Chen, CH, MHHuang, TWChen, et al. :The correlation between selected measurements from footprint and radiograph of flatfoot. .Arch Phys Med Rehabil87::235. ,2006. .10.1016/j.apmr.2005.10.01416442978)| false
El, O, OAkcali, CKosay, et al. :Flexible flatfoot and related factors in primary school children: a report of a screening study. .Rheumatol Int26::1050. ,2006. .1667085810.1007/s00296-006-0128-1)| false
Esterman, A and LPilotto. :Foot shape and its effect on functioning in royal Australian air force recruits: part 1. Prospective cohort study. .Mil Med170::623. ,2005. .10.7205/MILMED.170.7.62316130646)| false
Redmond, AC, JCrosbie, and RAOuvrier. :Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standard foot posture: The Foot Posture Index. .Clin Biomech21::89. ,2006. .10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.08.002)| false
Fascione, JM, RTCrews, and JSWrobel. :Association of footprint measurements and running training level, performance success, and training specificity. .Footwear Sci1::145. ,2009. .10.1080/19424280903535439)| false
Dynamic Footprint Measurement Collection Technique and Intrarater Reliability
Ink Mat, Paper Pedography, and Electronic Pedography
Jeanna M. Fascione
Jeanna M. FascioneScholl College of Podiatric Medicine at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Center for Lower Extremity Ambulatory Research, North Chicago, IL. Podiatric Medicine & Surgery Residency Program, Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
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.
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.
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).
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)
Corresponding author: Jeanna M. Fascione, DPM, Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Center for Lower Extremity Ambulatory Research, 3333 Green Bay Rd, North Chicago, IL 60305. (E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org)