Event Title

Precision and Reliability of Foot Posture Assessment Using a Seven Segment MSF Model

Mentor 1

Stephen Cobb

Start Date

16-4-2021 12:00 AM

Description

Abnormal foot posture is associated with a multitude of lower extremity injuries. Clinicians use various methods to quantify foot posture, however, the between- and/ or within- tester reliability of many of the measurements is low, limiting their clinical application. Navicular index and arch angle are two measurements identified as having moderate reliability between- and/ or within- testers. The purpose of this study was to investigate between- and within- tester precision and reliability of the two measures assessed using a multi-segment foot model. 10 healthy adults (ages 18-44) participated in the study. Tester one palpated and marked the anatomical landmarks and then recorded their positions using a motion capture system. All markers were removed and tester two repeated the procedure. Each participant returned in one week for a second assessment. Precision measurements for between- and within- testers was calculated using the root mean square of the deviation between the positions of the anatomical landmarks in a trial and the landmarks mean position. Within- and between- tester reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Within- and between- testers precision for the navicular index was 0.013 ± 0.003 and 0.016 ± 0.007, respectively. Within- and between- tester precision for the arch angle was 3.6 ± 0.8° and 5.2 ± 2.8°, respectively. Within- and between- tester reliability for navicular index (within ICC: 0.76; between ICC: 0.71) was moderate to good (ICC >0.5). Within- and between- tester reliability for arch angle (within ICC: 0.25; between ICC: 0.3) was poor (ICC <0.5). The multi-segment foot model used in this study can be used to precisely and reliably measure the navicular index. However, the precision and reliability of using the model to measure arch angle was poor. Further research is needed to investigate alternative methods of using the model to quantify arch angle.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 16th, 12:00 AM

Precision and Reliability of Foot Posture Assessment Using a Seven Segment MSF Model

Abnormal foot posture is associated with a multitude of lower extremity injuries. Clinicians use various methods to quantify foot posture, however, the between- and/ or within- tester reliability of many of the measurements is low, limiting their clinical application. Navicular index and arch angle are two measurements identified as having moderate reliability between- and/ or within- testers. The purpose of this study was to investigate between- and within- tester precision and reliability of the two measures assessed using a multi-segment foot model. 10 healthy adults (ages 18-44) participated in the study. Tester one palpated and marked the anatomical landmarks and then recorded their positions using a motion capture system. All markers were removed and tester two repeated the procedure. Each participant returned in one week for a second assessment. Precision measurements for between- and within- testers was calculated using the root mean square of the deviation between the positions of the anatomical landmarks in a trial and the landmarks mean position. Within- and between- tester reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Within- and between- testers precision for the navicular index was 0.013 ± 0.003 and 0.016 ± 0.007, respectively. Within- and between- tester precision for the arch angle was 3.6 ± 0.8° and 5.2 ± 2.8°, respectively. Within- and between- tester reliability for navicular index (within ICC: 0.76; between ICC: 0.71) was moderate to good (ICC >0.5). Within- and between- tester reliability for arch angle (within ICC: 0.25; between ICC: 0.3) was poor (ICC <0.5). The multi-segment foot model used in this study can be used to precisely and reliably measure the navicular index. However, the precision and reliability of using the model to measure arch angle was poor. Further research is needed to investigate alternative methods of using the model to quantify arch angle.