## 3 Results  
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the TUG test and the four different DT tests. Results for the TUG tests are expressed in seconds. All the DT tests had longer durations than the single TUG test. Among the DT tests, the one with the longest duration is the mental calculation Timed Up and Go test (TUGMC), while the test with the shortest duration is the reaction Timed Up and Go test (TUGRE). Table 2 also presents the dual-task costs (DTCs) of the four DT tests which are expressed in percentages (%). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation** & **Minimum Value** & **Maximum Value** \\ \hline TUG (s) & 10.32 & 1.16 & 7.81 & 12.21 \\ TUGME (s) & 12.59 & 1.86 & 9.00 & 18.39 \\ TUGMC (s) & 14.30 & 2.63 & 9.30 & 21.36 \\ TUGVF (s) & 13.67 & 2.42 & 9.85 & 19.98 \\ TUGRE (s) & 11.25 & 1.42 & 7.90 & 14.65 \\ DTCTME (\%) & \(-\)20.70 & 10.48 & \(-\)46.84 & \(-\)2.38 \\ DTCMC (\%) & \(-\)37.26 & 19.19 & \(-\)79.97 & \(-\)4.72 \\ DTCVF (\%) & \(-\)30.44 & 17.43 & \(-\)70.48 & \(-\)2.98 \\ DTCRE (\%) & \(-\)7.91 & 6.26 & \(-\)27.70 & \(-\)0.27 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean values and standard deviations of TUG and DTCs variables. Paired \(t\)-tests showed statistically significant differences between the three additional sample characteristics (30-CST, FSST, and ABC) (\(p\) < 0.001) (Table 3). Statistically significant differences in performance between the TUG test and the four DT tests (\(p\) < 0.001) were shown. Also, the paired \(t\)-tests demonstrated significant differences in the DTCs between the DT tests (\(p\) < 0.001). Pearson r correlation analysis between the TUG test and the DT tests showed positive correlations for all the tests, which were statistically significant (\(p\) < 0.01) (Table 4, Figure 1). Pearson's r correlation analysis between the TUG tests and the three additional physical attributes (muscle strength, balance, and balance confidence) are shown in Table 5.  
Pearson's r correlations between the Timed Up and Go (TUG) tests performance and measures of muscle strength (30-CST), dynamic balance (FSST), and balance confidence (ABC). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **TUG\({}_{\text{ME}}\)** & **TUG\({}_{\text{MC}}\)** & **TUG\({}_{\text{VF}}\)** & **TUG\({}_{\text{RE}}\)** \\ \hline TUG & 0.77 ** & 0.63 ** & 0.65 ** & 0.89 ** \\ \hline \hline Abbreviations: TUG: Timed Up and Go; TUG\({}_{\text{ME}}\): memory Timed Up and Go test; TUG\({}_{\text{MC}}\): mental calculation Timed Up and Go test; TUG\({}_{\text{VF}}\): verbal fluency Timed Up and Go test; TUG\({}_{\text{RE}}\): reaction Timed Up and Go test; **_p < 0.01_. & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: [PERSON]’s r correlations between the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test performance and the four dual-task TUG tests (TUG\({}_{\text{ME}}\), TUG\({}_{\text{MC}}\), TUG\({}_{\text{VF}}\), TUG\({}_{\text{RE}}\)) performance. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation** & **t** \\ \hline
30-CST–FSST & \(-\)1.43 & 2.28 & \(-\)4.87 ** \\
30-CST–ABC & \(-\)77.28 & 7.42 & \(-\)80.60 ** \\ FSST-ABC & \(-\)75.85 & 8.38 & \(-\)70.07 ** \\ TUG\({}_{\text{CTO}}\)ire & \(-\)2.27 & 1.21 & \(-\)14.42 ** \\ TUG–TUG\({}_{\text{MC}}\) & \(-\)3.97 & 2.09 & \(-\)14.69 ** \\ TUG–TUG\({}_{\text{VF}}\)ire & \(-\)3.35 & 1.89 & \(-\)13.72 ** \\ TUG–TUG\({}_{\text{RE}}\) & \(-\)0.92 & 0.67 & \(-\)0.75 ** \\ DTC\({}_{\text{ME}}\)–DTC\({}_{\text{MC}}\) & 16.56 & 18.64 & 6.88 ** \\ DTC\({}_{\text{ME}}\)–DTC\({}_{\text{VF}}\) & 9.74 & 16.64 & 4.53 ** \\ DTC\({}_{\text{ME}}\)–DTC\({}_{\text{RE}}\) & \(-\)12.78 & 10.46 & \(-\)9.46 ** \\ DTC\({}_{\text{MC}}\)–DTC\({}_{\text{VF}}\)ire & \(-\)6.82 & 12.10 & \(-\)4.36 ** \\ DTC\({}_{\text{MC}}\)–DTC\({}_{\text{RE}}\)ire & \(-\)29.34 & 18.05 & \(-\)12.59 ** \\ DTCVF–DTC\({}_{\text{RE}}\)ire & \(-\)22.52 & 15.96 & \(-\)10.92 ** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}