## 3 Results
### Effects of Whole-Body Vibration Training between Two Groups on Biomarkers
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**}} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pretest**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Posttest (Noncalibrated)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{_Paired_ **t**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} \\ \cline{3-3} \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**M**} & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Biomarkers} & & & & & & \\ \hline Right-hand grip & Control (\(N=48\)) & 21.96 & 8.29 & 21.5 & 7.13 & 0.848 & 0.401 \\ strength & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 19.8 & 6.04 & 20.81 & 6.49 & \(-\)3.36 & 0.002 * \\ Left-hand grip & Control (\(N=48\)) & 21.92 & 7.65 & 21.09 & 7.24 & 1.74 & 0.089 \\ strength & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 19.65 & 6.27 & 20.56 & 6.52 & \(-\)4.79 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\
15-foot walking & Control (\(N=48\)) & 7.10 & 0.73 & 7.06 & 0.78 & 0.93 & 0.36 \\ speed & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 7.30 & 0.67 & 5.85 & 0.82 & 11.03 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\  & Control (\(N=48\)) & 14.02 & 2.88 & 13.02 & 2.93 & 2.69 & 0.01 * \\
30-sec chair stand & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 14.36 & 2.25 & 19.24 & 3.29 & \(-\)9.28 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\  & Control (\(N=48\)) & 10.43 & 8.59 & 9.80 & 7.7 & 1.99 & 0.051 \\ One-leg standing & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 11.1 & 8.00 & 15.87 & 10.66 & \(-\)4.65 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\  & Control (\(N=48\)) & 70.35 & 11.43 & 69.98 & 11.35 & 0.49 & 0.62 \\  & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 67.29 & 20.18 & 80.38 & 22.32 & \(-\)5.28 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\  & Health beliefs & Self-perceived & Control (\(N=48\)) & 2.45 & 0.33 & 2.65 & 0.42 & \(-\)3.73 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\  & morbidity of frailty & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 2.55 & 0.38 & 3.82 & 0.3 & \(-\)16.83 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\  & Self-perceived & Control (\(N=48\)) & 2.28 & 0.34 & 2.44 & 0.31 & \(-\)3.68 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\ severity of frailty & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 2.19 & 0.47 & 3.59 & 0.29 & \(-\)14.98 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\  & Benefits of & Control (\(N=48\)) & 2.72 & 0.4 & 2.75 & 0.37 & \(-\)0.66 & 0.51 \\ preventing frailty & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 2.66 & 0.57 & 3.96 & 0.26 & \(-\)14.39 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\  & Self-perceived & Control (\(N=48\)) & 3.27 & 0.32 & 3.26 & 0.34 & 0.07 & 0.94 \\ obstacles to frailty & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 3.18 & 0.39 & 2.71 & 0.43 & 7.11 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\  & Control (\(N=48\)) & 2.44 & 0.28 & 2.77 & 0.37 & \(-\)5.57 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\ Cues to action & Experimental (\(N=42\)) & 2.45 & 0.41 & 3.47 & 0.27 & \(-\)13.19 & \(<\)0.001 ** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Pre-test and post-test results of the experimental and control groups for biomarkers and health beliefs. \(F=4.79\), \(p<0.05\); \(F=8.79\), \(p<0.01\); \(F=34.36\), \(p<0.001\)), indicating that the regression lines of the two groups differed in their slopes. Therefore, the Johnson-Neyman procedure was used to analyze the data, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 2.  
In addition, the regression coefficient homogeneity test on the 30-sec chair stand test, one-leg standing test, two-minute step test, bone density in the left foot and pulmonary function did not reach significance (\(F=0.70\), \(p>0.05\); \(F=1.94\), \(p>0.05\); \(F=0.25\), \(p>0.05\); \(F=2.02\), \(p>0.05\); \(F=0.32\), \(p>0.05\)), indicating that the regression lines of the two groups exhibited identical slopes. This verified the assumption of homogeneity, indicating that the pretest-posttest differences for this biomarker did not differ according to group, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 3.  
Figure 3: Sampling Procedure. Figure 2: Intraclass Regression Analysis of Biomarkers.