Optimal Terminology for Services in the United States That Incorporate Horses to Benefit People: A Consensus Document

To recommend (1) the adoption of optimal terminology for referring to services in the United States that incorporate horses and other equines to benefit people, and (2) the discontinuation of especially problematic terminology. A diverse multidisciplinary consortium of individuals, including representatives of relevant national organizations, participated in an inclusive, systematic, and comprehensive 2-year consensus-building process. Twelve specific types of services were identified that relate to one of three broad areas of professional work: therapy, learning, or horsemanship. Related to the area of therapy, five distinct types of therapies were identified: counseling, occupational therapy, physical therapy, psychotherapy, and speech-language pathology. Therapy-first language is recommended that foregrounds the exact therapy (e.g., ) and adds precise equine-related descriptors as warranted (e.g., ). Related to the area of learning, three distinct types of nontherapy services were identified. The recommended terminology for referring to these services is , , and . Related to the area of horsemanship, four distinct types of nontherapy services were identified. The recommended terminology for referring to these services is or , , and . The plural term, , is recommended as a concise shorthand for easily referencing multiple services that differ from each other, yet share the horse as a common thread. Terms recommended for discontinuation include and . The consensus-building process culminated in extensive but not unanimous endorsements of all terminology recommendations. Terminology recommended for adoption clearly describes and distinguishes 12 distinct types of services. Terminology recommended for discontinuation was found to be ambiguous, misleading, no longer useful, or to have adversely affected stakeholders. It is hoped that all recommendations will prove useful and serve to enhance the professionalism and viability of specific identified services. It is also hoped that improved precision and clarity in terminology for naming specific services will advance their future scientific development and reliable measurement of effectiveness. Not all terminology-related challenges were resolved, however, and new challenges will likely arise as services continue to evolve and diversify. Significant impacts, if any, of the terminology recommendations herein merit ongoing monitoring and the question of optimal terminology merits revisiting in the foreseeable future.