THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE

Volume 21, Number 1, 2015, pp. 1521

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/acm.2014.0021

Original Articles

Effect of Hippotherapy on Gross Motor

Function in Children with Cerebral Palsy:
A Randomized Controlled Trial
Jeong-Yi Kwon, MD, PhD,1 Hyun Jung Chang, MD, MS,1 Sook-Hee Yi, MD,1,*
Ji Young Lee, PT, MS,2 Hye-Yeon Shin, PT, MS,2 and Yun-Hee Kim, MD, PhD1

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether hippotherapy has a clinically significant effect on gross motor function in
children with cerebral palsy (CP).
Design: Randomized controlled trial.
Setting: Outpatient therapy center.
Participants: Ninety-two children with CP, aged 410 years, presenting variable function (Gross Motor
Function Classification System [GMFCS] levels IIV).
Intervention: Hippotherapy (30 minutes twice weekly for 8 consecutive weeks).
Outcome measures: Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM)-88, GMFM-66, and Pediatric Balance Scale.
Results: Pre- and post-treatment measures were completed by 91 children (45 in the intervention group and 46
in the control group). Differences in improvement on all three measures significantly differed between groups
after the 8-week study period. Dimensions of GMFM-88 improved significantly after hippotherapy varied by
GMFCS level: dimension E in level I, dimensions D and E in level II, dimensions C and D in level III, and
dimensions B and C in level IV.
Conclusion: Hippotherapy positively affects gross motor function and balance in children with CP of various
functional levels.

receive its influence, while in THR the rider is allowed to

control the horse.1012,14
EAAT appears to have positive effects on gross motor
function, with limited evidence.11 However, a recent metaanalysis found insufficient evidence for any therapeutic or
maintenance effects of EAAT on gross motor function in
children with CP.10 Two randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) found no significant effects of THR on gross motor
function as assessed by the Gross Motor Function Measure
(GMFM).15,16 Davis and colleagues15 randomly assigned
children with CP (aged 412 years), whose disability severity followed the Gross Motor Function Classification
System (GMFCS; levels IIII), to an intervention (a 30minute THR program administered weekly for 10 weeks) or
a control group. They found no significant difference between the changes in GMFM-66 scores between groups after
the intervention. MacKinnons and colleagues16 provided a
THR program (1 hour weekly for 6 months) to 10 children

ippotherapy provides a dynamic support base for

participants, making it an excellent method for improving trunk strength, control, and balance. Furthermore,
this activity can build overall postural strength and endurance, address weight-bearing shifts, and improve motor
planning. Additionally, the three-dimensional reciprocal
movements of a walking horse stimulate normalized pelvic
movements in participants that closely resemble those during
ambulation.1 Hippotherapy has been used in children with
cerebral palsy (CP) for many years, and its therapeutic benefits have been reported.213
Researchers distinguish between two types of equineassisted activities and therapies (EAAT): hippotherapy and
therapeutic horseback riding (THR). In hippotherapy, the
therapist sets goals aimed at improving the participants
impaired body function, while the goal of THR is to teach
the rider how to ride a horse. Patients undergoing hippotherapy take no active control of the horse and merely

1
Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Prevention and Rehabilitation, Heart Vascular and Stroke Institute,
Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
2
Samsung RD Center, Samsung Equestrian Team, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
*Present affiliation: Department of Rehabilitation, Seoul Rehabilitation Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

15

16

with CP having mild or moderate degrees of impairment.

GMFM scores did not significantly improve with THR
compared with scores in 9 controls. However, these two
studies examined the effect of THR, not hippotherapy. An
RCT with a larger sample size and consistent protocol is
necessary to determine the effects of hippotherapy on gross
motor function in children with CP.
Thus, the current study was conducted to evaluate the
effects of hippotherapy on gross motor function in a relatively large group of CP children with various functional
levels. The hypothesis was that there would be a greater
improvement of GMFM scores in the hippotherapy group
than in the control group and that the pattern of improvement might differ according to the functional status of
children with CP.

KWON ET AL.

n = 46; controls, n = 46). Two children in the hippotherapy

group (one with GMFCS level III and one with GMFCS level
II) and three children in the control group (one with GMFCS
level I and two with GMFCS level II) were exposed to the
hippotherapy condition before the study in a twice-weekly
program held for 8 to 16 weeks. Table 1 shows the clinical
characteristics of children included in the analysis.
Study design

Materials and Methods

This study was an RCT. An independent statistician

performed the randomization using computer-generated random blocks of 2 or 4, stratified by GMFCS level (IIV).
When consenting to participate, the project officers, participants, and participants parents or guardians were blinded to
whether the child would be placed in the hippotherapy or
control group.

Participants

Sample size calculation

The Institutional Review Board of the Samsung Medical

Center (Seoul, Republic of Korea) approved this study
protocol. Informed consent was provided by parents or
guardians before enrollment. Children suitable for this study
were identified using the Samsung Medical Center database.
Inclusion criteria were (1) diagnosis of CP, (2) body weight
less than 35 kg, and (3) age between 4 and 10 years. Exclusion criteria were (1) having received a botulinum toxin
injection within 6 months, (2) having a selective dorsal
rhizotomy or orthopedic surgery within 1 year, (3) displaying severe intellectual disability, (4) experiencing uncontrolled seizures, or (5) displaying poor visual or hearing
acuity. The body weight limit was 20% of the horses
weight, as recommended by the American Hippotherapy
Association. The maximum allowed weight considering the
size of the ponies used was 50 kg.
A total of 124 children were initially assessed for eligibility,
but 32 were excluded because of screening failure (n = 27)
and or a decision not to participate (n = 5) (Fig. 1). Thus, 92
children were randomly assigned to two groups (hippotherapy,

Sample size calculations were based on 90% power for an

independent t-test to compare changes in outcomes from
baseline to follow-up between the groups. Forty-one children in each group were needed to detect a mean change of
1.6 points between groups, with a 2.2-point standard deviation (SD) in GMFM-66 scores. This mean change in
GMFM-66 scores can be considered a clinically meaningful
change in motor function.17 To allow for 10% nonparticipation at follow-up, the required sample size was 46 children per group. The plan was to recruit a similar number of
participants at each GMFCS level: 12 at level I, 12 at level
II, 12 at level III, and 10 at level IV for each group.

FIG. 1. Consolidated Standards of

Reporting Trials flow diagram.

Treatment

Children in the hippotherapy group received 30 minutes

of private hippotherapy (1 child per therapist) twice a week
for 8 weeks (16 sessions), in addition to conventional
physiotherapy. Hippotherapy sessions were provided by
Samsung RD Center of Samsung Equestrian Team in an

THE EFFECTS OF HIPPOTHERAPY ON MOTOR FUNCTION

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants

Included in the Analysis
Characteristic
Boys, n (%)
Mean age (y)
GMFCS level (n)
I
II
III
IV
Neuromotor type (n)
Spastic
Dyskinetic
Ataxic
Unilateral, n (%)
Previous surgery, n (%)
Mean body weight (kg)
Mean height (cm)
Mean physiotherapy
time per week (h)

Hippotherapy
(n = 45)

Control
(n = 46)

20 (44)
5.7 1.9

29 (63)
5.9 1.8

12
12
11
10

12
12
12
10

41
2
2
4 (9)
6 (13)
18.7 5.4
107.7 11.6
3.3 1.3

43
2
1
6 (13)
7 (15)
19.9 4.8
110.1 10.0
3.1 1.5

Values expressed with a plus/minus sign are the mean standard

deviation.
GMFCS, Gross Motor Function Classification System.

18 m 27 m indoor riding arena located in Gyeonggi-do,

Republic of Korea. Sessions were conducted by physical
therapists extensively trained in hippotherapy by the American Hippotherapy Association and had obtained level II status.
Horses walked during sessions with a trained, experienced
horse leader. Two volunteers walked along either side of the
horse, assisting participants. Thus, four people assisted in one
hippotherapy session: a therapist, a horse leader, and two side
walkers.
A soft saddle (made of fleece) was selected to maximize
contact between participants and the pony. For safety, all
patients wore helmets.
Four ponies were trained by staff to participate (mean
height SD, 135 7.5 cm; mean weight, 294 44.6 kg).
Ponies and participants were matched according to the size
and functional status of the children and the movement
characteristics of the ponies as best as possible.
This study used the hippotherapy treatment protocol described by McGibbon and colleagues,3 directed by the therapist. The protocol included muscle relaxation; optimal postural
alignment of the head, trunk, and lower extremities; independent sitting; and active exercises (stretching, strengthening,
dynamic balance, and postural control).
Children in the control group received 30 minutes of
home-based aerobic exercise (walking or cycling) twice a
week for 8 weeks with conventional physiotherapy.
Outcome measures
GMFM. This study applied the GMFM-88, a widely used,
validated tool for assessing motor function in children with
CP.18 It is also an outcome assessment tool for clinical interventions in children with CP and those with delayed motor
development.19 The GMFM-88 consists of 88 items in five
dimensions: (A) lying and rolling; (B) sitting; (C) crawling
and kneeling; (D) standing; and (E) walking, running, and

