Review Reports - Effects of an Equine-Assisted Riding Program on Motor Performance, Movement Quality, and Well-Being Among Young Inmates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Effects of an Equine-Assisted Riding Program on Motor Performance, Movement Quality, and Well-Being among Juvenile Inmates

The reviewer would like to thank the authors for their work and efforts

This manuscript addresses an interesting and underexplored topic: the quantitative effects of equine-assisted interventions in correctional settings, with a particular focus on motor performance, movement quality, and well-being. The integration of physical, psychological, and experiential dimensions is a notable strength. The study contributes to the literature by attempting to fill a gap in objective motor outcome measurements within prison-based equine programs. However, despite its novelty and applied relevance, the manuscript presents methodological limitations, conceptual ambiguities, and reporting issues that need substantial revision before it can be considered for publication.

Abstract

Please write the background sentence. This sentence is the purpose sentence. Use a subheading as the purpose.

Please provide information on which systems, tools, and scales were used.

Please add the effect size and its descriptors.

Introduction section

Please delete (p. 63).

I think these sections are well-written and incorporate relevant literature. Please add your hypothesis at the end of the introduction.

Materials and methods sections

Please delete (p. 105).

Were there any physical measurements taken? Height, weight, body fat percentage, etc.? Or do these characteristics not affect riding performance? Please specify the limitations.

Did everyone get on the same horse in the same way, in the same line?

How were the youth divided into groups? (randomly or ?)

Is there any G-power analysis? Please add it. If your sample size is small, please add it to the limitations.

Please add effect size descriptors in tables (small, medium, or large)

Is there a control group? If not, please add it to the limitations. Because of the fact that observed improvements may be due to the learning effect, novelty, or placebo effect.

Riding performance is evaluated subjectively. Clarify whether raters were blinded to pre/post condition. If not, explicitly acknowledge it as a limitation.

juvenile inmates or young inmates?

Equine-assisted intervention or equine-assisted program

Please add confidence intervals in tables

Discussion

Avoid definitive statements in the discussion section.

The conclusion could be more concise and focus on the study's practical contribution.

Please add your practical applications

According to the journal's rules, references must be written correctly, and attention must be paid to selecting current sources (from 2020 onwards).

Please check

Some typographical inconsistencies

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The abstract is concise but misses a crucial detail. You must explicitly state that this was a single-group, uncontrolled study.
"A pre-post repeated-measures design was applied." -> Please add "without a control group" to be fully transparent.
"Significant improvements were found... with large effect sizes." -> Mention the sample size directly in the results section of the abstract to contextualize these large effect sizes.

Introduction

The flow from the "pains of imprisonment" to the specific motor benefits of horseback riding is generally good. However, you need a clearer theoretical framework linking emotion/arousal to motor skill acquisition earlier in the text.
You mention the punitive nature of imprisonment leads to a "childlike state of dependency". This is a strong quote, but please briefly explain how this specifically damages motor competence.
"From a rehabilitative perspective, the promotion of physical and motor skills is not only a matter of health, but also of empowerment." -> This is a great point, but it lacks a citation. Whose perspective is this?
You mention a study by Hemingway et al. regarding embodied emotional learning. Break down this mechanism further. How exactly does emotional arousal translate into physical adaptation?
The transition to the "holistic riding approach" feels a bit abrupt. Introduce this concept one paragraph earlier to prime the reader.
"Empirical research on equine-assisted prison programs remains limited..." -> Be more specific here. What exact motor outcomes are missing in the current literature?
Your justification for focusing on juvenile inmates is solid. However, define the exact age range you consider "juvenile" here, rather than waiting for the methods section.
State your hypotheses clearly at the very end of the introduction. You list your aims, but what did you explicitly expect to find?
The literature cited is somewhat dated (e.g., Sykes 1958). Try to incorporate a few more recent (2020+) references on prison rehabilitation frameworks to show current relevance.

Materials and Methods

This section needs the most work. Your statistical choices and experimental controls must be defended robustly given the small n. As an analytical researcher, I need more detail on how the data was managed and rated.
"None of the participants had prior riding experience..." -> How was this verified? Self-report?
Regarding the familiarization day -> Did this include any riding? If they rode during familiarization, your baseline pre-test might be skewed. Clarify this.
You mention "farm-related tasks" like construction and cleaning. This is a massive confounding variable. How do you separate the physical benefits of manual labor from the riding program?
For the video recordings -> Were the two independent experts blinded to the timeline? Did they know which video was the pre-test and which was the post-test? If they were not blinded, this introduces severe confirmation bias.
"Inter-rater reliability across the two raters was r = .84" -> Pearson's r is not the best metric here. You should report Cohen's Kappa or an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).
The autotelic subscale has a Cronbach's alpha of .61. This is poor. You need to explicitly acknowledge this as a limitation and urge caution when interpreting this specific result.
Why was well-being assessed exactly 3 days before and after? -> Provide a rationale for this specific window.
You note a deviation from normality for the post-test well-being data. With an n of 10, parametric tests (ANOVA) are highly sensitive. I strongly advise running a non-parametric alternative (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test) to verify your findings.

Results

The presentation is clean, but the reporting of statistics needs to follow APA guidelines more strictly.
Figure 2 is an excellent use of a spaghetti plot. I suggest adding a bold, different-colored line to represent the group mean trajectory.
Avoid using the phrase "highly significant". A result is either statistically significant or it is not. Let the exact p-value and effect size speak for themselves.
In Table 2, report the exact p-values (e.g., p = .003) instead of just <.001.
The standard deviation for the Trot at pre-test is huge. This indicates massive variance in baseline ability. Please briefly explain this in the text.
The effect sizes (partial eta-squared of .919) are exceptionally high. Add a sentence acknowledging that small sample sizes can artificially inflate these estimates.
In Table 3, the telic score moved from 4.98 to 5.14. Please provide the 95% Confidence Intervals for these mean differences.
Did you run any correlations? It would be highly informative to see if the change in riding performance correlated with the change in well-being.
Ensure all decimal points in your tables align visually for easier reading.

Discussion & Conclusion

The discussion is thoughtful, but it needs to temper its claims and directly address the methodological shortcomings highlighted above.
"The significant gains observed... highlight the strong learning potential" -> Could these gains simply be due to a reduction in fear/anxiety rather than true motor learning? You should discuss this possibility.
Your explanation for the lack of telic improvement is that participants lacked self-awareness of their progress. A simpler explanation is that the scale's low reliability (.61) failed to capture the change. Acknowledge this.
You rightly note that beginners measure success just by staying in the saddle. This is a great clinical observation.
The limitations paragraph mentions small sample size, but it completely omits the lack of a control group. You must add a sentence stating that maturation or external prison events could theoretically explain the changes.
You mention the intervention provided a context for "emotional release within an otherwise monotonous... environment". Could the novelty of leaving the prison for a farm be the true cause of improved well-being, rather than the horses themselves?
The conclusion claims the program "can produce measurable motor and psychological benefits". Change "produce" to "is associated with" to respect the correlational nature of your design.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written paper exploring a novel topic, the influence of equine activities on young men who were imprisoned. Specifically, riding performance, movement quality and well-being were explored pre and post riding activities after a week of equine-assisted activities. The sample size was small (10 young men) and the program short (1 week). The primary concern is the use of parametric statistics given the nominal and ordinal nature of the data. Although the normal distribution of the data is demonstrated, the information is not the level of measurement appropriate for parametric assessment. As well, the sample size is quite small.