## 3 Results and Discussion
### Statistical Analysis  
Table 2 shows the statistical values for the relationship between the 4 DEYE sensor results for the three measurement targets and those from the VICON sensor. The two-way batch randomization effect model was analyzed using the ICC of SPSS v21.0 to analyze the ICC of the data. The average ICC of the average measure was analyzed, with a single measure of the ICC showing the difference between them. The ICC results were between zero and one, and the interpretation of each range was similar to that of the general correlation coefficient indicator. The ICC results are considered not good below 0.4, normal at 0.4-0.6, good at 0.6-0.75, and very good at 0.75-1.00. Individually, Subject 1 showed an ICC of 0.982, a 95% CI of 0.973-0.988, and \(p\) = 0.000 on the right side of the hip flexion angle and an ICC of 0.958, a 95% CI of 0.938-0.972, and \(p\) = 0.000 on the left side. Subject 2 showed an ICC of 0.997, a 95% CI of 0.995-0.998, and \(p\) = 0.000 on the right side of the hip flexion angle and an ICC of 0.973, a 95% CI of 0.959-0.982, and \(p\) = 0.000 on the left side. In the hip-knee analysis, it was found that the angle of the target porcelain was analyzed, and all targets showed a high consistency and reliability of 0.84 or higher. Subject 1 showed an ICC of 0.962, a 95% CI of 0.944-0.975, and \(p\) = 0.000 on the right side of the hip-knee angle and an ICC of 0.940, a 95% CI of 0.911-0.960, and \(p\) = 0.000 on the left side. Subject 2 showed an ICC of 0.997, a 95% CI of 0.996-0.998, and \(p\) = 0.000 on the right side of the hip-knee angle and an ICC of 0.979, a 95% CI of 0.995-0.998, and \(p\) = 0.000. Subject 3 showed an ICC was 0.975, the  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Movement**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Left**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Right**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Body**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Subject**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**M**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ICC(3, k)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**95\% CI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**M**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ICC(3, k)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**95\% CI**} \\ \cline{3-3} \multicolumn{2}{c}{**  
95% CI was 0.962-0.983, and \(p=0.000\) on the right side of the hip-knee angle and an ICC was 0.960, the 95% CI was 0.941-0.973, and \(p=0.000\) on the left side. Subject 4 showed an ICC was 0.841, the 95% CI was 0.763-0.897, and \(p=0.000\) on the right side of the hip-knee angle and an ICC was 0.925, the 95% CI was 0.888-0.949, and \(p=0.000\) on the left side. Trunk -rotation analysis showed a high degree of agreement of 0.83 or more in the right and left movements as a value for angle change. Subject 1 showed an ICC of 0.992, a 95% CI of 0.989-0.995, and \(p=0.000\) on the right side of trunk-rotation angle and an ICC of 0.979, a 95% CI of 0.968-0.986, and \(p=0.000\) on the left side. Subject 2 showed an ICC of 0.832, a 95% CI of 0.751-0.887, \(p=0.000\) on the right side of trunk-rotation angle and an ICC of 0.982, 95% CI of 0.974-0.988, and \(p=0.000\) on the left side. Subject 3 showed an ICC was 0.946, the 95% CI was 0.919-0.963, and \(p=0.000\) on the right side of the trunk-rotation angle and an ICC was 0.909, the 95% CI was 0.865-0.939, \(p=0.000\) on the left side. Subject 4 showed an ICC of 0.962, the 95% CI was 0.943-0.974, and \(p=0.000\) on the right side of trunk-rotation angle and an ICC was 0.962, the 95% CI was 0.943-0.974, \(p=0.000\) on the left side. The joint angle (trajectory) for complex movements in which multiple joints are used continuously should be accurately analyzed to identify dysfunction in a variety of actual movements.