Animal-assisted Interventions as an Adjunct to ABA Services: Clinician Practices and Perceptions
One in five ABA clinicians already use animals in sessions, but safety, ethics, and animal-welfare risks mean you should pause and develop robust safeguards before joining them.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ghai et al. (2022) sent an online survey to 544 ABA clinicians. They asked who already brings animals into sessions and how people feel about the idea.
The team wanted a snapshot of real-world use and worries about safety, ethics, and animal welfare.
What they found
One in five clinicians already use animals, mostly dogs. Most others say they would like to try.
Yet the same people list big worries: bites, allergies, stressed animals, and lack of rules.
How this fits with other research
Emerson (2013) reviewed 14 older studies and saw only happy results—better talk, play, and calm. The new survey does not overturn those gains; it simply shows the clinician side now notices risks the early trials rarely tracked.
Ruby et al. (2024) count arm bites from clients as the top staff injury. Add a dog and the bite risk pool grows. Together the papers say: check your injury log before you add paws.
Wilson et al. (2024) found parents want warmer, less robotic ABA. Animals could supply that warmth, but the survey warns warmth must never trade off safety or welfare.
Why it matters
You may get parent requests for a therapy dog tomorrow. This paper tells you to pause, write a safety plan, check insurance, and train the animal handler first. Do that and you keep the gains Emerson (2013) promises while avoiding the bites Ruby et al. (2024) tally.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Draft a one-page animal policy: list bite prevention, allergy checks, and a quiet retreat space for the animal.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Although the popularity of animal-assisted interventions (AAI) continues to increase, an examination of these practices among clinician populations that may incorporate AAI in their clinical services are largely absent from the literature. This study examined the practices and desirability of incorporating animals into ABA services. A total of 544 ABA clinicians completed a web-based survey. Data revealed respondents not only considered incorporating animals into ABA services (n = 307), but almost 20% (n = 107) also reported engaging in this practice. Dogs were reported as the most frequently incorporated animals and an examination of animal sources and prior training revealed substantial variability. Animal incorporation practices were viewed as desirable, feasible, and a majority of respondents reported being interested in AAI implementation. Implications of these results beget a discussion about potential adverse consequences to clients and clinicians that participate in these practices. This discussion includes physical safety risks, financial threats, and potential Behavior Analysis Certification Board (BACB) code violations. Animal welfare concerns, which are often omitted from discussions about AAI, are also discussed to inform clinicians of the added responsibilities that need to be considered. In total, survey results and the accompanying discussion should urge ABA clinicians to pause when considering the incorporation of animals into their clinical practices. No published articles could be found that examine the use of animal incorporation practices within the area of clinical ABA services. Personal and professional risks and animal welfare concerns associated with the utilization of these practices, as identified in this study, should inform programmatic decision-making by clinical practitioners and supervisors interested in engaging in these practices. Results of this survey highlight the potential need for modifications to professional standards and ethical codes of the BACB and state licensing authorities. As this is a novel area of investigation, this article illustrates the need for further empirical evaluation of animal-assisted interventions as an adjunct to ABA services.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2022 · doi:10.1007/s40617-021-00605-4