Normative values for the Foot Posture Index

Anthony C Redmond, Yvonne Z Crane, Hylton B Menz, Anthony C Redmond, Yvonne Z Crane, Hylton B Menz

Abstract

Background: The Foot Posture Index (FPI) is a validated method for quantifying standing foot posture, and is being used in a variety of clinical settings. There have however, been no normative data available to date for comparison and reference. This study aimed to establish normative FPI reference values.

Methods: Studies reporting FPI data were identified by searching online databases. Nine authors contributed anonymised versions of their original datasets comprising 1648 individual observations. The datasets included information relating to centre, age, gender, pathology (if relevant), FPI scores and body mass index (BMI) where available. FPI total scores were transformed to interval logit scores as per the Rasch model and normal ranges were defined. Comparisons between groups employed t-tests or ANOVA models as appropriate and data were explored descriptively and graphically.

Results: The main analysis based on a normal healthy population (n = 619) confirmed that a slightly pronated foot posture is the normal position at rest (mean back transformed FPI raw score = +4). A 'U' shaped relationship existed for age, with minors and older adults exhibiting significantly higher FPI scores than the general adult population (F = 51.07, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the FPI scores of males and females (2.3 versus 2.5; t = -1.44, p = 0.149). No relationship was found between the FPI and BMI. Systematic differences from the adult normals were confirmed in patients with neurogenic and idiopathic cavus (F = 216.981, p < 0.001), indicating some sensitivity of the instrument to detect a posturally pathological population.

Conclusion: A set of population norms for children, adults and older people have been derived from a large sample. Foot posture is related to age and the presence of pathology, but not influenced by gender or BMI. The normative values identified may assist in classifying foot type for the purpose of research and clinical decision making.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scatterplot of FPI scores according to age.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Histograms of FPI scores for minors, adults and older adults. Dashed lines represent means.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Boxplots of FPI scores according to presence of pathology. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals and horizontal lines represent medians.

References

    1. Nigg BM, Cole GK, Nachbauer W. Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running. J Biomech. 1993;26:909–916. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(93)90053-H.
    1. Nawoczenski DA, Saltzman CL, Cook TM. The effect of foot structure on the three-dimensional kinematic coupling behavior of the leg and rearfoot. Phys Ther. 1998;78:404–416.
    1. Dahle LK, Mueller M, Delitto A, Diamond JE. Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1991;14:70–74.
    1. Cowan DN, Jones BH, Robinson JR. Foot morphologic characteristics and risk of exercise-related injury. Arch Fam Med. 1993;2:773–777. doi: 10.1001/archfami.2.7.773.
    1. Razeghi M, Batt ME. Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture. 2002;15:282–291. doi: 10.1016/S0966-6362(01)00151-5.
    1. Cowan DN, Robinson JR, Jones BH. Consistency of visual assessment of arch height among clinicians. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15:213–217.
    1. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech. 1987;20:547–551. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(87)90255-7.
    1. Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M. The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg. 1987;69A:426–428.
    1. Sell K, Verity TM, Worrell TW, Pease BJ, Wigglesworth J. Two measurement techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994;19:162–167.
    1. Sobel E, Levitz S, Caselli M, Brentnall Z, Tran M. Natural history of the rearfoot angle: preliminary values in 150 children. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20:119–125.
    1. Mueller MJ, Host JV, Norton BJ. Navicular drop as a composite measure of excessive pronation. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1993;83:198–202.
    1. Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: The Foot Posture Index. Clin Biomech. 2006;21:89–98. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.08.002.
    1. Keenan AM, Redmond AC, Horton M, Conaghan PG, Tennant A. The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot-specific outcome measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:88–93. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.005.
    1. Redmond AC, Burns J, Crosbie J, Ouvrier R. An initial appraisal of the validity of a criterion based, observational clinical rating system for foot posture. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2001;31:160.
    1. Scharfbillig R, Evans AM, Copper AW, Williams M, Scutter S, Iasiello H, Redmond A. Criterion validation of four criteria of the Foot Posture Index. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2004;94:31–38.
    1. Nube VL, Molyneaux L, Yue DK. Biomechanical risk factors associated with neuropathic ulceration of the hallux in people with diabetes mellitus. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2006;93:185–189.
    1. Noakes H, Payne C. The reliability of the manual supination resistance test. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003;93:185–189.
    1. Rome K, Brown CL. Randomized clinical trial into the impact of rigid foot orthoses on balance parameters in excessively pronated feet. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:624–630. doi: 10.1191/0269215504cr767oa.
    1. Yates B, White S. The incidence and risk factors in the development of medial tibial stress syndrome among naval recruits. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32:772–780. doi: 10.1177/0095399703258776.
    1. Burns J, Keenan AM, Redmond A. Foot type and overuse injury in triathletes. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2005;95:235–241.
    1. Cain LE, Nicholson LL, Adams RD, Burns J. Foot morphology and foot/ankle injury in indoor football. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2006. p. (in press).
    1. Menz HB, Morris ME, Lord SR. Foot and ankle risk factors for falls in older people: a prospective study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006;61:866–870.
    1. Scott G, Menz HB, Newcombe L. Age-related differences in foot structure and function. Gait Posture. 2007;26:68–75. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.07.009.
    1. Moseley AM, Crosbie J, Adams R. Normative data for passive ankle plantarflexion-dorsiflexion flexibility. Clin Biomech. 2001;16:514–521. doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(01)00030-4.
    1. Menz HB, Munteanu SE. Validity of 3 clinical techniques for the measurement of static foot posture in older people. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35:479–486.
    1. Wunderlich RE, Cavanagh PR. Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33:605–611.
    1. Riddiford-Harland DL, Steele JR, Storlien LH. Does obesity influence foot structure in prepubescent children? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:541–544. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801192.
    1. Wearing SC, Hills AP, Byrne NM, Hennig EM, McDonald M. The Arch Index: a measure of flat or fat feet? Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25:575–581.
    1. Burns J, Crosbie J. Weightbearing ankle dorsiflexion range of motion in idiopathic pes cavus compared to normal and pes planus feet. Foot. 2005;15:91–94. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2005.03.003.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe