Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1R21HD109853-01 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source | |
| 5R21HD109853-02 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This R21 provides a multidisciplinary One Health approach to developing and evaluating a novel Cat Assisted Training (CAT) animal assisted intervention (AAI) for early adolescents with developmental disabilities (DD) and their family cat. Cat social behavior and welfare is heavily influenced by human behavior and training, making it highly likely that cats would also benefit from this program. There remains a critical need for further empirical evaluation of AAI practices, especially those that target the specific needs of youth with disabilities. Further extending the development and evaluation of activity-based AAIs beyond those that include dogs and horses also helps address the critical need to consider and include diverse human participants, creating new equitable opportunities for AAI involvement to those who may have access to cats, but not dogs and horses (due to practical, health, cultural, socio-economic, or other personal reasons).
This R21 provides a multidisciplinary One Health approach to developing and evaluating a novel Cat Assisted Training (CAT) animal assisted intervention (AAI) for early adolescents with developmental disabilities (DD) and their family cat. The novel CAT intervention will be a 6-week cat walking and training program for youth 8 - 17 years old. Participants will learn how to respond appropriately to cat body language, practice fear-free and positive reinforcement-based handling, and training skills, and how to fit a harness and walk their cats on leash. For the human participants, skills and behaviors learned during the intervention are expected to promote and support long-term physical activity, social wellbeing, and lasting feelings of responsibility even after the intervention itself has concluded. We also expect these experiences to improve the relationship between the child participant and household cat, and in turn, reduce cat stress in the child's presence and increase cat sociability and indicators of behavioral wellbeing. Because each child will participate with a cat already living in their household, this program will create a unique active partnership between child and cat that considers the health and wellbeing of both partners. Recent pilot work by PIs Udell & MacDonald has revealed physical and social-emotional improvements in children with and without developmental disabilities following a pet dog-partner based AAI. Dogs also showed increased sociability and attachment towards their child partner after AAI participation. Work by PI Udell & Vitale has demonstrated that many cats are highly social and form strong attachment bonds with humans, that cats can be successfully trained a wide range of behaviors, including leash walking, and that cat training classes result in high participant retention rates. Cat social behavior and welfare is also heavily influenced by human behavior and training, making it highly likely that cats would also benefit from this program. There remains a critical need for further empirical evaluation of AAI practices, especially those that target the specific needs of at-risk populations and youth. Further extending the development and evaluation of activity-based AAIs beyond those that include dogs and horses also helps address the critical need to consider and include diverse human participants, creating new equitable opportunities for AAI involvement to those who may have access to cats, but not dogs and horses (due to practical, health, cultural, socio-economic, or other personal reasons).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAT Intervention Group | Experimental | The experimental group will take part in the CAT intervention (Table 1) after baseline assessments. All cat-training methods will be positive reinforcement based, using owner-approved food, toys and social reinforcers (e.g. petting). |
|
| CAT Control Group | No Intervention | Control participants will not participate in the CAT intervention. After the completion of the third assessment (end of proposal-related data collection), control participants will be offered the opportunity to participate in cat training classes. |
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAT Intervention Group | Behavioral | The experimental group will take part in the CAT intervention after baseline assessments. All cat-training methods will be positive reinforcement based, using owner-approved food, toys and social reinforcers (e.g. petting). |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants Whose Cats Changed From Insecure to Secure Attachment Classification From T1 to T3 | Cats in the intervention group participated in a structured three-phase assessment: two minutes in the testing room with their child owner, two minutes alone, and then a reunion phase when the child returns. All sessions were video recorded. Two independent raters classified each cat's attachment style using a predefined behavioral ethogram, with primary emphasis on the cat's response during the reunion. Possible attachment classifications include Secure, Insecure-Ambivalent, Insecure-Avoidant, Insecure-Disorganized. Data presented describe within-cat change in attachment classification from T1 to T3, specifically the shift from insecure (inclusive of ambivalent, avoidant, and disorganized) to secure attachment. | T3 is approximately 14 months after T1 (baseline). |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants Who Participated in Walking Their Cat at T2 | The Cat Care Responsibility Inventory "Walk" variable reflected responses to the item, "Usually walks cat." Children indicated the household member for whom this statement was most true (e.g., self, mother, father, sibling, or other). For analysis, responses were coded as a binary variable such that s child either participated in walking the cat (alone or with others in the household) or did not. These binary outcomes were then compared across time points and participant groups. