**3. Results**

### *3.1. General Characteristics of Subject*

Demographic characteristics are shown in Table 2. No significant differences were observed in the baseline value between the FPRE group and control group for all parameters.


**Table 2.** General Characteristics of subjects (*N* = 25).

Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation; FPRE—functional progressive resistive exercise; CG—control group; GMFCS—gross motor function classification system; GMFM—gross motor function measure.

### *3.2. Comparison of Knee Extensor Muscle Strength between the FPRE Group and Control Group*

Statistically significant time factor effects on knee extensor muscle strength of the dominant and non-dominant side (*p* < 0.05) were observed, as well statistically significant time × group interaction effects on the knee extensor muscle strength of the dominant side (*p* < 0.05).

A paired *t*-test revealed statistically significant improvements on the knee extensor muscle strength of the dominant and non-dominant side in the FPRE group (*p* < 0.05). However, in the control group, the mean value between the pre and posttest showed no significant difference (Table 3).


**Table 3.** Knee extensor muscle strength (*N* = 25).

Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation; FPRE—functional progressive resistance exercise; CG—control group.

### *3.3. Comparison of the Structure of the Quadriceps between the FPRE Group and the Control Group*

Changes in the lower extremity, specifically the quadriceps, were assessed with portable RUSI. Table 4 presents the results observed in the FPRE group and the control group. Statistically significant time factor effects on the mean value of TQ and CSA of the dominant and non-dominant side were observed (*p* < 0.05), as well as statistically significant group factor effects on the CSA of the dominant and non-dominant side. Additionally, statistically significant time × group interaction effects were observed on the mean value of TQ of the dominant and non-dominant side and CSA of the dominant side (*p* < 0.05).

**Table 4.** Comparison of the structure of the quadriceps between the of functional progressive resistance exercise (FPRE) group and control group (*N* = 25).


Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation; FPRE—functional progressive resistive exercise; CG—control group; TQ—thickness of the quadriceps; CSA—cross-sectional area of the rectus femoris.

A paired *t*-test revealed a statistically significant increase on the mean value of TQ and CSA of the dominant and non-dominant sides in the FPRE group after the intervention (*p* < 0.05). However, the mean value of TQ of the dominant side significantly increased after the intervention in the control group (*p* < 0.05).

### *3.4. Comparison of Muscle Tone According to Popliteal Angle in Passive, Speed and Active Ranges of Motion between FPRE and Control Group*

Popliteal angles in passive, speed and active ranges of motion were assessed to evaluate the effects of FPRE on lower leg range of motion and strength. Statistically significant time factor effects on the PA-P of the dominant side and PA-A of the dominant and non-dominant side were observed (*p* < 0.05). Statistically significant group factor effects were observed on the PA-P of the dominant and non-dominant side, as well as PA-S of the non-dominant side (*p* < 0.05). In addition, statistically significant time × group interaction effects were observed on the PA-P, PA-S and PA-A of the dominant and non-dominant sides (*p* < 0.05).

A paired *t*-test revealed a statistically significant increase after the intervention on the PA-P and PA-A of the dominant and non-dominant sides and PA-S of the non-dominant side in the FPRE group (*p* < 0.05). However, in the control group, the mean value between the pre and posttest showed no significant difference (Table 5).


**Table 5.** Muscle tone popliteal angle in passive, speed and active ranges of motion (*N* = 25).

Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation; FPRE—functional progressive resistive exercise; CG—control group; PA-P—popliteal angle in passive range of motion; PA-S—popliteal angle in speed range of motion; PA-A—popliteal angle in active range of motion.

### *3.5. Comparison of Dynamic Balance between the FPRE Group and the Control Group*

Dynamic balance was assessed with the modified FRT in two different positions: forward reaching position and side reaching position. Statistically significant time factor effects were observed on the S-FRT (*p* < 0.05) and statistically significant time × group interaction effects were observed on the forward functional reach test (F-FRT) and side functional reach test (S-FRT) (*p* < 0.05).

A paired *t*-test revealed a statistically significant increase on the F-FRT and S-FRT in the FPRE group after the intervention (*p* < 0.05). However, in the control group, the mean value between the pre and posttest showed no significant difference (Table 6).


**Table 6.** Modified functional reach test (forward and side) (*N* = 25).

Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation; FPRE—functional progressive resistance exercise; CG—control group; F-FRT—forward functional reach test; S-FRT—side functional reach test.

### *3.6. Comparisons of the GMFM Score between the FPRE Group and the Control Group*

Functional ability was assessed with the GMFM-88. A paired *t*-test revealed a statistically significant increase on the GMFM score in the FPRE group after the intervention (*p* < 0.05). However, in the control group, the mean value between the pre and posttest showed no significant difference (Table 7).


**Table 7.** GMFM score: Pre and post training and changes (*N* = 25).

Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation; FPRE—functional progressive resistance exercise; CG—control group; GMFM—gross motor function measure.