17

jumping. The GMFM-88 total score and dimension scores for

B, C, D, and E were calculated. The GMFM-88 was administered before and after the intervention by the same blind
examiner. GMFM-66 scores were calculated from the
GMFM-88 using the Gross Motor Ability Estimator.
Pediatric Balance Scale. To assess balance, the Pediatric
Balance Scale (PBS) was used. This 14-item, criterionreferenced measure evaluates functional balance in everyday
tasks.20 The items assess the functional activities that children
must perform to safely and independently function within the
home, school, or community. This scale has also been validated for children with CP21,22 and has good testretest and
interrater reliability when used with school-age children with
mild to moderate motor impairment.20 The same blinded examiner administered the PBS before and after the intervention.
Statistical analyses

Data were analyzed by using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon

signed-rank tests to compare changes from baseline to postintervention within groups, depending on whether data were
normally distributed (according to the Shapiro-Wilk test).
Changes in outcome measures between groups were assessed
using independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney tests. The significance level was set at < .05. All analyses were performed with
SPSS software, version 19.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York).
Results
Demographic characteristics

One participant (GMFCS level III) in the hippotherapy

group dropped out; thus, 45 and 46 children in the hippotherapy and control groups were available for the final
analysis, respectively. The groups were similar in terms of
sex, age, GMFCS level, neuromotor type, laterality, body
weight, height, history of surgery, and amount of physiotherapy they were currently receiving (Table 1).
GMFM

Baseline GMFM-66 and GMFM-88 total and dimension

scores did not significantly differ between groups. GMFM66, GMFM-88 total, and GMFM dimensions B, C, D, and E
increased significantly in the hippotherapy group ( p < 0.05).
In contrast, no significant change was noted in the control
group between the two assessments. Changes in the GMFM66, GMFM-88 total score, and GMFM dimensions B, C, D,
and E scores significantly differed between the hippotherapy
and Control groups ( p < 0.05). When a secondary analysis
was performed according to GMFCS levels, GMFM-88 total
score was significantly increased among all levels and
GMFM-66 scores were significantly increased for children
with levels II, III, and IV. Dimensions of GMFM-88 that
demonstrated significant improvement after hippotherapy
varied by the patients GMFCS level; dimension E in level I,
dimensions D and E in level II, dimensions C and D in level
III, and dimensions B and C in level IV (Table 2).
PBS

Baseline PBS scores did not differ between groups

( p > 0.05). After the intervention, the hippotherapy group

18

KWON ET AL.

Table 2. Changes in Gross Motor Function Measures Between Hippotherapy and Control Groups
Hippotherapy (n = 45)

Control (n = 46)