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| NIH Toolbox Emotional Support (Ages 8-17) Fixed Form: Uncorrected Standard T-score at T2 | Participants completed a 7-item Emotional Support survey from the NIH Toolbox (NIH Toolbox Item Bank v2.0), validated for children ages 8-17. The survey uses a five-point Likert scale (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Usually, Always) to assess children's experiences of emotional support during the past month. Items ask about perceived access to supportive relationships over the preceding month. Sample question: "I have someone who will listen to me when I need to talk." Scoring Process: Each survey is scored using Item Response Theory (IRT). An IRT-derived theta score is generated for each participant, as is an Uncorrected Standard Score (T-score). Interpretation: For the NIH Toolbox Emotional Support Survey, higher scores are indicative of more emotional support. Scores 1 SD or more below the mean (T ≤ 40) suggest low levels of support, and scores 1 SD or more above the mean (T ≥ 60) suggest high levels of support. T-scores ≤ 40 may warrant heightened surveillance or concern. |
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon State University | Corvallis | Oregon | 97331 | United States |
The proposed research will involve a small sample (target N = 30 participants) of youth with DD within a narrow age range recruited from Corvallis and the surrounding counties/ communities. Participants must also have a pet cat to participate in this study. Even with the removal of all identifiers, we believe that it would be difficult to protect the identities of subjects given the small region of recruitment and possible identifying characteristics of subjects and their family cats. Given that some participants may exhibit anxiety, depression or other behavioral and emotional disorders we plan to take every measure to ensure their identify is protected. Therefore, we are not planning to share non-aggregate data.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | CAT Intervention Group | The experimental group will take part in the CAT intervention (Table 1) after baseline assessments. All cat-training methods will be positive reinforcement based, using owner-approved food, toys and social reinforcers (e.g. petting). |
| FG001 | CAT Control Group | Control participants will not participate in the CAT intervention. After the completion of the third assessment (end of proposal-related data collection), control participants will be offered the opportunity to participate in cat training classes. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1: Enrollment + approx. 6 weeks |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| T2: approx. 6 weeks after T1 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
| T3: approximately 1 year after T2 |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | CAT Intervention Group | The experimental group will take part in the CAT intervention (Table 1) after baseline assessments. All cat-training methods will be positive reinforcement based, using owner-approved food, toys and social reinforcers (e.g. petting). |
| BG001 | CAT Control Group |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Number of Participants Whose Cats Changed From Insecure to Secure Attachment Classification From T1 to T3 | Cats in the intervention group participated in a structured three-phase assessment: two minutes in the testing room with their child owner, two minutes alone, and then a reunion phase when the child returns. All sessions were video recorded. Two independent raters classified each cat's attachment style using a predefined behavioral ethogram, with primary emphasis on the cat's response during the reunion. Possible attachment classifications include Secure, Insecure-Ambivalent, Insecure-Avoidant, Insecure-Disorganized. Data presented describe within-cat change in attachment classification from T1 to T3, specifically the shift from insecure (inclusive of ambivalent, avoidant, and disorganized) to secure attachment. | The difference between the number enrolled and the number analyzed reflects the requirements of the Secure Base Test, which requires participation by both the child and the cat. One child remained enrolled and completed other study procedures, but their cat did not participate in the Secure Base Test at T3. This participant was therefore included in the retention totals but not in the analytic sample for this measure. The other participants did not respond to scheduling attempts for T3. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | T3 is approximately 14 months after T1 (baseline). |
Adverse even data were collected from the first assessment (T1) through the second assessment (T2) approximately 6 weeks after T1, as well as at the third assessment (T3) approximately 1 year after T1, when applicable.
