Advertisement
-
1.
Cavanagh, PR and MA Lafortune. :Ground reaction forces in distance running. .J Biomech 13::397. ,1980. .
-
2.
Butler, RJ, H Hillstrom, J Song, et al. :Arch height index measurement system: establishment of reliability and normative values. .JAPMA 98::102. ,2008. .
-
3.
Pohl, MB and L Farr. :A comparison of foot arch measurement reliability using both digital photography and calliper methods. .J Foot Ankle Res 3::1. ,2010. .
-
4.
Saltzman, CL, DA Nawoczenski, and KD Talbot. :Measurement of the medial longitudinal arch. .Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76::45. ,1995. .
-
5.
Williams, DS and IS McClay. :Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. .Phys Ther 80::864. ,2000. .
-
6.
Xiong, S, RS Goonetilleke, CP Witana, et al. :Foot arch characterization: a review, a new metric, and a comparison. .JAPMA 100::14. ,2010. .
-
7.
Richards, CJ, K Card, J Song, et al. :A novel arch height index measurement system (AHIMS): intra- and inter-rater reliability. .Paper presented at: the annual meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics;September 25–27, 2003;Toledo, OH.
-
8.
McPoil, TG, MW Cornwall, B Vicenzino, et al. :Effect of using truncated versus total foot length to calculate the arch height ratio. .Foot (Edinb) 18::220. ,2008. .
-
9.
Shroyer, JF, JE Shroyer, AM Sumner, et al. :Effect of various thong flip-flops on pronation and eversion during midstance. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 42::270. ,2010. .
-
10.
Cavanagh, PR and MM Rodgers. :The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. .J Biomech 20::547. ,1987. .
Arch Height Index Normative Values of College-Aged Women Using the Arch Height Index Measurement System
Background:
The arch height index measurement system (AHIMS) device has been found to be a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the arch height index (AHI) of the feet of individuals; however, normative data for the AHI are lacking for various populations. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to establish population normative AHI values for college-aged females and to compare the observed AHI data across right and left feet.
Methods:
Seventy-nine college-aged females served as study participants, and both feet were measured using the AHIMS in the seated and standing positions. The AHI was calculated as the ratio of the dorsum height of the foot at half the total foot length to the length of the foot from the heel to the base of the first metatarsophalangeal joint.
Results:
The mean ± SD AHI values for the left and right feet in the seated position were 0.355 ± 0.031 and 0.369 ± 0.034, respectively. The mean ± SD AHI values for the left and right feet in the standing position were 0.338 ± 0.031 and 0.343 ± 0.033, respectively. There were significant differences observed between the left and right feet for the seated (P < .001) and standing (P = .003) positions.
Conclusions:
Normative values were established for college-aged females for the AHI using the AHIMS. Differences were noted between the right and left feet of the participants sampled. Although normative values were obtained, we caution against using these values to classify foot arch types based solely on a sample of the population studied. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 103(3): 213–217, 2013)