GMFCS and GMFM Preintervention Postintervention p-Value

Preintervention Postintervention p-Valuea

p-Value for difference

between groupsb

I
GMFM-66
GMFM-88 total
A
B
C
D
E

79.2 8.8
94.2 5.4
100.0 0.0
100.0 0.0
99.2 2.7
92.3 10.0
83.2 13.3

83.1 9.7
95.8 4.7
100.0 0.0
100.0 0.0
99.6 1.4
94.2 6.4
88.0 13.5

0.01
0.01
0.99
0.99
0.32
0.33
0.01

81.8 7.5
95.4 4.6
100.0 0.0
100.0 0.0
99.0 2.4
92.3 6.5
87.8 12.3

82.3 7.5
95.7 4.2
100.0 0.0
100.0 0.0
99.6 0.9
92.1 7.0
88.8 11.3

0.26
0.14
0.99
0.99
0.18
0.29
0.12

0.01
0.05
0.99
0.99
0.76
0.18
0.01

GMFM-66
GMFM-88 total
A
B
C
D
E

64.6 8.6
81.0 10.3
100.0 0.0
99.4 1.5
91.9 10.2
70.3 19.3
51.7 23.6

67.4 8.8
84.3 9.8
100.0 0.0
99.9 0.5
95.2 8.7
76.9 16.1
57.8 24.2

< 0.01
< 0.01
0.99
0.18
0.02
< 0.01
< 0.01

62.4 5.0
79.4 7.3
100.0 0.0
99.3 2.4
92.7 6.2
69.0 14.8
45.9 16.1

62.8 5.5
80.1 7.7
100.0 0.0
100.0 0.0
95.2 4.5
67.1 21.0
47.5 16.6

0.46
0.24
0.99
0.32
0.03
0.68
0.26

< 0.01
0.01
0.99
0.80
0.63
0.01
0.03

GMFM-66
GMFM-88 total
A
B
C
D
E
IV
GMFM-66
GMFM-88 total
A
B
C
D
E
Total
GMFM-66
GMFM-88 total
A
B
C
D
E

51.7 2.6
62.2 5.1
99.3 2.3
96.7 4.7
75.4 9.8
32.7 13.8
15.5 3.9

54.0 2.3
66.7 3.9
100.0 0.0
98.9 2.5
82.7 8.3
44.8 10.7
18.9 6.6

< 0.01
< 0.01
0.32
0.39
0.01
0.01
0.02

53.8 4.1
66.7 6.5
100.0 0.0
97.9 3.9
81.5 7.7
40.8 15.9
22.6 11.7

54.2 4.1
67.0 6.7
100.0 0.0
98.6 3.8
81.9 8.9
41.0 17.7
22.5 10.6

0.44
0.86
0.99
0.11
0.89
0.50
0.72

0.01
0.01
0.74
0.59
0.01
0.04
0.18

44.3 4.6
47.7 9.9
98.4 3.2
75.8 16.6
53.8 24.7
10.0 9.0
5.3 6.0

46.03 4.1
51.3 8.8
99.0 3.1
81.5 13.5
60.5 22.4
13.8 8.7
7.2 5.8

0.01
0.01
0.18
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.07

45.0 6.5
50.2 10.7
97.8 6.8
83.8 19.3
56.9 20.2
12.6 13.7
5.6 5.1

44.9 6.6
50.6 11.8
97.8 6.8
84.8 19.2
55.0 23.0
12.3 14.4
7.4 5.9

0.35
0.52
0.99
0.34
0.40
0.99
0.18

< 0.01
< 0.01
0.48
0.01
< 0.01
0.12
0.44

60.8 14.9
72.7 19.2
99.5 1.9
93.9 12.5
81.7 21.6
54.1 34.2
41.0 34.1

63.5 15.8
75.7 18.3
99.8 1.5
95.6 9.8
85.6 19.0
59.7 32.5
45.1 35.4

< 0.01
< 0.01
0.11
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01

61.4 14.8
73.9 17.9
99.5 3.2
95.7 11.0
83.6 18.8
55.5 32.2
42.0 33.2

61.8 15.0
74.3 18.1
99.5 3.2
96.3 10.7
84.2 20.4
54.9 33.2
43.0 33.0

0.26
0.26
0.99
0.05
0.15
0.82
0.15

< 0.01
< 0.01
0.08
0.03
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01

II

III

GMFM-66 values are expressed as mean standard deviation. GMFM-88 values are expressed as mean percentage standard deviation.
a
Paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare between preintervention and postintervention within groups.
b
Independent t-test or Mann-Whitney test to compare changes between hippotherapy group and control group.
GMFCS, Gross Motor Function Classification System; GMFM, Gross Motor Function Measure; A, lying and rolling; B, sitting; C, crawling and
kneeling; D, standing; E, walking, running, and jumping.

showed a significant improvement in PBS scores ( p < 0.05),

but no significant difference was observed in the control
group. The hippotherapy group showed increased PBS
scores compared with the control group ( p < 0.05) (Table 3).
In a secondary analysis according to GMFCS levels, PBS
significantly increased in all functional levels (Table 3).
Participant attendance

Of the 45 children in the hippotherapy group, 11 missed

one session, 5 missed two sessions, 3 missed three sessions,
and 2 missed four sessions.
Adverse effects