Possible adverse events include scratches and bruises like those a child might obtain from participating in regular physical activities, scratches or bites from their pet cat, or emotional discomfort related to survey questions. These would all qualify as "other (not including serious) adverse events". Adverse events, if any, would be self-reported, guardian-reported, or observed by study staff.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | CAT Intervention Group | The experimental group will take part in the CAT intervention (Table 1) after baseline assessments. All cat-training methods will be positive reinforcement based, using owner-approved food, toys and social reinforcers (e.g. petting). |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monique Udell | Oregon State University | 541-737-9154 | 79154 | monique.udell@oregonstate.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Oct 24, 2024 | Dec 9, 2025 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
| ICF | No | No | Yes | Informed Consent Form | Sep 13, 2023 | Dec 9, 2025 | ICF_001.pdf |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| T2 is approximately 6 weeks after T1 (baseline). |
| T2 is approximately 6 weeks after T1 (baseline). |
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
Control participants will not participate in the CAT intervention. After the completion of the third assessment (end of proposal-related data collection), control participants will be offered the opportunity to participate in cat training classes. |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| years |
|
| Sex/Gender, Customized | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Cat Attachment Test | At baseline (T1), cats participated in a structured three-phase assessment: two minutes in the testing room with their child owner, two minutes alone, and then a reunion phase when the child returns. All sessions were video recorded. Two independent raters classified each cat's attachment style using a predefined behavioral ethogram, with primary emphasis on the cat's response during the reunion. Possible attachment classifications include Secure, Insecure-Ambivalent, Insecure-Avoidant, Insecure-Disorganized, and Unclassifiable. | Missing data is one video of the Cat Attachment Test. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Physical Activity - Walking | The Cat Care Responsibility Inventory "Walk" variable reflected responses to the item, "Usually walks cat." Children indicated the household member for whom this statement was most true (e.g., self, mother, father, sibling, or other). For analysis, responses were coded as a binary variable indicating whether the child reported walking the cat. These binary outcomes were then compared across time points and participant groups. | Missing data are answers that children chose to leave blank. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Emotional Support (Ages 8-17) - Fixed Form | Five-point Likert scale (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Usually, Always) to assess children's experiences of emotional support during the past month. Items ask about perceived access to supportive relationships over the preceding month. Sample question: "I have someone who will listen to me when I need to talk." Higher scores are indicative of more emotional support. Scores 1 SD or more below the mean (T ≤ 40) suggest low levels of support, and scores 1 SD or more above the mean (T ≥ 60) suggest high levels of support. T-scores ≤ 40 may warrant heightened surveillance or concern. | Mean | Standard Deviation | T-score |
|
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Participants Who Participated in Walking Their Cat at T2 | The Cat Care Responsibility Inventory "Walk" variable reflected responses to the item, "Usually walks cat." Children indicated the household member for whom this statement was most true (e.g., self, mother, father, sibling, or other). For analysis, responses were coded as a binary variable such that s child either participated in walking the cat (alone or with others in the household) or did not. These binary outcomes were then compared across time points and participant groups. | These data were analyzed only at T2, when 18 participants were enrolled in the CAT intervention group and 16 were enrolled in the control group. Although participants were assessed at T1, T2, and T3, there were not enough completed responses for this item at T3 to support a meaningful analysis. Five participants also had missing responses at T2 and were excluded from the analysis for this variable. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | T2 is approximately 6 weeks after T1 (baseline). |
|
|
|
|
| Other Pre-specified | NIH Toolbox Emotional Support (Ages 8-17) Fixed Form: Uncorrected Standard T-score at T2 | Participants completed a 7-item Emotional Support survey from the NIH Toolbox (NIH Toolbox Item Bank v2.0), validated for children ages 8-17. The survey uses a five-point Likert scale (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Usually, Always) to assess children's experiences of emotional support during the past month. Items ask about perceived access to supportive relationships over the preceding month. Sample question: "I have someone who will listen to me when I need to talk." Scoring Process: Each survey is scored using Item Response Theory (IRT). An IRT-derived theta score is generated for each participant, as is an Uncorrected Standard Score (T-score). Interpretation: For the NIH Toolbox Emotional Support Survey, higher scores are indicative of more emotional support. Scores 1 SD or more below the mean (T ≤ 40) suggest low levels of support, and scores 1 SD or more above the mean (T ≥ 60) suggest high levels of support. T-scores ≤ 40 may warrant heightened surveillance or concern. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | T-score | T2 is approximately 6 weeks after T1 (baseline). |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 19 |
| 0 |
| 19 |
| 0 |
| 19 |
| EG001 | CAT Control Group | Control participants will not participate in the CAT intervention. After the completion of the third assessment (end of proposal-related data collection), control participants will be offered the opportunity to participate in cat training classes. | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
Not provided
Not provided
| t-test, 2 sided |
| .648 |
| Mean Difference (Net) |
| .4188 |
| Standard Error of the Mean |
| .90 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -1.50 |
| 2.33 |
| Other |
Paired t-test |