Do Therapy Dogs Help in Speech Sessions? An SLP's Evidence Check

On October 17, 2026, Discover Animals published a survey study from a New Jersey school serving students with multiple disabilities, where therapy dog teams join speech, occupational therapy, and reading sessions rather than only greeting children in the hallway. Bioengineer.org's report of the Kirnan and Sampson findings (https://bioengineer.org/therapy-dogs-win-over-a-whole-school-but-students-rate-the-benefits-lower/) shows the tension SLPs now face: adults across the building praised the program, yet students rated several benefits, including getting along with others and motivation to attend school, below 50 percent agreement.

That gap lands on SLPs when a principal or parent asks whether a dog can join therapy. Favorable adult opinion is easy to collect. Evidence that a dog changes communication outcomes, and a policy that covers handler credentials, allergies, and consent, is much harder to produce.

What the New School-Based Study Found, and Who Was Asked

A study by Jean Kirnan and Olivia Sampson of The College of New Jersey, reported by Bioengineer.org and published in Discover Animals on October 17, 2026, examined one school's long-running therapy dog program.¹ The Calais School in New Jersey serves students with multiple disabilities from kindergarten through age 21 and has run an animal-assisted services program since 2013. Dog and handler teams visit campus one to three days a week, greeting students at arrival and dismissal and joining speech-language, occupational, and reading sessions.

The 2023 online survey captured 161 respondents across six stakeholder groups: classroom teachers, professional staff including counselors and speech-language therapists, other school staff, dog handlers, parents, and students. To the authors' knowledge, this was the first study to assess all six groups at one school about the same program, which matters because most prior research sampled only one or two adult perspectives.¹ Surveys used a 4-point Likert scale collapsed into agree or disagree ratings across four benefit themes: Well-Being, Academic Engagement, Socio-Emotional Competence, and Climate.

What the survey found

One finding stood out as universal: agreement that the dogs create a positive environment was high across all groups, with no significant differences. Beyond that, adult and student views diverged sharply. Fisher's exact tests showed significant group differences on seven of nine general benefit statements, with medium effect sizes. Students rated most benefits lower than any adult group, and their three lowest-rated items, getting along with others, getting along with teachers and staff, and motivation to go to school, all fell below 50 percent agreement.

Limits to keep in mind

The study reflects one school, self-selected survey responses, and a dichotomized agreement scale rather than a continuous measure. It did not track direct speech or academic outcomes. These limits matter when reading the results as evidence for therapy dogs in communication practice. The full open-access paper, titled "Comparative analysis of multiple stakeholder perspectives on the benefits of school-based therapy dogs at a special education school," is available in Discover Animals.

The Calais School Study in Numbers

These figures come from a 2023 survey at a New Jersey school serving students with multiple disabilities, where dog and handler teams join speech, occupational therapy, and reading sessions. Keep in mind that they reflect survey perceptions of benefit, not measured treatment outcomes.

The Student–Adult Perception Gap and Why It Matters for Communication Disorders

Why would students rate a school therapy dog program lower than the adults around them? That is the most striking pattern in the Calais School survey, and it carries a specific warning for speech-language pathologists.

Where Students and Adults Parted Ways

Across the general benefit statements, students agreed less often than any adult group: teachers, professional staff, other school staff, handlers, and parents. Their three lowest-rated items were getting along with others, getting along with teachers and staff, and motivation to go to school. Each fell below 50 percent agreement. The adults were more confident that the dogs delivered exactly those relational and motivational gains. One point of consensus held across every group: the dogs create a positive environment.

Why Adult Ratings Can Run High

Proxy reports, where an adult rates a benefit on a student's behalf, are prone to a familiar bias. A child who lights up when the dog walks in, reaches to pet it, or smiles through a session looks engaged. It is easy for a clinician, teacher, or parent to translate that visible enthusiasm into "gets along better with peers" or "more motivated to come to school." The student may simply be enjoying the dog without experiencing any change in those broader areas.

The Communication-Disorders Wrinkle

For SLPs, the gap needs a second reading. The Calais School serves students with multiple disabilities, and many students on an SLP caseload find abstract, self-reflective survey items hard to process and answer. A low rating could mean a student noticed little benefit. It could also mean the question itself was the barrier. Without accessible measurement, you cannot tell which.

Two practical habits follow:

• Collect student voice accessibly: Use visual rating scales, picture-supported items, pointing responses, or AAC-supported questions so students can report gains in a format they can actually use.
• Report both perspectives side by side: When you summarize a dog-assisted program for administrators or IEP teams, show adult and student ratings together rather than letting adult impressions stand in for the student's own experience.

