## 3 Results
### Functional Mobility  
The two-way repeated-measure ANOVA revealed significant main effects of the session (F(1,15) = 41.31, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta\)2\(p\) = 0.73) factors and a significant group \(\times\) session  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**PG**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ZG**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CG**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Preintervention** & **Postintervention** & **Preintervention** & **Postintervention** & **Preintervention** & **Postintervention** \\ \hline Functional performance tests & & & & & \\ TUG (s) & 8.99 \(\pm\) 1.03 & 7.55 \(\pm\) 0.83 ** & 8.97 \(\pm\) 1.33 & 7.66 \(\pm\) 1.06 ** & 7.82 \(\pm\) 0.93 & 7.93 \(\pm\) 0.89 \({}^{\text{\textc}}\) \\
305 Chair Stand Test (nPS) & 17.31 \(\pm\) 3.74 & 22.25 \(\pm\) 4.21 ** & 18.37 \(\pm\) 4.54 & 21.18 \(\pm\) 4.54 \({}^{\text{\textc}}\) & 18.50 \(\pm\) 4.57 & 18.37 \(\pm\) 4.45 \({}^{\text{\textc}}\) \\ FRT (cm) & 29.93 \(\pm\) 4.78 & 37.12 \(\pm\) 2.91 * & 31.62 \(\pm\) 4.12 & 37.12 \(\pm\) 4.20 ** & 31.37 \(\pm\) 3.64 & 31.50 \(\pm\) 3.40 \({}^{\text{\textc}}\) \\
10 MWT (s) & 8.93 \(\pm\) 0.49 & 7.53 \(\pm\) 0.46 ** & 8.85 \(\pm\) 0.78 & 7.18 \(\pm\) 0.52 ** & 8.89 \(\pm\) 0.60 & 8.88 \(\pm\) 0.83 \({}^{\text{\textc}}\) \\ Mod & & & & & \\ BMS (score) & 48.00 \(\pm\) 3.44 & 51.62 \(\pm\) 4.09 * & 48.62 \(\pm\) 4.88 & 55.00 \(\pm\) 3.70 ** & 48.87 \(\pm\) 4.47 & 50.06 \(\pm\) 5.10 \({}^{\text{\textc}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Significant difference between pre- and postintervention sessions at \(p\) < 0.05, *
* at \(p\) < 0.001.
* Significant difference between ZG and PG at \(p\) < 0.05. \({}^{\text{\textc}}\) Significant difference in the postintervention session between the CG and the two groups, ZG and PG, at \(p\) < 0.01.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Mean \(\pm\) SD of the mean scores of the functional performance tests [functional mobility (Timed Up and Go (TUG) test), lower body strength (30S Chair Stand Test), walking speed (the 10-Meter Walk Test (10 MWT)), and dynamic balance (Functional Reach Test (FRT))] and mood (BMIS) during the preintervention session compared to the postintervention session for the Zomba group (ZG), Pilates group (PG), and control group (CG).  
Figure 3: Mean \(\pm\) SD of the mean scores of the functional performance tests [functional mobility (Timed Up and Go (TUG) test), lower body strength (30S Chair Stand Test), walking speed (the 10-Meter Walk Test (10 MWT)) and dynamic balance (Functional Reach Test (FRT))] during the preintervention session compared to the postintervention session for the Zumba group (ZG), Pilates group (PG), and control group (CG). * Significant difference between pre- and postintervention sessions at \(p\) < 0.05, ** at \(p\) < 0.001; \({}^{\text{\textc}}\) Significant difference in the postintervention session between the CG and the two groups, ZG and PG, at \(p\) < 0.01.  
interaction (F(2,30) = 11.96, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta\)2\(p\) = 0.44) on the functional mobility scores. The post hoc analysis showed that the TUG scores significantly decreased (\(p\) < 0.001) during the postintervention session in comparison to preintervention for both the PG (\(p\) = 0.00004) and ZG (\(p\) = 0.00001) but not for the CG (Table 2 and Figure 3).