The Psychological Effects of Therapeutic Riding (TR) for Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we present two studies which investigated the psychological benefits of therapeutic riding (TR) for children, primarily those with disabilities. The studies were run during two TR programs: Study 1, TR delivered in a summer camp; and Study 2, once- weekly TR sessions across two 10-week courses. All participants were tested at SARI Therapeutic Riding (SARI), London, Ontario, Canada. Survey methodology was employed, using standardized, validated questionnaires developed by the American Camp Association to make within-subjects comparisons. Data was collected at pre-camp/TR course, post-camp/TR course and follow-up time points; obtained from parent and child questionnaires, from researcher observation checklists, and through semi-structured interviews with the parents of children who attended summer camp. On all measures the participants of the camp demonstrated statistically significant gains between pre- and post-camp with respect to the domains of positive identity, social skills, physical skills, and positive values (all at p<.01 level). For weekly riding sessions, results from parent surveys were not statistically significant. Observation checklists completed by the researcher did show positive change in behaviours; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparisons of the domains measured in pre-, mid-, and post-course observations were significant, p<.01.Therefore it appears that TR, delivered in a summer camp or in a 10-week course, can be beneficial to children of all ability levels.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".