Reliability and normative values for the foot mobility magnitude: a composite measure of vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot

Thomas G McPoil, Bill Vicenzino, Mark W Cornwall, Natalie Collins, Meghan Warren, Thomas G McPoil, Bill Vicenzino, Mark W Cornwall, Natalie Collins, Meghan Warren

Abstract

Background: A study was conducted to determine the reliability and minimal detectable change for a new composite measure of the vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot called the foot mobility magnitude.

Methods: Three hundred and forty-five healthy participants volunteered to take part in the study. The change in dorsal arch height between weight bearing and non-weight bearing as well as the change in midfoot width between weight bearing and non-weight bearing were measured at 50% of total foot length and used to calculate the foot mobility magnitude. The reliability and minimal detectable change for the measurements were then determined based on the assessment of the measurements by three raters with different levels of clinical experience.

Results: The change in dorsal arch height between weight bearing and non-weight bearing, midfoot width between weight bearing and non-weight bearing, and the foot mobility magnitude were shown to have high levels of intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. Normative data are provided for the left and right feet of both the female (n = 211) and male (n = 134) subjects.

Conclusion: While the measurements of navicular drop and drift have been used as a clinical method to assess both the vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot, poor to fair levels of inter-rater reliability have been reported. The results of the current study suggest that the foot mobility magnitude provides the clinician and researcher with a highly reliable measure of vertical and medial-lateral midfoot mobility.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Digital Gauge used to measure dorsal arch height in weight bearing.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Plastic portable platform with digital gauge used to measure non-weight bearing dorsal arch height.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Use of modified digital caliper to measure midfoot width in weight bearing.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Foot measurement platform.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Placement of the forefoot using first metatarsophalangeal joint indicator and measurement of total foot length.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Placement of the portable platform under foot plantar surface to permit measurement of non-weight bearing dorsal arch height.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Measurement of non-weight bearing midfoot width using digital width caliper.

References

    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. Cowan DH, Jones BH, Robinson JR. Foot morphology characteristics and risk of exercise-related injury. Arch Fam Med. 1993;2:773–777. doi: 10.1001/archfami.2.7.773.
    1. Song J, Hillstrom HJ, Secord D, Levitt J. Foot type biomechanics. comparison of planus and rectus foot types. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1996;86:16–23.
    1. McPoil TG, Cornwall MW. Use of the longitudinal arch angle to predict dynamic foot posture in walking. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2005;95:114–120.
    1. McPoil TG, Cornwall MW. Prediction of dynamic foot posture during running using the longitudinal arch angle. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2007;97:102–107.
    1. Williams DS, McClay IS. Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Phys Ther. 2000;80:864–871.
    1. McPoil TG, Cornwall MW, Vicenzino B, Teyhan DS, Molloy JM, Christie DS, Collins N. Effect of truncated versus total foot length to calculate the arch height index. Foot. 2008;18:220–227. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2008.06.002.
    1. Menz HB. Alternative techniques for the clinical assessment of foot pronation. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1998;88:119–129.
    1. Brody DM. Techniques in the evaluation and treatment of the injured runner. Orthop Clin North Am. 1982;13:541–558.
    1. Picciano AM, Rowlands MS, Worrell T. Reliability of open and closed kinetic chain subtalar joint neutral positions and navicular drop test. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1993;18:553–558.
    1. Sell KE, 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. Evans AM, Copper AW, Scharfbillig RW, Scutter SD, Williams MT. Reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures of foot position. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003;93:203–213.
    1. Schultz S, Nguyen A-D, Windley T, Kulas A, Botic T, Beynnon B. Intratester and intertester reliability of clinical measures of lower extremity anatomic characteristics: Implications for multicenter studies. Clin J Sport Med. 2006;16:155–161. doi: 10.1097/00042752-200603000-00012.
    1. McPoil TG, Cornwall MW, Medoff L, Vicenzino B, Forsberg K, Hilz D. Arch height change during sit-to-stand: an alternative for the navicular drop test. J Foot Ankle Res. 2008;1:3. doi: 10.1186/1757-1146-1-3.
    1. Cornwall MW, McPoil TG. Relative movement of the navicular bone during normal walking. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20:507–512.
    1. Vinicombe A, Raspovic A, Menz HB. Reliability of navicular displacement measurement as a clinical indicator of foot posture. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001;91:262–268.
    1. Billis E, Katsakiori E, Kapodistrias C, Kapreli E. Assessment of foot posture: Correlation between different clinical techniques. Foot. 2007;17:65–72. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2006.09.005.
    1. Brushoj C, Langberg H, Larsen K, Nielsen MB, Holmich P. Reliability and normative values of the foot line test: a technique to assess foot posture. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37:703–707.
    1. McPoil TG, Vicenzino B, Cornwall MW, Collins N. Variations in foot posture and mobility between individuals with anterior knee pain and controls. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37:A15.
    1. Vicenzino B, Collins N, Cleland J, McPoil T. A clinical prediction rule for identifying patients with patellofemoral pain who are likely to benefit from foot orthoses: a preliminary determination. Br J Sport Med. 2008;337
    1. Shrout P, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Rohner-Spengler M, Mannion AF, Babst R. Reliability and minimal detectable change for the figure-of-eight-20 method of, measurement of ankle edema. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37:199–205.
    1. Rothstein JM. Measurement and Clinical Practice: The Theory and Application. In: Rothstein JM, editor. Measurement in Physical Therapy. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1985. p. 1.
    1. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000;30:1–15. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200030010-00001.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204–1217. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00407-3.
    1. Menz HB. Two feet, or one person? Problems associated with statistical analysis of paired data in foot and ankle medicine. Foot. 2004;14:2–5. doi: 10.1016/S0958-2592(03)00047-6.
    1. Stratford PW, Goldsmith CH. Use of the standard error as a reliability index of interest: an applied example using elbow flexor strength data. Phys Ther. 1997;77:745–750.
    1. Wolf P, Stacoff A, Liu A, Nester C, Arndt A, Lundberg A, Stuessi E. Functional units of the human foot. Gait Posture. 2008;28:434–441. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.02.004.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