Gender Differences in Static and Dynamic Balance Testing

The IRB approved study consisted of a convenience sample of 300 subjects. Prior to administering the battery of tests, the subjects were informed of the battery of tests that were to be performed, the description of the tests, and that the subjects could stop at any time during the tests. The subjects signed a consent form prior to the beginning of testing. The tests were conducted by University of New Orleans exercise physiology undergraduate students who were CITI-certified for Human Subjects Testing and trained to administer the battery of balance tests. The battery of tests administered to the subjects consisted of the following tests. Brief descriptions of the tests are also included [4,7-11]: ABSTRACT Purpose: Determine if gender differences exist in static and dynamic testing. Design: Three hundred subjects, 173 males (29.1 + 13.7 Yrs) and 127 (31.5 + 14.6 Yrs) females, were administered a battery of 5 balance tests, 3 static and 2 dynamic tests. Analysis: Mann-Whitney non-parametric and one-way ANOVA parametric tests were used to analyze the balance results comparisons between the two groups. Results: Non-parametric Mann-Whitney results indicated significant superior static balance of males in both the dominant and non-dominant leg of the Stork test; and significant superior dynamic balance of males for the 5 Times Sit-to-Stand test.


One-Leg Standing Balance Static Test (Right and Left Leg)
Stand on 1 leg without holding onto anything. Normal balance is one minute, less than 30 seconds will need some work.

Stork Balance Static Test (Right and Left Leg)
Place the hands on the hips, position the non-supporting foot against the inside knee of the supporting leg. The subject raises the heel to balance on the ball of the foot. The stopwatch is started as the heel is raised from the floor. The stopwatch is stopped if the hand(s) come off the hips, the supporting foot swivels or moves (hops) in any direction, the non-supporting foot loses contact with the knee, or the heel of the supporting foot touches the floor. Average time is 25 -39 seconds. Poor is less than 10 seconds.

Timed Up-and-Go Dynamic Test
A chair is placed against a wall and a spot is measured and marked ten feet from the chair. The test is how long it takes to get up out of the chair, walk 10 feet, turn around, and sit back down. If it takes longer than 14 seconds, there is a high risk for falling.

The 5 Times Sit-to-Stand Dynamic Test
Sit in a chair. Whenever ready, stand up and down 5 complete times as fast as possible. Stand fully and sit down with the glutes touching the chair. Persons without balance problems can do this test in less than 13 seconds.

The Balance Error Scoring System Static Test [12]
There are six positions of the balance error scoring system static test. Three stances (double-leg support, single-leg support,  Table 2 for the non-parametric results. in-depth analysis about the balance components of the subject. The one-leg tests measure unipedal balance like the stork tests, but the one-leg tests allow the subjects to use the non-supporting leg, the upper appendages, and the torso to move and contort to maintain static unipedal balance. The stork tests also measure unipedal static balance, but they restrict the subjects from using their nonsupporting leg, their appendages, and/or their torso to assist them in maintaining their static balance. So, the subjects that display better proprioception and body coordination in the one-leg tests are at an advantage to those that do not. While the error scoring tests are also restrictive, only 2 of the six components of the test measure unipedal static balance, the remaining 4 measure bipedal static balance. The error scoring tests measure static balance in different orientation planes on different surfaces [13].
It would appear from the data that static or dynamic balance is not significantly dependent upon basic anthropomorphic variables alone. Two ways to improve the stability of a subject is to lower the subject's center of gravity closer to his/her base and to increase the weight of the subject over its base. If there were strong negative associations regarding height, then that would favor females because, as a group, females are shorter than males; and if there were strong positive associations regarding weight that would favor males because, as a group, males are heavier than females.
Neither of these anthropomorphic variables strongly correlated with balance. Pearson correlations of the balance results from the current study revealed weak associations between weight, height, and BMI (Body Mass Index). The current data also suggests that as subjects age balance will begin to wane. See Table 3.

Conclusion
The study does not definitively demonstrate gender balance differences, but the resultant data sufficiently warrants the need for further investigation. The authors recommend additional testing to verify the results obtained from the study; and to secure larger samples that would include parametric analyses of all 5 balance tests used in the current study for a deeper insight into the balance skills regarding gender differences.