• 1

    Mathieson I, Upton D, Birchenough A: Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints. .The Foot 9::145. ,1999. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Messier SP, Pittala KA: Etiologic factors associated with selected running injuries. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 20::501. ,1988. .

  • 3

    Beckett ME, Massie DL, Bowers KD, et al: Incidence of hyperpronation in the ACL injured knee: a clinical perspective. .J Athlet Train 27::58. ,1992. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Cowan DN, Jones BH, Robinson JR: Foot morphologic characteristics and risk of exercise-related injury. .Arch Fam Med 2::773. ,1993. .

  • 5

    Woodford-Rogers B, Cyphert L, Denegar CR: Risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament injury in high school and college athletes. .J Athlet Train 29::343. ,1994. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Busseuil C, Freychat P, Guedj EB, et al: Rearfoot-forefoot orientation and traumatic risk for runners. .Foot Ankle Int 19::32. ,1998. .

  • 7

    Freychat P, Belli A, Carret JP, et al: Relationship between rearfoot and forefoot orientation and ground reaction forces during running. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 28::225. ,1996. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Duffey MJ, Martin DF, Cannon DW, et al: Etiologic factors associated with anterior knee pain in distance runners. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 32::1825. ,2000. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    McCrory JL, Martin DF, Lowery RB, et al: Etiologic factors associated with Achilles tendinitis in runners. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 31::1374. ,1999. .

  • 10

    Ilahi OA, Kohl HW: Lower extremity morphology and alignment and risk of overuse injury. .Clin J Sport Med 8::38. ,1998. .

  • 11

    Wen DY, Puffer JC, Schmalzried TP: Lower extremity alignment and risk of overuse injuries in runners. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 29::1291. ,1997. .

  • 12

    Cowan DN, Jones BH, Frykman PN, et al: Lower extremity morphology and risk of overuse injury among male infantry trainees. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 28::945. ,1996. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

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

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Redmond A, Burns J, Ouvrier RA, et al: An initial appraisal of the validity of a criterion based, observational clinical rating system for foot posture: Static and Dynamic Classification of the Foot Meeting 2001, Annapolis, MD. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 31::160. ,2001. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Cowan DN, Robinson JR, Jones BH, et al: Consistency of visual assessment of arch height among clinicians. .Foot Ankle Int 15::213. ,1994. .

  • 16

    McClay IS, Bray J: The subtalar angle: a proposed measure of rearfoot structure. .Foot Ankle Int 17::499. ,1996. .

  • 17

    Kalen V, Brechner A: Relationship between adolescent bunions and flatfeet. .Foot Ankle Int 8::331. ,1988. .

  • 18

    Prichasuk S, Subhadrabandhu T: The relationship of pes planus and calcaneal spur to plantar heel pain. .Clin Orthop 306::192. ,1994. .

  • 19

    Kernozek TW, Ricard MD: Foot placement angle and arch type: effect on rearfoot motion. .Arch Phys Med Rehabil 71::988. ,1990. .

  • 20

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

  • 21

    Nachbauer W, Nigg BM: Effects of arch height of the foot on ground reaction forces in running. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 24::1264. ,1992. .

  • 22

    Nigg BM, Cole GK, Nachbauer W: Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running. .J Biomech 26::909. ,1993. .

  • 23

    Ogon M, Aleksiev AR, Pope MH, et al: Does arch height affect impact loading at the lower back level in running?. Foot Ankle Int 20::263. ,1999. .

  • 24

    Simkin A, Leichter I: Role of the calcaneal inclination in the energy storage capacity of the human foot: a biomechanical model. .Med Biol Eng Comp 28::149. ,1990. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Rose GK: “Pes Planus,” in Disorders of the Foot and Ankle: Medical and Surgical Management, 2nd Ed, ed by MH Jahss, p 892, WB Saunders, Philadelphia. ,1991. .

  • 26

    Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM: The Arch Index: a useful measure from footprints. .J Biomech 20::547. ,1987. .

  • 27

    Qamra SR, Deodhar SD, Jit I: Podographical and metrical study for pes planus in a northwestern Indian population. .Hum Biol 52::435. ,1980. .

  • 28

    Forriol F, Pascual J: Footprint analysis between three and seventeen years of age. .Foot Ankle Int 11::101. ,1990. .

  • 29

    Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M: The longitudinal arch: a survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. .J Bone Joint Surg Am 69::426. ,1987. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Anthony RJ: The Manufacture and Use of the Functional Foot Orthosis, Karger, London. ,1991. .

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Philps JW: The Functional Foot Orthoses, 2nd Ed, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh. ,1995. .

  • 32

    Wright DG, Desai SM, Henderson WH: Action of the subtalar and ankle-joint complex during the stance phase of walking. .J Bone Joint Surg Am 46::361. ,1964. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    McPoil TG, Cornwall MW: Relationship between neutral subtalar joint position and pattern of rearfoot motion during walking. .Foot Ankle Int 15::141. ,1994. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB: Rear foot inversion/eversion during gait relative to the subtalar joint neutral position. .Foot Ankle Int 17::406. ,1996. .

