A Systematic Review of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes in People with Intellectual Disability.
Animal visits look fun for clients with ID, but the proof is still puppy-grade weak.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Dababnah et al. (2016) hunted for every paper that put animals in therapy rooms for people with intellectual disability. They found ten studies. All used dogs, horses, or guinea pigs to boost mood, friendships, or daily living skills.
Each study was small. None used random assignment. The team graded every paper for quality. Every one scored 'low.'
What they found
Across the ten weak studies, clients smiled more, talked more, and showed fewer behavior problems during or right after animal sessions. Effects faded within days. No study proved the animals caused the change.
The review calls the signal 'positive but not trustworthy.'
How this fits with other research
Tantam et al. (1993) said the same thing 23 years earlier about exercise studies for the same group: 'nice stories, lousy proof.' Both reviews beg for RCTs before spending money.
Pickard et al. (2019) later pooled group-based physical-activity trials for kids with autism. They found tiny but real social gains. Their stricter meta-methods show what AAT could achieve if it copies that playbook.
Sasson et al. (2022) reviewed group social-skills training for adults with ASD. They found large parent-reported gains, again using tighter designs. The contrast highlights AAT's evidence gap, not a clash of results.
Why it matters
Your facility may get requests for 'therapy dog visits.' This paper gives you the honest answer: the idea is promising but unproven. If you trial it, collect simple data like smile counts or rate of peer initiations during and after sessions. Share the numbers so the next review has stronger bricks.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →If you already use animals, add a 5-minute ABC tally of positive affect; if the data dip, pause the program.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The aim of the study was to review the literature on animal assisted therapy (AAT) in people with intellectual disabilities (ID) measuring psychosocial outcomes (behavioural, social, cognitive and emotional). Quantitative studies were found through a systematic search that identified studies using AAT in people with ID and measuring psychosocial outcomes (behavioural, cognitive, emotional and social). The quality of studies was assessed using a standardised tool and rated as strong, moderate or weak. Only published articles from peer-reviewed journals were included. No language or age restrictions were applied. Over half of the included studies were identified outside standard database searches (e.g. hand searching reference lists from included articles, references from AAT websites and using Google Scholar and a Grey Literature Database). Ten studies were included in the final review; two were rated as moderate quality and eight were rated as weak quality. Overall there was a positive improvement reported from studies for all psychosocial outcomes (with some cognitive, behavioural, social, emotional components reaching statistical significance p ≤ 0.01). Despite having no age restrictions, the included studies had participants that were mainly children and adolescents, in particular favouring male participants, which may limit generalisation. More rigorous methodology is required to improve the quality of future studies including in the main multicentre randomised designs and improved reporting according to CONSORT criteria. Further research should expand to include adults with ID and specific disorders such as challenging behaviour or mental illness.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2016 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.12.005