Comparing the Effects of Eight-Week Corrective Selective Exercises on Kyphosis Abnormality Prior to and Following Puberty among the Girls Attending High Schools in Boroojerd, Lorestan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X20753Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of eight weeks selected corrective exercise on kyphosis deformity before and after puberty in girls is Boroojerd city. According to the study, pre-test and post-test experimental and control groups, and independent and dependent variable is the type of quasi-experimental research survey of all elementary and secondary school students will form Boroojerd city. Using cluster sampling - a random number 1200 from 7 schools (450 schools, 750 elementary students) with the use of raster lines were evaluated plummet a total of 44 patients (24 person puberty prepubescent and 20 person after maturity) with kyphosis deformity, were selected as research subjects after obtaining informed consent and completed questionnaires, their kyphosis using flexible ruler and balance range to be measured by the stork balance test Then the four groups, 24 person before maturity (12 person group control and 12 group experimental), 20 person after maturity(10 person group control, 10 person group experimental) were classified then subjects experimental group eight weeks, 3 sessions a week, each session 30-45 minutes the program of corrective exercises (stretching and strengthening) were after completion of training, all subjects (control groups and Experimental before and after puberty) the tests were And test results independent T-test and dependent t- test the analysis. The result showed That There was no signification difference between 8 weeks corrective training on kyphosis deformity (p=0.12) pre-and post-pubertal girls students. But the practice effect on the improvement of kyphosis ago (p = 0.02) and after puberty (0.03) girls students had a significant impact.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
