Table 3.

Effects of footwear (CV vs. ML vs. BF) on the TUG test (n = 30) and the modified SEB test (n = 25).

Mobility	Parameter	Estimate	SE	df	Sig	95% CI lower bound	95% CI upper bound
TUGT	Footwear (CV vs. ML)	0.298	0.073	60	0.001	0.112	0.483
	Footwear (BF vs. ML)	0.340	0.081	60	0.001	0.135	0.546
	Footwear (BF vs. CV)	0.043	0.083	60	1.000	− 0.169	0.255
SEBT A	Footwear (CV vs. ML)	− 1.220	0.382	50	0.012	− 2.204	− 0.236
	Footwear (BF vs. ML)	− 1.097	0.326	50	0.008	− 1.937	− 0.258
	Footwear (BF vs. CV)	0.123	0.587	50	1.000	− 1.388	1.633
SEBT P	Footwear (CV vs. ML)	− 4.244	1.339	50	0.012	− 7.689	− 0.799
	Footwear (BF vs. ML)	− 4.392	1.136	50	0.002	− 7.311	− 1.466
	Footwear (BF vs. CV)	− 0.148	0.867	50	1.000	− 2.378	2.082
SEBT L	Footwear (CV vs. ML)	− 2.659	0.497	50	< 0.001	− 3.939	− 1.378
	Footwear (BF vs. ML)	− 2.839	0.923	50	0.016	− 5.214	− 0.463
	Footwear (BF vs. CV)	− 0.180	0.614	50	1.000	− 1.760	1.400
SEBT M	Footwear (CV vs. ML)	− 3.548	0.787	50	< 0.001	− 5.573	− 1.523
	Footwear (BF vs. ML)	− 2.008	0.734	50	0.035	− 3.897	− 0.119
	Footwear (BF vs. CV)	1.540	0.574	50	0.039	− 3.017	− 0.063

CV conventional shoes, ML minimal shoes, BF barefoot, TUGT timed up and go test, SEBT star excursion balance test, A anterior, P posterior, L Lateral, M medial–lateral, SE standard error, df degree of freedom, sig. p value, CI confidence interval.