Does a Therapy Dog Improve Speech Therapy Outcomes? Reading the Evidence Honestly

Getting a child to show up and talk is one outcome. Improving articulation accuracy or language skill is another, and the dog research mostly lives in the first camp. The evidence suggests a therapy dog may raise motivation, participation and comfort. There is little controlled evidence that a dog improves core speech or language treatment outcomes.

What Was Measured vs. What You Bill For

Most studies track engagement, talk time, social behavior and enjoyment. Those matter, but they are not the same as articulation gains, language growth or functional communication. A child who talks more with a dog present has not necessarily made lasting progress on a treatment goal.

The Research Base, and Its Limits

• Aphasia case report: LaFrance and colleagues (2007) described one adult with aphasia who showed more communication behavior in dog sessions. One participant cannot show causation or generalize.
• Aphasia pilot: Macauley (2006) compared weekly 30-minute canine-assisted and traditional sessions over 12 weeks in 3 adults with nonfluent aphasia after stroke. Outcomes were comparable, with enjoyment and motivation mainly subjective. With 3 people, the study cannot separate the dog from the therapist, novelty or extra attention.
• Neurogenic adults: Sherrill and Hengst (2022) used 30-minute sessions and found more talk time and longer turns, which points to engagement rather than impairment-level change.
• Autism: Jorgenson and colleagues (2020) ran a single-case experimental study with 5 autistic participants. Verbal statements rose slightly for 1 of 5, and social interactions rose for 2 of 5 under contingent access. Effects were modest and individual.

Autism reviews are mixed. One found significant language or communication gains in 9 of 12 studies, but cautioned that verbal communication may increase for some children and not others. Two 2024 reviews report favorable findings, yet they cover animal-assisted work broadly, vary in design, and do not isolate a dog's effect from skilled SLP treatment.

Pros and Cons for Schools

Potential benefits include comfort, willingness to enter the room and more communication opportunities. Against that, weigh allergies, fear of dogs, cost, distraction from the target task and the dog's own welfare. Any of these can cancel out the engagement gains for a given student.

Where ASHA's Framing Lands

ASHA's scope-of-practice framing keeps the clinician responsible for evidence-based treatment. Animal-assisted work fits as an adjunct that may support motivation, not a replacement for the treatment itself. In practice, write goals around the communication target, treat the dog as one possible support, and track whether the target skill moves with and without the dog present.

Formal Sessions vs. Casual Contact: What the Dosage Finding Suggests

"Dosage" here means how much time a student actually spends with the dog. That might be a structured speech, counseling, occupational therapy, or reading session built around the animal, or it might be brief contact at arrival, dismissal, or in the hallway. The Calais School study compared students in these two situations, and the result deserves a careful look before you redesign your caseload around a dog.

What the Comparison Showed

The 30 students in formal animal-assisted sessions rated every benefit except one higher than students with only casual contact. Yet only one difference, "feeling welcome," reached statistical significance. The rest leaned in the expected direction without clearing the bar that would let researchers call them reliable.

Why This Is Not a Verdict on Formal Sessions

Read this finding with restraint. The formal-session group was small, the data came from a single survey at one school, and students were not randomly assigned to sessions or casual contact. A subgroup that size can easily miss real differences. Students placed in structured sessions may also differ from their peers in ways that shape their answers. The study does not show that formal sessions fail. It shows they did not clearly outperform casual contact on most student-rated measures.

What it does challenge is a common assumption: that more structured dog time produces proportionally more communication benefit. If the clearest student-reported gain is feeling welcome, much of the dog's value may come from its simple presence rather than from session minutes.

A Practical Response for SLPs

Give the dog a specific job and check whether it earns its place:

• Arrival rapport: Use a brief greeting to ease the transition into sessions for students who resist getting started.
• Reinforcement: Pair time with the dog with target productions or completed tasks, and track whether responding changes.
• Reading practice: Let students read aloud to the dog when fluency or reading confidence is the goal.

Then compare those sessions against similar ones without the dog. If the data look the same, the dog may be a pleasant extra rather than an active ingredient.

Therapy Dogs vs. Service Dogs vs. Facility Dogs: Definitions and Access Rights

Only one of these three roles is defined in federal disability law. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a service animal must be a dog individually trained to perform a task tied to a specific person's disability, so comfort or emotional support alone does not qualify. Therapy and facility dogs are described by Assistance Dogs International instead, which is why schools handle their access through local policy rather than ADA rules.

