• 1

    Hughes LY: Biomechanical analysis of the foot and ankle for predisposition to developing stress fractures. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 7::96. ,1985. .

  • 2

    Vitasalo JT, Kvist M: Some biomechanical aspects of the foot and ankle in athletes with and without shin splints. .Am J Sports Med 11::125. ,1983. .

  • 3

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

  • 4

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Menz HB: Clinical hindfoot measurement: a critical review of the literature. .Foot 5::57. ,1995. .

  • 6

    Rose G, Welton E, Marshall T: The diagnosis of flat foot in the child. .J Bone Joint Surg Br 67::71. ,1985. .

  • 7

    Cavanagh P, Rogers M: The arch index: a useful measurement from footprints. .J Biomech 20::547. ,1987. .

  • 8

    Nigg BM, Cole GK, Nachbauer W: Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running. .J Biomech 15::61. ,1991. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

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

  • 10

    Menz HB, Keenan A-M: Reliability of two instruments in the measurement of closed chain subtalar joint positions. .Foot 7::194. ,1997. .

  • 11

    Elveru R, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL: Goniometric reliability in the clinical setting: subtalar and ankle joint measurements. .Phys Ther 68::672. ,1988. .

  • 12

    Smith-Orrichio K, Harris BA: Inter-rater reliability of subtalar joint neutral, calcaneal inversion and eversion. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 12::10. ,1990. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

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

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

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

  • 15

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

  • 16

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

  • 17

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

  • 18

    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
  • 19

    Loudon JK, Jenkins W, Loudon KL: The relationship between static posture and ACL injury in female athletes. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 24::91. ,1996. .

  • 20

    DeLacerda FG: A study of anatomical factors involved in shin splints. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2::55. ,1980. .

  • 21

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

  • 22

    Sell KE, Verity TM, Worrell TW, et al: Two measurement techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 9::162. ,1994. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Weiner-Ogilvie S, Rome K: The reliability of three techniques for measuring foot position. .JAPMA 88::381. ,1998. .

  • 24

    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 8::553. ,1993. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

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

  • 26

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

  • 27

    Wernick J, Langer S: A Practical Manual for a Basic Approach to Biomechanics, Langer Acrylic Laboratory, New York, 1972..

  • 28

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

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Portney LG, Watkins MP: Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, Appleton & Lange, Norwalk, CT, 1993..

  • 30

    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL: Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. .Psychol Bull 86::420. ,1979. .

  • 31

    Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB, Mlynarczyk JM: Proficiency of foot care specialists to place the rearfoot at subtalar joint neutral. .JAPMA 86::217. ,1996. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Reliability of Navicular Displacement Measurement as a Clinical Indicator of Foot Posture

Ann Vinicombe BPod(Hons)1, Anita Raspovic BAppScPod(Hons)2, and Hylton B. Menz BPod(Hons)3
View More View Less
  • 1 Research Assistant, Department of Podiatry, School of Human Biosciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
  • | 2 Lecturer, Department of Podiatry, School of Human Biosciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
  • | 3 Associate Lecturer, School of Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith DC, New South Wales 1797, Australia.
Restricted access

This study evaluated two methods for quantifying foot posture: navicular drop and navicular drift. Five clinicians measured 20 nonpathological participants on two occasions. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.33 to 0.76 for navicular drop and from 0.31 to 0.62 for navicular drift. The standard error of measurement, as a 95% confidence interval, ranged from ±1.5 mm to ±3.5 mm for navicular drop and ±3 mm to ±5 mm for navicular drift. Intratester reliability was slightly better than intertester reliability for both measurements. These results indicate that both techniques are only moderately reliable, and physicians using these measurements in clinical practice should interpret the values in light of the magnitude of error associated with them. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 91(5): 262-268, 2001)