Current Status of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Scientific Literature: A Critical Comment on Their Internal Validity
Many meta-analyses and systematic reviews have tried to assess the efficacy of animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), reaching inconsistent conclusions. The present work posits a critical exploration of the current literature, using some recent meta-analyses to exemplify the presence of unattended th...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-06-01
|
| Series: | Animals |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/6/985 |
| _version_ | 1797566023069597696 |
|---|---|
| author | Javier López-Cepero |
| author_facet | Javier López-Cepero |
| author_sort | Javier López-Cepero |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Many meta-analyses and systematic reviews have tried to assess the efficacy of animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), reaching inconsistent conclusions. The present work posits a critical exploration of the current literature, using some recent meta-analyses to exemplify the presence of unattended threats. The present comment illustrates that the field (1) comprehends inconsistencies regarding the terms and definitions of AAIs; (2) pays more attention to the characteristics of the animals than to the action mechanisms of AAIs; (3) does not provide a clear connection between anthrozoology (how humans and non-human animals interact in communities), benefits of the human–animal interaction (HAI), and the design of AAIs; and (4) implicitly reinforces these phenomena through research designs. Thus, some conclusions extracted from these meta-analyses need further discussion. Increasing the internal validity of AAIs in empirical studies is an urgent task, which can be addressed by (1) developing a better understanding of how anthrozoology, the HAI, and AAIs relate to each other; (2) highlighting the mechanisms that explain the results in an empirical and specific way; and (3) changing the design of interventions, adopting a component-centered approach, and focusing on the incremental efficacy and efficiency of AAI programs. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T19:20:58Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8508280cd26b40c792fce69c4649b76a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-2615 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T19:20:58Z |
| publishDate | 2020-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animals |
| spelling | doaj.art-8508280cd26b40c792fce69c4649b76a2023-11-20T02:57:38ZengMDPI AGAnimals2076-26152020-06-0110698510.3390/ani10060985Current Status of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Scientific Literature: A Critical Comment on Their Internal ValidityJavier López-Cepero0Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Sevilla, Camilo José Cela s/n, 41010 Sevilla, SpainMany meta-analyses and systematic reviews have tried to assess the efficacy of animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), reaching inconsistent conclusions. The present work posits a critical exploration of the current literature, using some recent meta-analyses to exemplify the presence of unattended threats. The present comment illustrates that the field (1) comprehends inconsistencies regarding the terms and definitions of AAIs; (2) pays more attention to the characteristics of the animals than to the action mechanisms of AAIs; (3) does not provide a clear connection between anthrozoology (how humans and non-human animals interact in communities), benefits of the human–animal interaction (HAI), and the design of AAIs; and (4) implicitly reinforces these phenomena through research designs. Thus, some conclusions extracted from these meta-analyses need further discussion. Increasing the internal validity of AAIs in empirical studies is an urgent task, which can be addressed by (1) developing a better understanding of how anthrozoology, the HAI, and AAIs relate to each other; (2) highlighting the mechanisms that explain the results in an empirical and specific way; and (3) changing the design of interventions, adopting a component-centered approach, and focusing on the incremental efficacy and efficiency of AAI programs.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/6/985animal-assisted interventionsanimal-assisted therapyhuman–animal interactioninternal validity |
| spellingShingle | Javier López-Cepero Current Status of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Scientific Literature: A Critical Comment on Their Internal Validity Animals animal-assisted interventions animal-assisted therapy human–animal interaction internal validity |
| title | Current Status of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Scientific Literature: A Critical Comment on Their Internal Validity |
| title_full | Current Status of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Scientific Literature: A Critical Comment on Their Internal Validity |
| title_fullStr | Current Status of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Scientific Literature: A Critical Comment on Their Internal Validity |
| title_full_unstemmed | Current Status of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Scientific Literature: A Critical Comment on Their Internal Validity |
| title_short | Current Status of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Scientific Literature: A Critical Comment on Their Internal Validity |
| title_sort | current status of animal assisted interventions in scientific literature a critical comment on their internal validity |
| topic | animal-assisted interventions animal-assisted therapy human–animal interaction internal validity |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/6/985 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT javierlopezcepero currentstatusofanimalassistedinterventionsinscientificliteratureacriticalcommentontheirinternalvalidity |