## 3 Results  
The test-retest reliability of F8 WT, FSST, and ST (more affected and less affected sides) had an ICC = 0.93-0.99 (95% confidence interval), and the test-retest concordance rate was high (Table 2). The SEMs were 2.21 and 2.25 for the F8 WT and FSST, respectively. For the ST (more affected and less affected sides), the SEMs were 0.68 and 0.70, respectively, which were \(<\)10% of the average score. The SRDs were 6.10 and 6.21 for the F8 WT and FSST, respectively. Regarding the ST (more affected and less affected sides), the SRDs were 1.87 and 1.93, respectively, which were \(<\)20% of the highest score. The SRDs (%) of the F8 WT and FSST were 28.9% and 21.9%, respectively, and those of the more affected side and less affected side were 27.32% and 24.43%, respectively. The SRD (%) for all tests was \(<\)30% and the level of measurement error was acceptable. In addition, there was no significant difference in the mean test-retest scores of all the tests (\(p>0.05\)). In the [PERSON] and [PERSON] scatter plot, the limit of agreement range was \(-4.59\) to \(5.13\) for the F8 WT (Figure 1), \(-4.08\) to \(5.16\) for the FSST (Figure 2), and \(-1.99\) to \(1.57\) and \(-2.15\) to \(1.69\) for the ST (more affected and less affected sides), respectively. The variation in the mean difference (range of error) between all the tests was within the acceptable range.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Tests and Measures**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean (SD)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean Difference**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ICC (2,1)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SEM**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SRD (SRD \%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)-Value**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Range (Min–Max)**} & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & **1 st Test** & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} F8 WT \\ (s) \\ \end{tabular} } & 21.21 (15.70) & 20.94 (16.10) & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} 0.27 \\ 6.5 (11.65–24.85) \\ \end{tabular} } & 0.27 & 0.98 & \multirow{2}{*}{2.21} & 6.10 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.43} \\  & 6.83–80.99 & 7.09–90.01 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} FSST \\ (s) \\ \end{tabular} } & 28.52 (22.17) & 27.97 (23.11) & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} 0.54 \\ (15.02–35.63) \\ \end{tabular} } & 0.99 & \multirow{2}{*}{2.25} & 6.21 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.10} \\  & 5.50–130.01 & 5.12–140.07 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} ST (score) \\ More affected \\ side \\ \end{tabular} } & 6.61 (2.66) & 6.82 (6.50) & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} 0.95 \\ 6.5 (5–8.75) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{0.2} & 0.95 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.68} & 1.87 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.12} \\  & 6.5 (4.25–9) & 6.5 (5–8.75) & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & 1–16 & 0–16 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} ST (score) \\ Less affected \\ side \\ \end{tabular} } & 7.78 (2.66) & 8.01 (2.77) & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} 0.23 \\ 0.98 \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} 0.93 \\ (0.88–0.96) \\ \end{tabular} } & 0.70 & 1.93 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.09} \\  & 2–16 & 3–15 & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Summary statistics of the dynamic balance tool for the participants.