ACTA UNIVERSITATIS PALACKIANAE OLOMUCENSIS GYMNICA ...

22 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn. 2004, vol. 34, no. 2TABLE 2Girls’ posture within individual age groupsCategory Iperfect postureCategory IInearly perfect postureCategory IIIdefective postureCategory IVvery bad postureAge nn % n % n % n %7 65 1 1.54 39 60 25 38.46 0 08 73 0 0 42 57.53 31 42.47 0 09 65 4 6.15 36 55.38 25 38.47 0 010 63 1 1.59 41 65.08 21 33.33 0 011 70 0 0 45 64.28 25 35.72 0 012 76 0 0 54 71.10 22 28.90 0 013 66 0 0 37 56.04 29 43.96 0 014 42 0 0 25 59.52 17 40.48 0 015 60 0 0 41 68.33 19 31.67 0 0Total 580 6 1.03 360 62.07 214 36.90 0 0Fig. 2Girls’ posture within individual age groups80%7060504030201007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15ageCategory I - perfect postureCategory II - nearly perfect postureCategory III - defective posture(1976) in his representative set found out that no boyand only 2% of the girls came under category I, 41%of the boys and 48% of the girls in category II – nearlyperfect posture, 53% of the boys and 46% of the girlsin category III – defective posture, and 6% of the boysand 5% of the girls came under category IV – very badposture. Very bad posture was not found in any pupiland the inter-sexual difference implied slightly betterposture in girls. Kristiníková and Dobešová (1998)found in the same age groups that nearly 60% of theboys had defective posture and boys had worse posturein comparison with girls.On the contrary, it does not support the resultspresented by Přidalová (1997), who evaluated posturein Olomouc children aged 6–10 years. Přidalová (1997)found better posture in boys in all measured categoriesin comparison with girls. An unfavorable developmentregarding the state of posture is also found by