Handler Credentials and School Therapy Dog Policy: What Administrators Will Ask For

The credential question has two halves that SLPs often blur together: national registration, which says a dog-and-handler team passed an evaluation, and district authorization, which says this team may work with these students in this building. Administrators will ask about both, and one never substitutes for the other.

How the Main Registries Compare

• Pet Partners: Handlers complete an online Handler Course ($80), submit animal health information, and pass an in-person team evaluation. Evaluators may charge separately, often $15 to $30. Everything must be finished within two years of the course. New team registration is $95 and covers two years. Renewal is $70 and requires a fresh evaluation plus a 40-question knowledge assessment. Pet Partners also lists a reduced $50 rate and a $30 fee for additional registrations. No specific outside training class is required for the animal, though the team must pass the evaluation.¹
• Alliance of Therapy Dogs (ATD): Certification starts with a Handling Assessment, followed by three to four supervised observations, at least two in medical facilities. ATD's stated first-year total is $55, with a $35 annual fee after that.² Veterinary and other costs are extra. ATD names schools among its volunteer settings, alongside hospitals, nursing homes, and special-needs centers.
• Therapy Dogs International (TDI): A long-standing registry whose current evaluation steps, fees, and insurance terms we could not verify. Contact TDI directly rather than assuming its rules match the other two.

Secondary guides often cite a one-year minimum dog age and exclusion of dogs with any bite history. Treat those as questions to confirm with the registry you choose.

What a School-Ready Team Needs Beyond Registration

Neither Pet Partners nor ATD presents certification as permission to enter a school. Districts set their own visitor, animal-access, health, and special-education rules. Expect to supply current veterinary and vaccination records, proof of registration, any background check your district requires of volunteers, and evidence the dog stays calm through bells, crowded hallways, and sudden movement.

Insurance and Liability

ATD says membership includes insurance for members volunteering with their dogs, but its published materials do not spell out limits, exclusions, or whether a district can be named as an additional insured. Pet Partners' current liability terms were not confirmed. Either way, registry coverage does not replace district risk review. Risk managers commonly ask for a certificate of insurance, clarity on who pays if a student is bitten or scratched, and sometimes the handler's personal liability coverage. Contact your risk office early, because this step can stall a proposal longer than any other.

Policy Language and the Handler Question

No national template exists, and district policies vary widely. Documents that hold up well tend to include:

• Approval chain: sign-off from the principal, special education leadership, and risk management.
• Notification: written notice to families with consent, plus allergy and fear screening.
• Designated handler: a named, registered person who stays with the dog at all times.
• Incident reporting: a set form and timeline for bites, scratches, allergic reactions, or visible distress.

The open question for SLPs is whether you should be that designated handler. Handling your own dog simplifies scheduling and keeps the animal consistent across sessions. But watching for canine stress signals while tracking production accuracy, adjusting cues, and collecting data splits your attention at exactly the moment both student and dog need it. A separate handler frees you to run therapy, at the cost of coordination and one more adult in a small room.

Questions to Ask Yourself

Pre-Launch Safety Screening Checklist for School Therapy Dog Visits

Before the first visit, work through each item with your school nurse, administrator, and handler. The list draws on CDC school and health-care infection-control guidance, IAHAIO and AVMA guidelines on animal-assisted interventions, and the 2025 Standards of Practice in Animal-Assisted Interventions.

• Allergy and asthma screening

  Ask parents about allergies, asthma, and other illnesses before any contact, as CDC school guidance advises. Pet allergies affect roughly 15 percent of the general population, so plan dog-free spaces and confirm the dog is groomed, ideally bathed within 24 hours of the visit.
• Fear and trauma history

  Ask families and staff about past bites, phobias, or frightening dog encounters, and never require a student to approach or touch the dog.
• Sensory sensitivities

  Flag students who react strongly to fur, barking, or odor, and let them control their distance from the dog and how long they stay near it.
• Cultural or religious concerns

  Invite families to share beliefs that affect contact with dogs. Offer an equivalent session without the dog that doesn't single the student out.
• Written parent consent with opt-out

  Collect signed consent that names visit days, rooms, and session types. Make withdrawing as simple as enrolling.
• Infection control and hand hygiene

  Require supervised soap-and-water handwashing right after contact. Keep the dog from roaming freely, use gloves and leak-resistant bags for waste, disinfect surfaces, and keep animal equipment out of food areas.
• Animal welfare monitoring

  Name at least one responsible person and keep a veterinarian involved, with vaccinations kept current under local law. Limit sessions to the dog's capacity, guarantee a retreat space, and set clear removal criteria.

