiences, eliciting positive changes in confidence and body image.Acknowledgments: This study was done in collaboration and with the help of the Free Spirit Therapeutic Riding Association
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".