Two participants (2.2%) fell during the study period. No

major adverse effects, such as brain injury or fractures, were

found after an immediate medical examination that included

radiography. One participant returned to the therapy and
finished, while the other dropped out.
Discussion

This study appears to be the first RCT showing the beneficial effects of hippotherapy on gross motor function in
children with CP. Children undergoing hippotherapy had
significant improvements in GMFM scores (both GMFM-66
and -88) and PBS scores. The strengths of the study were the
strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, relatively large sample size, and inclusion of children with various functional
levels. These factors enable analysis of the functional dimensions showing main effect of hippotherapy according to
patients functional levels.

THE EFFECTS OF HIPPOTHERAPY ON MOTOR FUNCTION

19

Table 3. Changes of Pediatric Balance Scales in Hippotherapy and Control Groups

Hippotherapy (n = 45)

Control (n = 46)

GMFCS Preintervention Postintervention p-Valuea Preintervention Postintervention p-Valueb

I
II
III
IV
Total

47.2 6.4
32.6 12.9
11.1 7.3
4.0 4.6
25.1 18.9

50.5 6.1
37.3 12.2
16.2 6.3
7.0 4.2
28.9 18.8

< 0.01
< 0.01
0.01
0.01
< 0.01

48.8 6.6
31.6 11.0
18.2 9.4
5.2 5.2
26.9 18.3

49.2 6.1
31.6 12.0
18.5 8.5
6.0 7.3
27.1 18.3

0.16
0.34
0.50
0.41
0.33

p-Value for
difference between
groupsb
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.01
0.01
< 0.01

Values are expressed as mean standard deviation.

a
Paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare between preintervention and postintervention values.
b
Independent t-test or Mann-Whitney test to compare changes between hippotherapy group and control group.

The GMFM, the primary outcome variable in this study, is

the most widely used measure for evaluating CP; indeed, it
was used in previous clinical trials to assess the effect of
EAAT on children with CP.3,4,7,9,13,15,16 In the present study,
GMFM-66 scores, GMFM-88 total scores, and scores on
GMFM dimensions B, C, D, and E improved. These results
are consistent with those of previous studies reporting improvements in gross motor function after EAAT.3,4,7,13
McGibbon and colleagues3 reported that five children with
CP (mean age, 9.6 years) showed a significant increase in
dimension E scores after 30-minute hippotherapy sessions
held twice weekly for 8 weeks. Casady and Nichols-Larsen7
also reported significant differences in GMFM total scores
after hippotherapy administered once weekly for 10 weeks
among 10 children with CP aged 2.36.8 years. In addition,
Kwon et al13 reported significant improvement in dimension
E scores and GMFM-66 scores among 16 children with bilateral spastic CP after hippotherapy (30 minutes twice
weekly for 8 weeks). In contrast, two studies by Davis et al.15
and MacKinnon et al.16 reported no significant improvement
of GMFM scores in their intervention groups compared with
controls. These two studies used THR, but not hippotherapy;
furthermore, interventions used by Davis et al. were less intense (30 minutes of THR weekly for 10 weeks) than that
used in the current study.
Previous researchers investigating the effect of EAAT on
motor function of children with CP have mostly included
participants with mild to moderate disability (GMFCS levels
IIII)3,13,15,16 or did not report GMFCS levels.3 For example,
Davis et al15 randomly assigned children with CP GMFCS
levels IIII into an intervention or control group, and
MacKinnons et al16 conducted their study with children with
CP who had mild to moderate impairment. Kwon et al13 also
included patients who had bilateral spastic CP with GMFCS
levels of I or II. In the current study, gross motor function and
balance improved among children with CP, not only those
with GMFCS levels IIII but also those with GMFCS level
IV. However, the dimensions that show main improvement
effect of hippotherapy differed according to their GMFCS
levels. Thus, hippotherapy can be considered helpful for
children with various functional levels; notably, significant
improvements were observed among the dimensions for
participant goals.
The observed improvement in PBS scores in this study was
consistent with and thus strengthens the findings of previous
studies,2,8,13 which have reported significant improvements in