Related Articles

How to Propose and Structure a Therapy Dog Program in Your School

A therapy dog program can start as a casual hallway greeting or as a structured element inside your sessions. The casual version is easy to launch but, as the school-based research suggests, hard to tie to measurable communication gains. The structured version takes more planning but gives you something you can defend in an IEP meeting. Aim for the structured version.

Build the Case Before You Build the Program

Start with the problem, not the dog. Name the communication barrier you are trying to move: a student who shuts down during expressive-language drills, a reluctant turn-taker, a child who avoids eye contact during narrative tasks. Then review the evidence honestly, including the finding that students often rate relational and motivational benefits lower than the adults around them. Bring that balanced read to your administrator and school nurse early. The nurse flags allergy and immunocompromise concerns; the administrator owns liability and policy.

Write Goals Where the Dog Is a Means, Not the Goal

The dog is a reinforcer, a rapport tool, or a practice partner, never the target skill. Anchor each objective to the communication outcome. Instead of "student will interact with the therapy dog," write "student will produce a three-word request to direct the dog through a task in 4 of 5 trials." The dog disappears from the measurement; the communication behavior stays.

Structure the Session

• Length and ratio: Keep sessions short and favor one student to one dog-and-handler team so the clinical task stays in focus.
• A defined task: Every visit needs a communication objective tied to the IEP, not just presence.
• An exit option: Give any student a no-penalty way to opt out, for allergy, fear, or preference.

Fund It Realistically

Truly free, nationwide therapy-dog grants are rare. Start low-cost by partnering with screened volunteer handler-dog teams from established registries. For funding, look local and specific: community foundations have backed named school dogs, such as Heartland's $4,115 for Taz at USD 270 Plainville Schools and Greater Oxford's $1,100 toward handler background checks at Talawanda School District (next deadline April 15, 2026). Ossining MATTERS funded $2,930.65 covering certifications, insurance, veterinary care, grooming, and supplies.¹ Dedicated leads like Pet Care Trust's Dogs in the Classroom (with Pet Partners) exist but open only in select regions. Most awards cover components, not full acquisition, so verify eligibility, amount, and allowable costs before you apply.

Measuring What Matters: Student-Reported and Task-Specific Outcomes

Animal-assisted work in schools is shifting from "it seems to help" toward "show me the data," and SLPs are well placed to supply it.

A Simple Design for One Student

Pick one target behavior you already track: attempts per session, percent accuracy on a probe, mean length of utterance, or turns taken in a session. Collect three to five baseline sessions without the dog, then a dog-present phase, then a withdrawal phase with the dog removed. Keep the activity, materials and time of day constant. If performance rises only while the dog is present, that is useful. If gains hold after withdrawal, you may be seeing learning, but you cannot credit the dog alone. Repeating the sequence strengthens your read.

Ask the Student, Not Only the Adults

The Calais School survey found students agreeing with benefit statements less often than any adult group. Collect self-report alongside teacher and parent ratings, adapted to how the student communicates:

• Picture or emoji scales: a three-face rating after each session.
• Forced-choice questions: "Was today fun or not fun?" with two clear options.
• AAC-supported items: the same questions programmed into the student's device.

Then compare the student's answers with the adults' and note where they diverge.

Calais also used task-specific items, including persistence after mistakes, preparation, focus, and emotional awareness and control. Those translate well into data: retries after an error, minutes on task, or whether the student names a feeling when prompted.

What Reading-Dog and Robot Studies Can and Cannot Tell You

A review of 48 canine reading publications found generally positive effects on engagement, anxious arousal and attainment, yet most studies sat at Level 5, the lowest evidence tier. A review of 18 special education studies could not pool results because the designs varied so much.³ Skill gains are mixed: Uccheddu's trial with nine children found no significant reading increase after 10 sessions, while the SitStayRead evaluation reported 20 percent higher oral reading fluency than teacher-led reading over eight weeks, with no significant change in general attitude. The pattern leans toward immediate engagement and mood rather than durable skill.

Robotic companions such as NAO, Cozmo and MiRo have been studied mainly for acceptability and engagement. That work does not show fluency or comprehension gains, and it does not show robots match live dogs. No high-quality 2026 trial comparing the two turned up.

If your own data show no change, or allergies, fear or handler availability keep complicating sessions, a live dog is not worth the complexity.