  • 35

    McPoil TG, Cornwall MW: Relationship between 3 static angles of the rearfoot and the pattern of rearfoot motion during walking. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 23::370. ,1996. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Torburn L, Perry J, Gronley JK: Assessment of rear-foot motion: passive positioning, one-legged standing, gait. .Foot Ankle Int 19::688. ,1998. .

  • 37

    Nester CJ: Rearfoot complex: a review of its interdependent components, axis orientation and functional model. .The Foot 7::86. ,1997. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Root ML, Orien W, Weed JH: Normal and Abnormal Function of the Foot, Clinical Biomechanics Corp, Los Angeles. ,1977. .

  • 39

    Huson A: “Functional Anatomy of the Foot,” in Disorders of the Foot and Ankle: Medical and Surgical Management, 2nd Ed, ed by MH Jahss, p 409, WB Saunders, Philadelphia. ,1991. .

  • 40

    Elftman H: The transverse tarsal joint and its control. .Clin Orthop 16::41. ,1960. .

  • 41

    Inman VT, Ralston HJ, Todd F: “Human Locomotion,” in Human Walking, 2nd Ed, ed by J Rose, J Gamble, p 1, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore. ,1994. .

  • 42

    Manter JT: Movements of the transverse tarsal joints. .Anat Rec 80::397. ,1941. .

  • 43

    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. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Bowling A: Research Methods in Health: Investigating Health and Health Services, Open University Press, Philadelphia. ,1997. .

  • 45

    Daly LE, Bourke GJ: Interpretation and Uses of Medical Statistics, 5th Ed, Blackwell Science, Oxford. ,2000. .

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Pearce TJ, Buckley RE: Subtalar joint movement: clinical and computed tomography scan correlation. .Foot Ankle Int 20::428. ,1999. .

  • 47

    Root ML, Orien W, Weed JH, et al: Biomechanical Examination of the Foot, Vol 1, Clinical Biomechanics Corp, Los Angeles. ,1971. .

  • 48

    Cornwall MW, McPoil TG: Relative movement of the navicular bone during normal walking. .Foot Ankle Int 20::507. ,1999. .

  • 49

    Cavanagh PR, Morag E, Boulton AJM, et al: The relationship of static foot structure to dynamic foot function. .J Biomech 30::243. ,1997. .

  • 50

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

  • 51

    Brody DM: Techniques in the evaluation and treatment of the injured runner. .Orthop Clin North Am 13::541. ,1982. .

  • 52

    Mueller MJ, Host JV, Norton BJ: Navicular drop as a composite measure of excessive pronation. .JAPMA 83::198. ,1993. .

  • 53

    Picciano AM, Rowlands MS, Worrell T: Reliability of open and closed kinetic chain subtalar joint neutral positions and navicular drop test. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 18::553. ,1993. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54

    Keenan A: A clinician’s guide to the practical implications of the recent controversy of foot function. .Australas J Podiatr Med 31::87. ,1997. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Examining the Validity of Selected Measures of Foot Type

A Preliminary Study

Ian Mathieson Wales Centre for Podiatric Studies, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff.

Search for other papers by Ian Mathieson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BSc(Hons)
,
Dominic Upton University of Wales Institute, Cardiff.

Search for other papers by Dominic Upton in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, and
Trevor D. Prior City and Hackney Community NHS Trust, St Leonard’s Primary Care Centre, London, England.

Search for other papers by Trevor D. Prior in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BSc(Hons), FCPodS
Restricted access

The rationale that subtalar joint position, reflected by calcaneal alignment, determines foot morphology was used to formulate an approach to examination of the validity of three measures of “foot type”: the Staheli Arch Index, the Chippaux-Smirak Index, and navicular height. Each measure was calculated in five positions, progressively inverting from a reference position of maximal comfortable eversion. Pearson product moment correlations (Staheli Arch Index: r = 0.5; Chippaux-Smirak Index: r = 0.6; and navicular height: r = 0.8) indicated that each measure progressively increased with inversion. The change in calcaneal position required to produce significant changes in each measure was investigated using analysis of variance with Scheffé post hoc analysis. This analysis revealed that changes of 15° and 20° were required to produce significant differences in Chippaux-Smirak Index and Staheli Arch Index scores, respectively, threatening their validity. Navicular height was sensitive to smaller changes of 10° and thus displays greater sensitivity to changes in calcaneal position than the footprint parameters tested. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 94(3): 275–281, 2004)

Corresponding author: Ian Mathieson, BSc(Hons), Wales Centre for Podiatric Studies, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, Western Avenue, Cardiff CF5 2YB, Wales.