Grasp, release and the small movements inside one hand decide how a child eats, dresses and writes. Here is how occupational therapists measure hand function in CP, and which treatments have trial evidence behind them.
Cerebral palsy affects fine motor skills by disrupting the brain’s control of the hand, so grasping, letting go and moving small objects take more effort, and in unilateral CP one hand is usually far weaker than the other. Occupational therapists rate this on the five level Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) and treat it with intensive, goal based hand practice, which a 2019 Cochrane review of 36 trials found beats low dose therapy.
This page sits under our guide to occupational therapy for cerebral palsy, which covers what OT is, how often sessions happen and who pays. Here the subject is narrower: the hand. What it can and cannot do, how therapists grade it, which treatments have trials behind them, and what to ask the school for when handwriting is slow.
Three hand skills carry most of daily life: grasp, release and in-hand manipulation. CP can disrupt any of them, and a child who holds a cup well may still struggle to set it down without spilling.
Grasp means shaping the hand to an object before touching it and then holding it with the right force. Release is opening the hand on purpose, at the right moment, so the cup lands upright instead of tipping. In-hand manipulation is moving something within one hand: turning a pencil point down, sliding a coin from palm to fingertips, rotating a key. It is the least visible of the three and the one handwriting depends on. Therapists can measure it. In a 1999 study that included 24 children with spastic diplegia, the In-Hand Manipulation Test correctly classified 83% of children as having or not having fine motor problems.
The pattern follows the type of CP. In hemiplegic (unilateral) cerebral palsy, one side is affected and the child learns to do nearly everything one handed. The Cochrane authors describe the more affected limb as often “disregarded,” which matters because a hand that is never used falls further behind. In bilateral CP both hands are involved, sometimes only mildly. The goal is control and use of the hand in real tasks, which makes this occupational therapy territory rather than a strength program; physical therapy leads on walking, sitting and gross motor work.
The Manual Ability Classification System places children aged 4 to 18 in one of five levels by how they handle objects in everyday life. It rates what a child typically does at home and school, not the best they can manage in a clinic, and it rates both hands working together.
The five levels, as the MACS developers define them:
Parents can rate it too, and they agree with therapists closely. In the 2006 validation study of 168 children, agreement between pairs of therapists was 0.97 on the intraclass correlation scale, and between parents and therapists 0.96, where 1.0 is perfect. For children aged 1 to 4 there is the Mini-MACS, tested on 61 children aged 12 to 51 months, with parent and therapist agreement of 0.90.
An early level is not a verdict. An Australian population study followed 252 children with CP between 18 and 60 months of age. Levels I and V were the most stable; children at levels III and IV changed level at their next assessment about half the time. If your toddler was rated level III, ask for a re-rating each year. MACS works alongside the gross motor scale described on our CP severity levels page, and the two do not always match. The other instruments an OT may use, such as the Assisting Hand Assessment and the Box and Block Test, are covered in occupational therapy assessments for CP.
Both are intensive programs: many hours of hand practice packed into a few weeks. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) restrains the stronger hand so the weaker one has to work, while Hand Arm Bimanual Intensive Therapy (HABIT) keeps both hands busy on two handed tasks at the same dose.
The 2019 Cochrane review pooled 36 trials with 1,264 children aged 3 months to nearly 20 years. Programs averaged four weeks and 137 hours of practice in total, with a range of 20 to 504 hours, and the most common restraint was a mitt, glove or sling. Compared with low dose therapy, CIMT improved two handed performance by 5.44 units on the Assisting Hand Assessment. Compared with an equal dose of another intensive therapy, such as HABIT, it made no difference. The review rated its evidence low to very low quality, judged CIMT safe, and noted frustration, refusal of the constraint and reversible skin irritation from casting in a few children.
A 2011 randomized trial ran the comparison directly. Forty-two children with hemiplegic CP, aged 3.5 to 10, received 90 hours of either CIMT or HABIT in day camps. Both groups improved equally on the Jebsen-Taylor hand function test and the Assisting Hand Assessment, and held those gains at 6 months. The HABIT group made more progress on the goals families had chosen.
The lesson for parents is about dose. A 2014 meta-analysis of 42 studies and 1,454 children found little evidence that a short block of therapy alone changes anything, because the dose is too low, and strong evidence that goal-directed home programs work as a way to add practice hours. The 2020 Novak review of CP interventions gave bimanual training, CIMT, goal-directed training, home programs, and botulinum toxin combined with occupational therapy its green light rating, meaning effective. Our page on occupational therapy at home covers how to set up that kind of program.
How many total hours of practice does the plan add up to? Which goals will it target, written in words your child and family chose? Which measure, such as the Assisting Hand Assessment, will be taken before and after? For CIMT, what is the restraint, and what happens if your child refuses it?
Intensive hand programs have been scaled down for babies. The 2020 Novak review found early pilot trials of baby-CIMT and baby-bimanual training reporting gains in movement skills, rated as a yellow light: weakly positive, and in need of larger trials. For a child under 2 with one hand used far less than the other, ask the OT whether an infant program is available.
