Prove or Substantiate

In the Summer 2008 edition of the HHRF Newsletter, we printed this headline: Benefits of Hippotherapy Proven By Washington University Research Team.  

This headline provoked responses such as this:

 

When I first read the subject line, the social scientist in me winced 
at the word “proven” – it goes against all my training in research 
methods to claim proof of anything in the laboratory of life. If that 
was the first reaction of someone who believes in & supports your work 
wholeheartedly, what would be the reaction of skeptics?

 

Thank you - thank you!  I promise this poorly placed word came from the exuberance of the HHRF administrative staff (yes – that would include me – a self proclaimed administrator-NON researcher) – NOT from any of our scientific committee members.  I am sure they, too, winced upon reading that word!  Thank you for your gentle reminder.  Even before your reminder we had other similar suggestions  – and have hopefully upgraded our entire website to better words – like “validate” – I don’t know how I let this headline slip by!

 

                                                      KC Henry – Executive Director 

                                                      KCHenry@HorsesandHumans.org

www.HorsesandHumans.org

Partnering with Horses in the Research

Recently we were sent this comment regarding the Washington University research funded by HHRF: 

The design did not include equines but rather a proxy. My thought would be to replicate the study including horses, knowing full well the difficulties inherent in such work.

One of the most unique aspects of their research is that the students were tested in the beginning and the end on a mechanical horse.  As the mechanical horse simulated a three dimensional movement the students postural response was captured by multiple video cameras that analyzed the reactions through computer technology.

 

In between the two assessments (the mechanical horse gave an identical “ride” for both assessments – something we can NOT duplicate in the ring on a live horse) – each student participated in 12 hippotherapy sessions on real horses at various programs.  

Those variables did NOT matter because the end results were so clear -  the students impressively increased head and trunk stability.  And these improvements are statistically validated.  

To read the results of the Washington University study, click here.

First Step: Apply with Confidence

Following our announcement of the 2008 awards recipients, we received a number of questions from research teams wondering how to make projects stronger for future funding consideration.

First and foremost, we emphasize that our grants are awarded on a competitive basis.  If an application uses our criteria to describe a highly qualified project with a rigorously developed scientific methodology, it still may not be selected.  Multiple applications impress our scientific advisors and are enthusiastically received by our board, but we select the project(s) that, in our opinion, will most benefit this field.

While we receive many excellent applications in each grant cycle, there are still many that do not follow our guidelines thoroughly enough to qualify for funding consideration.  One recurring shortcoming in many applications is the area of pilot studies.  Some applicants have not completed a pilot study.  Some report a pilot study that is not relevant enough to the research project being presented for funding.  Other pilot studies do not go far enough verifying the critical areas, such as the reliability, validity or sensitivity of their select measurement tools.

It will be helpful to applicants to carefully study all the criteria on the Research page of our website.  All areas of the application should be complete and thorough, leaving no question or doubt in the mind of reviewers of the intent of the research team.

In the Spring 2008 edition of the our newsletter, Renee Casady of our scientific advisory council wrote an article, Take off with a Pilot Study, on the importance an original pilot study.

Here are some excerpts from her article.

“A pilot study may be designed to provide a preliminary test of the presumed hypothesis and an investigation of the feasibility of a larger protocol.”

In order to be considered for funding, Horses and Human Research Foundation needs to know research will yield results.  A pilot study gives our advisory council a sample of your research plan, investigational experience, and indication toward the success of a larger scale project.

“Validate the scientific approach and methods to investigate a research question.  Present relevant findings from the pilot in any research proposal.”

Our advisory council is seeking results from your original pilot study.  Results from someone else’s pilot study, or from someone else’s research, could yield different results, and may not be accepted.

To read Renee’s full article on page 2 of the recent HHRF newsletter, click here.

To view the HHRF application guidelines, click here.

To promote healthy discussion

We are hosting a blog here at the Horses and Humans Research Foundation website.

Many questions and comments related to EEA/T research are directed to our office. The answers, ideas and comments will be posted here – and also our invitation for further input from our colleagues in this field.

Our board of directors, staff, scientific advisors and advisory council will provide input and seek additional advise from others in the field as needed. Stay tuned to our blog for updates, insights and commentary, so we can all pursue the mission of validating and furthering best practices in EEA/T.