Clinical measures of static foot posture do not agree

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement between common clinical foot classification measures.MethodsStatic foot assessment was undertaken using the Foot Posture Index (FPI-6), rearfoot angle (RFA), medial longitudinal arch angle (MLAA) and navicular drop (ND) in 30 participants (29 ± 6 years, 1.72 ± 0.08 m, 75 ± 18 kg). The right foot was measured on two occasions by one rater within the same test environment. Agreement between the test sessions was initially determined for each measure using the Weighted Kappa. Agreement between the measures was determined using Fleiss Kappa.ResultsFoot classification across the two test occasions was almost perfect for MLAA (Kw = .92) and FPI-6 (Kw = .92), moderate for RFA (Kw = .60) and fair for ND (Kw = .40) for comparison within the measures. Overall agreement between the measures for foot classification was moderate (Kf = .58).ConclusionThe findings reported in this study highlight discrepancies between the chosen foot classification measures. The FPI-6 was a reliable multi-planar measure whereas navicular drop emerged as an unreliable measure with only fair agreement across test sessions. The use of this measure for foot assessment is discouraged. The lack of strong consensus between measures for foot classification underpins the need for a consensus on appropriate clinical measures of foot structure.

[1]  M I Root,et al.  Biomechanical examination of the foot. , 1973, Journal of the American Podiatry Association.

[2]  M. Cramp,et al.  Selected static foot assessments do not predict medial longitudinal arch motion during running , 2015, Journal of Foot and Ankle Research.

[3]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[4]  Mike Horton,et al.  The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot-specific outcome measure. , 2007, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

[5]  Hylton B Menz,et al.  Validity of 3 clinical techniques for the measurement of static foot posture in older people. , 2005, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[6]  Jasper Tong,et al.  Association between foot type and lower extremity injuries: systematic literature review with meta-analysis. , 2013, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[7]  Brody Dm,et al.  Techniques in the evaluation and treatment of the injured runner. , 1982 .

[8]  Mohsen Razeghi,et al.  Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. , 2002, Gait & posture.

[9]  Channa P. Witana,et al.  Foot arch characterization: a review, a new metric, and a comparison. , 2010, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[10]  M. L. Root,et al.  Normal and abnormal function of the foot , 1977 .

[11]  Mukta N. Joshi,et al.  The relationship among foot posture, core and lower extremity muscle function, and postural stability. , 2014, Journal of athletic training.

[12]  Benno M. Nigg,et al.  Footprint Parameters as a Measure of Arch Height , 1992, Foot & ankle.

[13]  H. Menz,et al.  Two feet, or one person? Problems associated with statistical analysis of paired data in foot and ankle medicine , 2004 .

[14]  Jack Crosbie,et al.  Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: the Foot Posture Index. , 2006, Clinical biomechanics.

[15]  H J Hillstrom,et al.  Foot type biomechanics. comparison of planus and rectus foot types. , 1996, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[16]  M. Williams,et al.  Reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures of foot position. , 2003, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[17]  M. Cornwall,et al.  The Optimal Method to Assess the Vertical Mobility of the Midfoot: Navicular Drop versus Dorsal Arch Height Difference? , 2013 .

[18]  A Rezasoltani,et al.  The relationship between the height of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) and the ankle and knee injuries in professional runners. , 2008, Foot.

[19]  J. Cobey,et al.  Standardizing Methods of Measurement of Foot Shape by Including the Effects of Subtalar Rotation , 1981, Foot & ankle.

[20]  M T Gross,et al.  Intraexaminer reliability, interexaminer reliability, and mean values for nine lower extremity skeletal measures in healthy naval midshipmen. , 1997, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[21]  Hylton B Menz,et al.  A protocol for classifying normal- and flat-arched foot posture for research studies using clinical and radiographic measurements , 2009, Journal of foot and ankle research.

[22]  D. Upton,et al.  Examining the validity of selected measures of foot type: a preliminary study. , 2004, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[23]  E. Kapreli,et al.  Assessment of foot posture: Correlation between different clinical techniques , 2007 .

[24]  C. Nester,et al.  Inter-assessor reliability of practice based biomechanical assessment of the foot and ankle , 2012, Journal of Foot and Ankle Research.

[25]  T G McPoil,et al.  Evaluation and management of foot and ankle disorders: present problems and future directions. , 1995, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[26]  T. Worrell,et al.  Reliability of open and closed kinetic chain subtalar joint neutral positions and navicular drop test. , 1993, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[27]  Hylton B Menz,et al.  Normative values for the Foot Posture Index , 2008, Journal of foot and ankle research.

[28]  Anthony C. Redmond,et al.  THE FOOT POSTURE INDEX , 2005 .

[29]  M. Cornwall,et al.  Use of the longitudinal arch angle to predict dynamic foot posture in walking. , 2005, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.