Skip to main content

Table 5 Results of two-way repeated measures ANOVA

From: Evaluating the effects of delivering integrated kinesthetic and tactile cues to individuals with unilateral hemiparetic stroke during overground walking

Parameter Factor F P-value partial eta squared
RMS of ML Tilt Haptic Cue (1, 9) = 0.484 0.504 0.051
Gait Speed (1.253, 11.277) = 1.511 0.247 0.144
Interaction (2, 18) = 0.003 0.997 < 0.001
Stance Symmetry Ratio Haptic Cue (1, 9) = 14.448 0.004 0.611
Gait Speed (2, 18) = 11.786 0.001 0.572
Interaction (2, 18) = 9.988 0.001 0.529
%NPA of Paretic VMO in Stance Haptic Cue (1, 9) = 3.627 0.089 0.287
Gait Speed (2, 18) = 66.556 <  0.001 0.881
Interaction (2, 18) = 0.575 0.572 0.060
%NPA of Paretic VMO in Swing Haptic Cue (1, 9) = 0.741 0.412 0.076
Gait Speed (2, 18) = 0.359 0.703 0.038
Interaction (1.275, 11.477) = 0.655 0.471 0.068
%NPA of Paretic SMT in Stance Haptic Cue (1, 9) = 0.045 0.836 0.005
Gait Speed (1.208, 10.875) = 5.968 0.028 0.399
Interaction (2, 18) = 1.269 0.305 0.124
%NPA of Paretic SMT in Swing Haptic Cue (1, 9) = 0.548 0.478 0.057
Gait Speed (2, 18) = 1.643 0.221 0.154
Interaction (2, 18) = 1.905 0.178 0.175
%NPA of Paretic TBA in Stance Haptic Cue (1, 9) = 0.909 0.365 0.092
Gait Speed (2, 18) = 0.829 0.453 0.084
Interaction (2, 18) = 0.231 0.796 0.025
%NPA of Paretic TBA in Swing Haptic Cue (1, 9) = 0.323 0.584 0.035
Gait Speed (2, 18) = 1.848 0.186 0.170
Interaction (2, 18) = 0.608 0.934 0.008
%NPA of Paretic GCM in Stance Haptic Cue (1, 9) = 0.673 0.433 0.070
Gait Speed (2, 18) = 2.234 0.136 0.199
Interaction (2, 18) = 0.205 0.816 0.022
%NPA of Paretic GCM in Swing Haptic Cue (1, 9) = 0.387 0.549 0.041
Gait Speed (2, 18) = 1.370 0.276 0.132
Interaction (2, 18) = 0.284 0.756 0.031
  1. Statically significant p-value and subsequent effect size are indicated in bold