postural control after THR or hippotherapy. Bertoti2 reported

that children with spastic CP showed significant improvement
in posture, measured with the Posture Assessment Scale.
Shurtleff et al.8 also reported that hippotherapy improved the
abilities of children with CP to control trunk and head movements. In addition, the previous study,13 a nonrandomized
prospective controlled trial, demonstrated an improvement in
PBS after hippotherapy in children with CP.
Locomotor impulses from the horses back are transferred to the participant at a frequency of 90110 impulses a
minute (1.51.8 Hz) in three movement planes.23 During a
30-minute hippotherapy session, children could have experienced approximately 27003300 repetitions of forceduse postural challenge. As McGibbon et al.5 proclaimed,
motor strategies that could be improved with hippotherapy
included control of mediolateral and anteroposterior postural sway, postural adaptation to a changing environment,
anticipatory and feedback postural control, and more effective use of multisensory inputs related to posture and
movement.
Habilitation of postural control in children with balance
deficit should include activities that address the musculoskeletal, motor, and sensory processing rate-limiting
factors. Further, these intervention should focus on static
and dynamic equilibrium tasks during mass and random practice so that children can actively participate.24,25
Hippotherapy is a task-oriented training that meets the
above requirements.25 For optimal skill acquisition in
task-oriented training, training must be sufficiently challenging to facilitate learning, progressive and adaptable so
users will continue to acquire or refine new skills, and
sufficiently interesting and meaningful to engage the user
in active problem solving.26 The tasks must also be salient
to the performer to influence the person-task-environment
triad. In the current study, most participants were experiencing hippotherapy for the first time; thus, it could be
presented as a set of novel tasks involving massive postural challenges. Furthermore, participants found hippotherapy to be an exceedingly enjoyable and meaningful
activity. Another potential reason for the beneficial effect
of hippotherapy could be the humanhorse interaction
acting as a powerful motivator for engaging childrens
participation.27
This study could not evaluate the sole effect of hippotherapy on motor function because it did not control for
the participants other therapeutic activities. Because

20

KWON ET AL.

hippotherapy is still regarded as a complementary therapy in

many countries, the study did not control for participation in
conventional physiotherapy. Moreover, the therapist did not
completely supervise aerobic exercises performed by the
control group. However, considering that children in both
groups received enough conventional physiotherapy (3
hours per week), the differences in improvement between
the two groups after 8 weeks of intervention might be
counted as an effect of hippotherapy. Another limitation is
that despite the possible beneficial effect of complementary hippotherapy, this study did not determine its costeffectiveness; hippotherapy needs more assistance (four
versus one assistant) and therefore usually incurs higher
costs (e.g., maintaining horses, an arena, and training
volunteers) than conventional physiotherapy. Finally, the
current study only showed the short-term effects of hippotherapy in children with CP. Future studies must assess
the maintenance effects of hippotherapy over time.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated the beneficial effects of hippotherapy on gross motor function and balance
in children with CP. Hippotherapy provided by licensed
health professionals may be used in conjunction with
standard physical therapy for improving gross motor function and balance in children with CP at various functional
levels.
Acknowledgments

This research was supported by IN-SUNG Foundation for

Medical Research CB08161.
Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial relationships exist.

References

1. Sterba JA. Does horseback riding therapy or therapistdirected hippotherapy rehabilitate children with cerebral
palsy? Dev Med Child Neurol 2007;49:6873.
2. Bertoti DB. Effect of therapeutic horseback riding on
posture in children with cerebral palsy. Phys Ther 1988;68:
15051512.
3. McGibbon NH, Andrade CK, Widener G, Cintas HL. Effect of an equine-movement therapy program on gait, energy expenditure, and motor function in children with
spastic cerebral palsy: a pilot study. Dev Med Child Neurol
1998;40:754762.
4. Sterba JA, Rogers BT, France AP, Vokes DA. Horseback
riding in children with cerebral palsy: effect on gross motor
function. Dev Med Child Neurol 2002;44:301308.
5. McGibbon NH, Benda W, Duncan BR, Silkwood-Sherer D.
Immediate and long-term effects of hippotherapy on symmetry of adductor muscle activity and functional ability in
children with spastic cerebral palsy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90:966974.
6. Benda W, McGibbon NH, Grant KL. Improvements in
muscle symmetry in children with cerebral palsy after
equine-assisted therapy (hippotherapy). J Altern Complement Med 2003;9:817825.
7. Casady RL, Nichols-Larsen DS. The effect of hippotherapy
on ten children with cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther
2004;16:165172.

