• 1

    Wang CS: An analysis and evaluation of fitness for shoe lasts and human feet. Comput Ind 61: 532, 2010.

  • 2

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

  • 3

    Lee YC, Lin G, Wang MJJ: Comparing 3D foot scanning with conventional measurement methods. J Foot Ankle Res 7: 1, 2014.

  • 4

    Frey C: Foot health and shoewear for women. Clin Orthop Relat Res 372: 32, 2000.

  • 5

    Menz H, Morris M: Footwear characteristics and foot problems in older people. Gerontology 51: 346, 2005.

  • 6

    Williams DS, McClay IS: Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Phys Ther 80: 864, 2000.

  • 7

    Buldt AK, Menz HB: Incorrectly fitted footwear, foot pain and foot disorders: a systematic search and narrative review of the literature. J Foot Ankle Res 11: 1, 2018.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Aboelnasr EA, Hegazy FA, Zaghloul AA, et al.: Validation of normalized truncated navicular height as a clinical assessment measure of static foot posture to determine flatfoot in children and adolescents: a cross sectional study. Foot 37: 85, 2018.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Menz HB, Tiedemann A, Kwan MM-S, et al.: Reliability of clinical tests of foot and ankle characteristics in older people. JAPMA 93: 380, 2003.

  • 10

    De Mits S, Coorevits P, De Clercq D, et al.: Reliability and validity of the INFOOT three-dimensional foot digitizer for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. JAPMA 101: 198, 2011.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    De Mits S, Coorevits P, De Clercq D, et al.: Reliability and validity of the Infoot 3D foot digitizer for normal healthy adults. Footwear Sci 2: 65, 2010.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    RSscan International NV: Tiger [product sheet]. Paal, Belgium: RSscan International NV.

  • 13

    Hawes MR, Nachbauer W, Sovak D, et al.: Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. Foot Ankle Int 13: 22, 1992.

  • 14

    Bujang MA, Baharum N: A simplified guide to determination of sample size requirements for estimating the value of intraclass correlation coefficient: a review. Arch Orofac Sci J Sch Dent Sci USM Arch Orofac Sci 12: 1, 2017.

    • 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

    Xiong S, Goonetilleke RS, Zhao J, et al.: Foot deformations under different load-bearing conditions and their relationships to stature and body weight. Anthropol Sci 117: 77, 2009.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Witana CP, Xiong S, Zhao J, et al.: Foot measurements from three-dimensional scans: a comparison and evaluation of different methods. Int J Ind Ergon 36: 789, 2006.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Menz H, Munteanu SE: Validity of 3 clinical techniques for the measurement of static foot posture in older people. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36: 179, 2006.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Kim H-Y: Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod 38: 52, 2013.

  • 20

    Koo TK, Li MY: A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15: 155, 2016.

  • 21

    Weir JP: Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19: 231, 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Downham DY, Holmbäck AM, Lexell J: Reliability of measurements in medical research and clinical practice. In: Paton R, McNamara LA, eds. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Theory in Medicine. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier BV; 2006:147163.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Bland JM, Altman DG: Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8: 135, 1999.

  • 24

    Brown R, Richmond S: An update on the analysis of agreement for orthodontic indices. Eur J Orthod 27: 286, 2005.

  • 25

    Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA, Talbot KD: Measurement of the medial longitudinal arch. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76: 45, 1995.

  • 26

    Telfer S, Abbott M, Steultjens MPM, et al.: Dose-response effects of customised foot orthoses on lower limb kinematics and kinetics in pronated foot type. J Biomech 46: 1489, 2013.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Evaluation of the Usability of the Tiger Full-Foot Three-Dimensional Scanner for the Measurements of Basic Foot Dimensions in Clinical Practice

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
  • | 2 Department of Natural Sciences in Kinanthropology, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
  • | 3 Institute of Active Lifestyle, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Restricted access

Background: Foot dimension information is important both for footwear design and clinical applications. In recent years, noncontact three-dimensional (3-D) foot digitizers/scanners have become popular because they are noninvasive and are valid and reliable for most of the measures. Some of them also offer automated calculations of basic foot dimensions. We aimed to determine test-retest reliability, objectivity, and concurrent validity of the Tiger full-foot 3-D scanner and the relationship between manual measures of the medial longitudinal arch of the foot and alternative parameters obtained automatically by the scanner.

Methods: Intraclass correlation coefficients and minimal detectable change values were used to assess the reliability and objectivity of the scanner. Concurrent validity and the relationships between the arch height measures were determined by the Pearson correlation coefficient and the limits of agreement between the scanner and the caliper method.

Results: The relative and absolute agreement between the repeated measurements obtained by the scanner show excellent reliability and objectivity of linear measures and only good to nearly good test-retest reliability and objectivity of arch height. Correlations between the values obtained by the scanner and the caliper were generally higher in linear measures (rp ≥ 0.929). The representativeness of state of bony architecture by the soft-tissue margin of the medial foot arch demonstrates the lowest correlation among the measurements (rp ≤ 0.526).

Conclusions: The Tiger full-foot 3-D scanner offers excellent reliability and objectivity in linear measures, which correspond to those obtained by the caliper method. However, values obtained by both methods should not be used interchangeably. The arch height measure is less accurate, which could limit its use in some clinical applications. Orthotists and related professions probably appreciate the scanner more than other specialists.

Corresponding author: Ondřej Laštovička, Department of Physiotherapy and Department of Natural Sciences in Kinanthropology, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc; třída Míru 117, 771 11, Olomouc, Czech Republic. (E-mail: ondrej.lastovicka@upol.cz)