## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Test/Dependent** & **Group** & **Mean** & **Sid. Deviation** & **Sid. Error** & **a-b** & **Sig. b** \\
**Variables** & **Group** & **Mean** & **Sid. Deviation** & **Sid. Error** & **a-b** & **Sig. b** \\ \hline One standing balance test & Male & 5.148 & 3.457 & 0.596 & \(-\)3.200 * & 0.000 \\  & Female & 8.348 & 7.689 & 0.605 & \(-\)3.200 * & 0.000 \\  & Male & 40.762 & 6.957 & 0.630 & \(-\)1.800 * & 0.046 \\  & Female & 42.562 & 5.469 & 0.640 & \(-\)1.800 * & 0.046 \\  & Male & 4.334 & 4.008 & 0.337 & 0.795 & 0.100 \\  & Female & 3.538 & 2.508 & 0.342 & \(-\)0.795 & 0.100 \\  & Male & 8.272 & 4.597 & 0.390 & \(-\)3.90 & \(-\)3.679 * & 0.000 \\  & Female & 4.593 & 2.950 & 0.396 & 3.679 * & 0.000 \\  & Male & 70.565 & 12.900 & 1.388 & \(-\)3.88 & \(-\)3.679 * & 0.000 \\  & Female & 67.656 & 14.681 & 1.409 & 2.909 & 0.143 \\ Walk and turn field sobriety test & Male & 0.333 & 0.589 & 0.057 & \(-\)3.200 * & 0.115 & 0.161 \\  & Female & 0.218 & 0.546 & 0.058 & \(-\)3.200 * & 0.115 & 0.161 \\  & Male & 22.353 & 25.112 & 2.635 & \(-\)3.200 * & 0.084 & 0.982 \\  & Female & 22.437 & 27.317 & 2.676 & \(-\)3.200 * & 0.084 & 0.982 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. b Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Analysis of the significance of the differences between the average values in the gender balance tests (male = 99, female = 96). The multivariate analysis indicates the overall effect of the 2 independent variables (gender and BMI framing steps) and the interaction between them on the whole set of applied tests, with statistically significant results (\(p<0.05\)), in all 3 variants in Table 2. We notice that the strongest influence on performance of balance is the gender variable (32.5% of the variance in test results is explained by this variable) followed by BMI framing steps (17.2% of performance variation is due to BMI values). The gender * BMI framing steps interaction explains only 7.8% of the variance of the test results. The univariate test analysis at the level of the independent variable gender (Table 3) indicates its effect, separately for each dependent variable (test applied at the level of the investigated group). Gender differences lead to significant thresholds and higher size effect scores (expressed via partial eta squared) for: one standing balance test (\(p=0.000\)), with 6.8% of the performance variance due to gender, flamingo test (\(p=0.000\)), with 18.5% of the variance of performance explained by the influence of gender, and the functional reach test (\(p=0.046\)), with only 2% of the variance of results determined by the independent variable gender. For the other tests, no significant and strong effects of the gender variable on performance related to balance are noticed. The univariate test analysis at the level of the independent variable BMI framing steps (Table 4) identifies significant effects for 6 out of the 7 tests to assess static and dynamic balance. The strongest influences are reported from high to low for: flamingo test (\(p=0.000\) and 27.4% of the performance variance explained by the BMI steps), Bass test (\(p=0.000\) and 14.7% of the variance), one standing balance test (\(p=0.000\) and 8.5% of the variance), walk and turn field sobriety test (\(p=0.000\) and 13.5% of the variance), stork test (\(p=0.000\) and 4.9% of the variance) and Fukuda test (\(p=0.012\) and 4.4% of the variance assigned to the independent variable). The only situation with insignificant influence is for the