Identifying clinically meaningful tools for measuring comfort perception of footwear.

PURPOSE Measures of comfort are important in the prescription and development of footwear. The purpose of our study was to examine three commonly used scales (visual analog scale (VAS), Likert scale, and ranking scale) to determine the most reliable, to calculate a minimal clinically important change in rating scales, and to explore dimensions of comfort important to the patient. METHODS Twenty subjects were allocated consecutively to two experiments consisting of five sessions of repeated measures. Using comfort measures from each subject's usual jogging shoe, experiment 1 examined the reliability of VAS and Likert scale over six dimensions of the foot, including overall comfort. The second experiment examined the reliability of ranking scale by assessing the ranked position of the shoe. Comfort measures were obtained in both walking and jogging. RESULTS The ranking scale was the most stable scale. Mixed linear modeling found that VAS was more stable than the Likert scale. The VAS required two sessions to become reliable for all measures but those obtained from the heel, which required more. Using a data-derived approach, a clinically important change in comfort was 9.59 mm on the 100-mm VAS; using an anchor-based approach, it was 10.2 mm. Subjects identified arch comfort as the most important consideration in footwear comfort. CONCLUSIONS Ranking scale and VAS are reliable measures of footwear comfort. Using the VAS, changes of 9.59 and 10.2 mm indicate a clinically relevant change in comfort. The most important dimensions to the patient are overall comfort and the arch.

[1]  Ravindra S Goonetilleke,et al.  A qualitative study on the comfort and fit of ladies' dress shoes. , 2007, Applied ergonomics.

[2]  C J Nester,et al.  Patient Perceptions of Stock Footwear Design Features , 2006, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[3]  V. Novack,et al.  A Prospective Study of the Effect of Foot Orthoses Composition and Fabrication on Comfort and the Incidence of Overuse Injuries , 2004, Foot & ankle international.

[4]  H. Laerhoven,et al.  A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children's questionnaires , 2004, Acta paediatrica.

[5]  Ross D Crosby,et al.  Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  A. Mündermann,et al.  Development of a reliable method to assess footwear comfort during running. , 2002, Gait & posture.

[7]  B M Nigg,et al.  Relationship between footwear comfort of shoe inserts and anthropometric and sensory factors. , 2001, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[8]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. , 2001, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[9]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Minimal clinically important difference module: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[10]  B M Nigg,et al.  Influence of Foot, Leg and Shoe Characteristics on Subjective Comfort , 2000, Foot & ankle international.

[11]  B M Nigg,et al.  Current Issues in the Design of Running and Court Shoes , 2000, Sportverletzung Sportschaden : Organ der Gesellschaft fur Orthopadisch-Traumatologische Sportmedizin.

[12]  W. Tierney,et al.  Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  Y. Yoshihuku,et al.  Ethnic differences in forefoot shape and the determination of shoe comfort. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[14]  D. Redelmeier,et al.  Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements. An illustration in rheumatology. , 1993, Archives of internal medicine.

[15]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient's perspective. , 1993, The Journal of rheumatology.

[16]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[17]  G. Guyatt,et al.  A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.