8. Shurtleff TL, Standeven JW, Engsberg JR. Changes in

dynamic trunk/head stability and functional reach after
hippotherapy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90:1185
1195.
9. Hamill D, Washington KA, White OR. The effect of hippotherapy on postural control in sitting for children with
cerebral palsy. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2007;27:2342.
10. Tseng SH, Chen HC, Tam KW. Systematic review and
meta-analysis of the effect of equine assisted activities and
therapies on gross motor outcome in children with cerebral
palsy. Disabil Rehabil 2013;35:8999.
11. Whalen CN, Case-Smith J. Therapeutic effects of horseback riding therapy on gross motor function in children
with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Phys Occup Ther
Pediatr 2012;32:229242.
12. Zadnikar M, Kastrin A. Effects of hippotherapy and therapeutic horseback riding on postural control or balance in
children with cerebral palsy: a meta-analysis. Dev Med
Child Neurol 2011;53:684691.
13. Kwon JY, Chang HJ, Lee JY, et al. Effects of hippotherapy
on gait parameters in children with bilateral spastic cerebral
palsy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011;92:774779.
14. Cunningham B. The effect of hippotherapy on functional
outcomes for children with disabilities: a pilot study. Pediatr Phys Ther 2009;21:137; author reply 8.
15. Davis E, Davies B, Wolfe R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of therapeutic horse riding on the
quality of life, health, and function of children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2009;51:111119; discussion 88.
16. Mackinnon JR, Noh S, Lariviere J, et al. A study of therapeutic effects of horseback riding for children with cerebral palsy. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 1995;15:1734.
17. Wang HY, Yang YH. Evaluating the responsiveness of 2
versions of the gross motor function measure for children with
cerebral palsy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:5156.
18. Russell DJ, Rosenbaum PL, Cadman DT, et al. The gross
motor function measure: a means to evaluate the effects of
physical therapy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1989;31:341352.
19. Kolobe TH, Palisano RJ, Stratford PW. Comparison of two
outcome measures for infants with cerebral palsy and infants with motor delays. Phys Ther 1998;78:10621072.
20. Franjoine MR, Gunther JS, Taylor MJ. Pediatric balance
scale: a modified version of the berg balance scale for the
school-age child with mild to moderate motor impairment.
Pediatr Phys Ther 2003;15:114128.
21. Yi SH, Hwang JH, Kim SJ, Kwon JY. Validity of Pediatric
Balance Scales in children with spastic cerebral palsy.
Neuropediatrics 2012;43:307313.
22. Chen CL, Shen IH, Chen CY, et al. Validity, responsiveness, minimal detectable change, and minimal clinically
important change of Pediatric Balance Scale in children
with cerebral palsy. Res Dev Disabil 2013;34:916922.
23. Janura M, Peham C, Dvorakova T, Elfmark M. An assessment of the pressure distribution exerted by a rider on
the back of a horse during hippotherapy. Hum Mov Sci
2009;28:387393.
24. Westcott SL, Burtner PA. Postural control in children:
implications for pediatric practice. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2004;24:555.
25. Silkwood-Sherer DJ, Killian CB, Long TM, Martin KS.
Hippotherapyan intervention to habilitate balance deficits in children with movement disorders: a clinical trial.
Phys Ther 2012;92:707717.

THE EFFECTS OF HIPPOTHERAPY ON MOTOR FUNCTION

26. Wade E, Winstein CJ. Virtual reality and robotics for stroke
rehabilitation: where do we go from here? Top Stroke
Rehabil 2011;18:685700.
27. Franki I, Desloovere K, De Cat J, et al. The evidencebase for basic physical therapy techniques targeting
lower limb function in children with cerebral palsy:
a systematic review using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a
Conceptual Framework. J Rehabil Med 2012;44:
385395.

21

Address correspondence to:

Yun-Hee Kim, MD, PhD
Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
Center for Prevention and Rehabilitation
Heart Vascular and Stroke Institute
Samsung Medical Center
Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine
50 Ilwon-dong, Gangnam-gu
Seoul 135-710
Republic of Korea
E-mail: yunkim@skku.edu, yun1225.kim@samsung.com

Copyright of Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine is the property of Mary Ann
Liebert, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.