Effect of Selected Balance Exercises on the Dynamic Balance of Children with Visual Impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Maintaining balance while walking is of utmost importance for individuals with visual impairments because deficits in dynamic balance have been associated with a high risk of falling. Thus, the primary aim of the study presented here was to determine whether balance training effects the dynamic balance of children with visual impairments. Methods The study included 19 children with visual impairments (aged 8 to 14) from the school for students with visual impairments in Isfahan, Iran, who were randomly assigned to a balance-training (n = 9) or control (n = 10) group. The balance-training group was required to participate in an eight-week balance-training program, while the control group did not participate in any organized balance-training program. The Modified Bass Test of Dynamic Balance was used to measure the dynamic balance of the participants. Both groups performed a pretest prior to the experimental period and performed a posttest immediately after the experimental period. Results The scores on the pretest showed no significant difference between the balance-training group and the control group. However, after the balance-training group completed the balance-training program, a between-group difference was found in the participants’ task scores, t (18) = 4.095, p < .05. Discussion The findings indicate that involvement in a balance-training program will significantly improve the dynamic balance of individuals with visual impairments relative to a control group. Implications for practitioners The study showed that if instructors require individuals with visual impairments to perform balance-improving exercises, the result can be an outstanding improvement in their dynamic balance. With improved balance, individuals with visual impairments may encounter fewer falls and experience a healthier lifestyle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".