The trial evidence is thinner for bilateral CP. Constraint needs a stronger hand to restrain, so almost all of the CIMT research enrolled children with unilateral CP.
HABIT-ILE, a version of HABIT that adds leg work, has been tested in children with both sides affected. A 2026 randomized trial in Benin enrolled 32 children aged 2 to 4 at GMFCS levels III and IV and compared a 2 week HABIT-ILE camp with the same dose of usual physiotherapy. Gross motor scores improved more with HABIT-ILE, and scores on the family goals measure (the COPM) rose more. Neither group changed on the Both Hands Assessment. For a child with bilateral CP, then, the best supported route to better hand use is practicing the specific task the family wants, whether that is zipping a coat or feeding with a spoon. Our page on occupational therapy activities for CP sorts those tasks by goal.
A little, and not for long. A 2014 meta-analysis of six trials found a small benefit when hand splints were worn alongside therapy, and most of it faded within 2 to 3 months of stopping.
Five of the six trials studied resting splints, which hold the hand and wrist in position rather than helping it do anything. One studied a functional splint worn during activity. The combined effect of splint plus therapy over therapy alone was a standardized mean difference of 0.81, a small benefit with a wide confidence interval. The authors wrote that clinicians must weigh it against discomfort and the way a splint looks to the child and classmates.
The review measured hand skills, so it says little about splints prescribed for other aims, such as comfort or positioning. Ask what the splint is for, how many hours a day it should be worn, and what change would show it is working. Our assistive devices page covers the wider range of equipment.
Handwriting in unilateral CP keeps developing later than expected. A study of 16 children aged 8 to 13 found quality and speed still improving over 16 months, though the children stayed below their peers.
School marks in that study held steady while the handwriting caught up, which is a useful thing to tell a worried teacher. Slow handwriting is a motor problem. It is not, by itself, a learning problem. The practical response is to cut the copying load and give the child another way to produce written work.
Keyboards and mice bring their own difficulty. A 2014 study of 29 adolescents with bilateral CP tracked their mouse movements on point and click tasks and found they did not follow the usual speed and accuracy pattern that interface designers build around. The authors recommended displays with much larger, closer targets than standard screens assume. Bigger on screen buttons, larger text, a trackball or a keyguard are all worth trialing with the OT before settling on a setup.
Under federal special education rules, 34 CFR 300.105 requires a public school to provide assistive technology devices and services when a child needs them as part of their special education, related services or supplementary aids. School-purchased devices go home with the child when the IEP team decides home access is needed. A laptop, a keyguard or dictation software can be written into an IEP. For eating, dressing and other daily tasks, see cerebral palsy self-care.
They are the small, precise hand movements behind daily life: reaching and grasping an object, letting go of it on purpose, and moving it within one hand, such as turning a pencil to write. Cerebral palsy can affect any of these. In unilateral CP one hand is usually much weaker, and children often stop using it even for jobs it could help with.
Yes, with the right kind and amount of practice. A 2019 Cochrane review of 36 trials and 1,264 children with unilateral CP found that constraint-induced movement therapy improved two handed performance more than low dose therapy. Gains depend on dose: programs in that review averaged 137 hours of practice.
Most occupational therapists start with the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), which places children aged 4 to 18 in one of five levels by how they handle everyday objects. The Mini-MACS covers ages 1 to 4. Therapists then use tests such as the Assisting Hand Assessment to measure change before and after treatment.
In head to head trials at the same dose, neither wins on hand function. A 2011 trial gave 42 children with hemiplegic CP 90 hours of either CIMT or HABIT, and both groups improved equally on hand function tests, with gains held at 6 months. The HABIT group made more progress on the goals families set, which is worth weighing if your goal is a two handed task.
A little, and not for long. A 2014 meta-analysis of six trials found a small benefit when splints were worn alongside therapy, but most of that benefit faded within 2 to 3 months of stopping. The authors asked clinicians to weigh that against discomfort and appearance, so ask what a proposed splint is for and how you will know it worked.
Many children do, though often more slowly than classmates. A study of 16 children with unilateral CP aged 8 to 13 found handwriting quality and speed kept improving over 16 months, longer than expected, while school marks held steady. Where writing stays slow, the school must provide assistive technology the IEP team decides a child needs, such as a keyboard.
Kelsey is an experienced surgical nurse who works extensively with pediatric patients and families navigating birth injuries and cerebral palsy diagnoses. She is licensed by the Missouri Board of Nursing and operates under the Nurse Licensure Compact, allowing her to practice across compact-member states. As both a mentor and patient advocate, Kelsey focuses on safety, communication, and compassionate care: helping families understand medical procedures, treatment options, and the realities of pediatric conditions.
View Kelsey Pabst, RN's full bio →
Our nurses, patient advocates and legal experts are solely focused on bringing you the latest cerebral palsy information, options for financial assistance and access to community support.
Editorial process →The information on this page is provided for general educational purposes and is not a substitute for professional medical or legal advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the guidance of a qualified physician or attorney with any questions about a medical condition or legal matter. Read our full disclaimer.
