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

Table 5 Results of two-way repeated measures ANOVA

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

ISSN: 1743-0003