• 1.

    Razeghi M & Batt ME: Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture 15: 282, 2002

  • 2.

    Buldt AK, Murley GS & Butterworth P et al.: The relationship between foot posture and lower limb kinematics during walking: a systematic review. Gait Posture 38: 363, 2013.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Tong JW & Kong PW: Association between foot type and lower extremity injuries: systematic literature review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 43: 700, 2013.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    McCrory JL, Young JM & Boulton AJM et al.: Arch index as a predictor of arch height. Foot 7: 79, 1997.

  • 5.

    Menz HB & Munteanu SE: Validity of 3 clinical techniques for the measurement of static foot posture in older people. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 35: 479, 2005.

  • 6.

    Harris EJ: The natural history and pathophysiology of flexible flatfoot. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 27: 1, 2010.

  • 7.

    Menz HB: Alternative techniques for the clinical assessment of foot pronation. JAPMA 88: 119, 1998.

  • 8.

    Labovitz JM: The algorithmic approach to pediatric flexible pes planovalgus. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 23: 57, 2006.

  • 9.

    Cornwall MW, McPoil TG & Lebec M et al.: Reliability of the modified Foot Posture Index. JAPMA 98: 7, 2008.

  • 10.

    Cavanagh PR & Rodgers MM: The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech 20: 547, 1987.

  • 11.

    Buldt AK, Allan JJ & Landorf KB et al.: The relationship between foot posture and plantar pressure during walking in adults: a systematic review. Gait Posture 62: 56, 2018.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Billis E, Katsakiori E & Kapodistrias C: Assessment of foot posture: correlation between different clinical techniques. Foot 17: 65, 2007.

  • 13.

    Lee J & Choi J: The comparison of clinical assessment tools for the foot posture. Phys Ther Kor 19: 115, 2012.

  • 14.

    Zuil-Escobar JC, Martínez-Cepa CB & Martín-Urrialde JA et al.: Medial longitudinal arch: accuracy, reliability, and correlation between navicular drop test and footprint parameters. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 41: 672, 2018.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Menz HB: Two feet, or one person? problems associated with statistical analysis of paired data in foot and ankle medicine. Foot 14: 2, 2004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Sell KE, Verity TM & Worrell TW et al.: Two measurement techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 19: 162, 1994.

  • 17.

    Shrader JA, Popovich JM Jr, & Gracey GC et al.: Navicular drop measurement in people with rheumatoid arthritis: interrater and intrarater reliability. Phys Ther 85: 656, 2005.

  • 18.

    Morrison SC, Durward BR & Watt GF et al.: A literature review evaluating the role of the navicular in the clinical and scientific examination of the foot. Br J Podiatry 7: 110, 2004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Akins JS, Keenan KA & Sell TC et al.: Test-retest reliability and descriptive statistics of geometric measurements based on plantar pressure measurements in a healthy population during gait. Gait Posture 35: 167, 2012.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Fascione JM, Crews RT & Wrobel JS et al.: Dynamic footprint measurement collection technique and intrarater reliability: ink mat, paper pedography, and electronic pedography. JAPMA 102: 130, 2012.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Wong CK, Weil R & de Boer E: Standardizing foot-type classification using arch index values. Physiother Can 64: 280, 2012.

  • 22.

    Mukaka MM: Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 24: 69, 2012.

  • 23.

    Urry SR & Wearing SC: A comparison of footprint indexes calculated from ink and electronic footprints. JAPMA 91: 203, 2001.

  • 24.

    Lundberg A, Svensson OK & Bylund C et al.: Kinematics of the ankle/foot complex: part 2. Pronation and supination. Foot Ankle 9: 248, 1989.

  • 25.

    Winson IG, Lundberg A & Bylund C: The pattern of motion of the longitudinal arch of the foot. Foot 4: 151, 1994.

  • 26.

    Greiner TM & Ball KA: Assessing talonavicular joint rotations in three dimension. J Foot Ankle Res 1 (suppl 1) : O50, 2008.

  • 27.

    Wen J, Jin D & Li J et al.: Correlation between talonavicular joint movement and changes of the medial longitudinal arch. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 32: 622, 2012.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Brockett CL & Chapman GJ: Biomechanics of the ankle. Orthop Trauma 30: 232, 2016.

  • 29.

    Burns J, Crosbie J & Hunt A et al.: The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 20: 877, 2005.

  • 30.

    Fernández-Seguín LM, Diaz Mancha JA & Sánchez Rodríguez R et al.: Comparison of plantar pressures and contact area between normal and cavus foot. Gait Posture 39: 789, 2014.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Urry SR & Wearing SC: Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different. Foot 15: 68, 2005.

  • 32.

    Liu XC, Thometz JG & Tassone C et al.: Dynamic plantar pressure measurement for the normal subject: free-mapping model for the analysis of pediatric foot deformities. J Pediatr Orthop 25: 103, 2005.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Hertling D & Kessler RM: “Lumbosacral-Lower Limb Scan Examination,” in Management of Common Musculoskeletal Disorders: Physical Therapy Principles and Methods, Vol 1, ed by Hertling, D & Kessler, RM p 1002, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Investigation of the Relationships Among Clinical Measures of Foot Posture in Individuals with and Without Pronated Foot

View More View Less
Restricted access

Background

Many indirect clinical techniques have been developed to assess foot posture; however, there is relatively little research investigating the relationships among these techniques. We investigated the relationships among the most commonly used clinical measures of foot posture—Foot Posture Index-6 (FPI-6), navicular drop (NDP), navicular drift (NDT), and static and dynamic arch indices (SAI and DAI)—in individuals with normal foot posture and those with pronated foot.

Methods

Sixty-three individuals with FPI-6 scores of 0 to 12 were included. A digital caliper was used to measure NDP and NDT; SAI and DAI were measured by electronic pedobarography. Assessments were applied on the dominant foot. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the relationships among measures. Participants were classified into two groups, pronated foot (n = 33) and normal foot posture (n = 30), based on FPI-6 scores, providing a multisegmental and multiplanar assessment. The independent-samples t test was used to compare groups regarding NDP, NDT, SAI, and DAI.

Results

We found a high correlation between NDP and FPI-6 (r = 0.754) and between NDP and NDT (r = 0.778) (all P < .001). A moderate correlation was found between NDT and FPI-6 (r = 0.599) and between DAI and SAI (r = 0.519) (all P < .001). A negligible correlation was found between NDP and DAI (r = 0.268; P = .033). Furthermore, NDP, NDT, and DAI values were higher in individuals with pronated foot compared with those with normal posture (P < .001 for NDP and NDT; P = .022 for DAI), whereas SAI values were not (P = .837).

Conclusions

These results suggest that there are moderate-to-strong relationships among FPI-6, NDP, and NDT and between SAI and DAI. The NDP, NDT, and DAI are suitable for the classification of foot posture based on FPI-6 scores. This study can guide clinicians and researchers to associate the foot posture measures with each other.

Institute of Health Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey.

Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Cigli, Izmir, Turkey.

School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Dokuz Eylul University, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey.

Faculty of Health Sciences, Cyprus International University, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Corresponding author: Muge Kirmizi, MSc, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Cigli, TR-35620, Izmir, Turkey (E-mail: mugekirmizi@hotmail.com)