Clinical measures of static foot posture do not agree

Ben Langley; Mary Cramp; Stewart Morrison

doi:10.1186/s13047-016-0180-3

Clinical measures of static foot posture do not agree

Ben Langley, Mary Cramp, Stewart Morrison

University of Brighton

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Background The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement between common clinical foot classification measures. Methods 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 ± 6years, 1.72 ± 0.08m, 75 ± 18kg). 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. Results 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). Conclusion 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.

Original language	English
Journal	Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
Volume	9
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-016-0180-3
Publication status	Published - 1 Dec 2016

Bibliographical note

© The Author(s). 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Access to Document

10.1186/s13047-016-0180-3Licence: Unspecified

art%3A10.1186%2Fs13047-016-0180-3.pdfFinal published version, 675 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{418dbee024a04b00877e42919c2df423,

title = "Clinical measures of static foot posture do not agree",

abstract = "Background The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement between common clinical foot classification measures. Methods 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 ± 6years, 1.72 ± 0.08m, 75 ± 18kg). 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. Results 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). Conclusion 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.",

author = "Ben Langley and Mary Cramp and Stewart Morrison",

note = "{\textcopyright} The Author(s). 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.",

year = "2016",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1186/s13047-016-0180-3",

language = "English",

volume = "9",

journal = "Journal of Foot and Ankle Research",

issn = "1757-1146",

publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical measures of static foot posture do not agree

AU - Langley, Ben

AU - Cramp, Mary

AU - Morrison, Stewart

N1 - © The Author(s). 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

PY - 2016/12/1

Y1 - 2016/12/1

N2 - Background The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement between common clinical foot classification measures. Methods 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 ± 6years, 1.72 ± 0.08m, 75 ± 18kg). 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. Results 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). Conclusion 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.

AB - Background The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement between common clinical foot classification measures. Methods 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 ± 6years, 1.72 ± 0.08m, 75 ± 18kg). 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. Results 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). Conclusion 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.

U2 - 10.1186/s13047-016-0180-3

DO - 10.1186/s13047-016-0180-3

M3 - Article

SN - 1757-1146

VL - 9

JO - Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

JF - Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

ER -

Clinical measures of static foot posture do not agree

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this