↓ Skip to main content

Job-Related Stress in Forensic Interviewers of Children with Use of Therapy Dogs Compared with Facility Dogs or No Dogs

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Job-Related Stress in Forensic Interviewers of Children with Use of Therapy Dogs Compared with Facility Dogs or No Dogs
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00046
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diane Walsh, Mariko Yamamoto, Neil H. Willits, Lynette A. Hart

Abstract

Sexually abused children providing essential testimony regarding crimes in forensic interviews now sometimes are provided facility dogs or therapy dogs for comfort. Facility dogs are extensively trained to work with forensic interviewers; when using therapy dogs in interviews, volunteers are the dog handlers. Interviews can impact child welfare workers' mental health causing secondary traumatic stress (STS). To investigate this stress, first data were gathered on stress retrospectively for when interviewers initially started the job prior to working with a dog, and then currently, from forensic interviewers using a facility dog, a therapy or pet dog, or no dog. These retrospective and secondary traumatic stress scale (STSS) data compared job stress among interviewers of children using: a certified, workplace facility dog (n = 16), a volunteer's trained therapy dog or the interviewer's pet dog (n = 13/3), or no dog (n = 198). Retrospective scores of therapy dog and no dog interviewers' stress were highest for the first interviewing year 1 and then declined. Extremely or very stressful retrospective scores differed among the three groups in year 1 (p < 0.038), and were significantly elevated for the therapy dog group as compared with the facility dog group (p < 0.035). All interviewing groups had elevated STSS scores; when compared with other healthcare groups that have been studied, sub-scores were especially high for Avoidance: a psychological coping mechanism to avoid dealing with a stressor. STSS scores differed among groups (p < 0.016), primarily due to Avoidance sub-scores (p < 0.009), reflecting higher Avoidance scores for therapy dog users than no dog users (p < 0.009). Facility dog users more consistently used dogs during interviews and conducted more interviews than therapy/pet dog users; both groups favored using dogs. Interviewers currently working with therapy dogs accompanied by their volunteers reported they had experienced heightened stress when they began their jobs; their high stress levels still persisted, indicating lower inherent coping skills and perhaps greater empathy among interviewers who later self-selected to work with therapy dogs. Results reveal extreme avoidant stress for interviewers witnessing children who are suffering and their differing coping approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 30%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 23 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2020.
All research outputs
#6,870,875
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,180
of 6,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,429
of 332,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#32
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.