advertising
-
1.
Coughlin, MJ and A Kaz. :Correlation of Harris mats, physical exam, pictures, and radiographic measurements in adult flatfoot deformity. .Foot Ankle Int 30::604. ,2009. .
-
2.
Queen, R, N Mall, W Hardaker, et al. :Describing the medial longitudinal arch using footprint indices and a clinical grading system. .Foot Ankle Int 28::456. ,2007. .
-
3.
Dudkiewicz, I, R Levi, A Blankstein, et al. :Dynamic footprints: adjuvant method for postoperative assessment of patients after calcaneal fractures. .Isr Med Assoc J 4::349. ,2002. .
-
4.
Igbigbi, PS, BC Msamati, and MB Shariff. :Arch index as a predictor of pes planus: a comparative study of indigenous Kenyans and Tanzanians. .JAPMA 95::273. ,2005. .
-
5.
Chen, CH, MH Huang, TW Chen, et al. :The correlation between selected measurements from footprint and radiograph of flatfoot. .Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87::235. ,2006. .
-
6.
Hawes, MR, W Nachbauer, N Sovak, et al. :Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. .Foot Ankle 13::22. ,1992. .
-
7.
Menz, HB . :Alternative techniques for the clinical assessment of foot pronation. .JAPMA 88::119. ,1998. .
-
8.
Atkinson-Smith, C and RP Betts. :The relationship between footprints, foot pressure distribution, rearfoot motion and foot function in runners. .Foot 2::148. ,1992. .
-
9.
Staheli, LT, DE Chew, and M Corbett. :The longitudinal arch. .J Bone Joint Surg Am 69::426. ,1987. .
-
10.
McPoil, TG and MW Cornwall. :Use of plantar contact area to predict medial longitudinal arch height during walking. .JAPMA 96::489. ,2006. .
-
11.
Gilmour, JC and Y Burns. :The measurement of the medial longitudinal arch in children. .Foot Ankle Int 22::493. ,2001. .
-
12.
Welton, EA . :The Harris and Beath footprint: interpretation and clinical value. .Foot Ankle 13::462. ,1992. .
-
13.
Billis, E, E Katsakiori, C Kapodistrias, et al. :Assessment of foot posture: correlation between different clinical techniques. .Foot 17::65. ,2007. .
-
14.
Nikolaidou, ME and KD Boudolos. :A footprint-based approach for the rational classification of foot types in young schoolchildren. .Foot 16::82. ,2006. .
-
15.
El, O, O Akcali, C Kosay, et al. :Flexible flatfoot and related factors in primary school children: a report of a screening study. .Rheumatol Int 26::1050. ,2006. .
-
16.
Wrobel, JS and DG Armstrong. :Reliability and validity of current physical examination techniques of the foot and ankle. .JAPMA 98::197. ,2008. .
-
17.
Esterman, A and L Pilotto. :Foot shape and its effect on functioning in royal Australian air force recruits: part 1. Prospective cohort study. .Mil Med 170::623. ,2005. .
-
18.
Menz, HB and ME Morris. :Clinical determinants of plantar forces and pressures during walking in older people. .Gait Posture 24::229. ,2006. .
-
19.
Urry, SR and SC Wearing. :The accuracy of footprint contact area measurements: relevance to the design and performance of pressure platforms. .Foot 11::151. ,2001. .
-
20.
Urry, SR and SC Wearing. :A comparison of footprint indexes calculated from ink and electronic footprints. .JAPMA 91::203. ,2001. .
-
21.
Urry, S and S Wearing. :Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different. .Foot 15::68. ,2005. .
-
22.
Cavanagh, PR and MM Rodgers. :The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. .J Biomech 20::547. ,1987. .
-
23.
Dowling, AM, JR Steele, and LA Baur. :Can static plantar pressures of prepubertal children be predicted by inked footprints? JAPMA 94::429. ,2004. .
-
24.
Hughes, J, S Kriss, and L Klenerman. :A clinician’s view of foot posture: a comparison of three different methods of measurement. .Foot Ankle 7::277. ,1987. .
-
25.
Wearing, SC, AP Hills, NM Byrne, et al. :The arch index: a measure of flat or fat feet? Foot Ankle Int 25::575. ,2004. .
-
26.
Redmond, AC, YZ Crane, and HB Menz. :Normative values for the foot posture index. .J Foot Ankle Res 1::9. ,2008. .
-
27.
Cornwall, MW, TG McPoil, M Lebec, et al. :Reliability of the modified Foot Posture Index. .JAPMA 98::7. ,2008. .
-
28.
Redmond, A . :The Foot Posture Index: user guide and manual .Updated August 2005. Available at: http://www.leads.ac.uk/medicine/FASTER/fpi.htm. .Accessed January 19, 2012.
-
29.
Redmond, AC, J Crosbie, and RA Ouvrier. :Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standard foot posture: The Foot Posture Index. .Clin Biomech 21::89. ,2006. .
-
30.
Keenan, AM, AC Redmond, M Horton, et al. :The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot-specific outcome measure. .Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88::88. ,2007. .
-
31.
Najafi, B, JL Helbostad, R Moe-Nilssen, et al. :Does walking strategy in older people change as a function of walking distance? Gait Posture 29::261. ,2009. .
-
32.
Menz, HB . :Two feet, or one person? problems associated with statistical analysis of paired data in foot and ankle medicine. .Foot 14::2. ,2004. .
-
33.
Redmond, A . :Two feet or one person? Foot 14::1. ,2004. .
-
34.
Mathieson, I, D Upton, and TD Prior. :Examining the validity of selected measures of foot type. .JAPMA 94::275. ,2004. .
-
35.
Fascione, JM, RT Crews, and JS Wrobel. :Association of footprint measurements and running training level, performance success, and training specificity. .Footwear Sci 1::145. ,2009. .
-
36.
Vincent, WJ . :Statistics in Kinesiology, ,3rd Ed. ,Human Kinetics. ,Champaign, IL. ,2005. .
Dynamic Footprint Measurement Collection Technique and Intrarater Reliability
Ink Mat, Paper Pedography, and Electronic Pedography
Podiatric Medicine & Surgery Residency Program, Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Search for other papers by Jeanna M. Fascione in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ryan T. Crews in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by James S. Wrobel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background:
Identifying the variability of footprint measurement collection techniques and the reliability of footprint measurements would assist with appropriate clinical foot posture appraisal. We sought to identify relationships between these measures in a healthy population.
Methods:
On 30 healthy participants, midgait dynamic footprint measurements were collected using an ink mat, paper pedography, and electronic pedography. The footprints were then digitized, and the following footprint indices were calculated with photo digital planimetry software: footprint index, arch index, truncated arch index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, and Staheli Index. Differences between techniques were identified with repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc test of Scheffe. In addition, to assess practical similarities between the different methods, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. To assess intrarater reliability, footprint indices were calculated twice on 10 randomly selected ink mat footprint measurements, and the ICC was calculated.
Results:
Dynamic footprint measurements collected with an ink mat significantly differed from those collected with paper pedography (ICC, 0.85–0.96) and electronic pedography (ICC, 0.29–0.79), regardless of the practical similarities noted with ICC values (P = .00). Intrarater reliability for dynamic ink mat footprint measurements was high for the footprint index, arch index, truncated arch index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, and Staheli Index (ICC, 0.74–0.99).
Conclusions:
Footprint measurements collected with various techniques demonstrate differences. Interchangeable use of exact values without adjustment is not advised. Intrarater reliability of a single method (ink mat) was found to be high. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 102(2): 130–138, 2012)
advertising
