↓ Skip to main content

Clinical measures of static foot posture do not agree

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Clinical measures of static foot posture do not agree
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13047-016-0180-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Langley, Mary Cramp, Stewart C. Morrison

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement between common clinical foot classification measures. Static 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. Foot 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). The 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 28%
Student > Master 16 12%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 5%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 36 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 16%
Sports and Recreations 17 12%
Engineering 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 45 33%