Limits...
A comparison of foot arch measurement reliability using both digital photography and calliper methods.

Pohl MB, Farr L - J Foot Ankle Res (2010)

Bottom Line: AHI values calculated using the digital photographic method tended to be greater than those derived using the AHIMS.While AHI measurements calculated using both methods were highly related, the greater AHI values in the photographic method implied caution should be exercised when comparing absolute values between the two methods.Future studies are required to determine whether digital photographic methods can be developed with improved validity.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, AB, Canada. mbpohl@ucalgary.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: Both calliper devices and digital photographic methods have been used to quantify foot arch height parameters. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of both a calliper device and digital photographic method in determining the arch height index (AHI).

Methods: Twenty subjects underwent measurements of AHI on two separate days. On each day, AHI measurements during both sitting and standing were taken using the AHIMS and digital photographic methods by the same single tester. The intra-tester reliability of each measurement technique was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Additionally, the relationship between AHI measurements derived from the two different methods was assessed using a correlation analysis.

Results: The reliability for both the AHIMS and digital photographic methods was excellent with ICC values exceeding 0.86 and SEM values of less than 0.009 for the AHI. Moreover, the reliability of both measurement techniques was equivalent. There was a strong positive correlation between the AHI values collected using both methods. AHI values calculated using the digital photographic method tended to be greater than those derived using the AHIMS.

Conclusion: Digital photographic methods offer equivalent intra-tester reliability to previously established calliper methods when assessing AHI. While AHI measurements calculated using both methods were highly related, the greater AHI values in the photographic method implied caution should be exercised when comparing absolute values between the two methods. Future studies are required to determine whether digital photographic methods can be developed with improved validity.

No MeSH data available.


The Arch height index measurement device (AHIMS). The heel is placed against the heel cup (A) and the sliding callipers D and C are aligned against the distal phalanx and first metatarsal head respectively. A third calliper (B) is lowered to the dorsal arch at 50% of the FL.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2914096&req=5

Figure 1: The Arch height index measurement device (AHIMS). The heel is placed against the heel cup (A) and the sliding callipers D and C are aligned against the distal phalanx and first metatarsal head respectively. A third calliper (B) is lowered to the dorsal arch at 50% of the FL.

Mentions: A portable instrument for measuring the AHI was custom-built based on the AHIMS developed by Richards et al. [9]. This device consisted of a heel cup and series of sliding callipers and rulers (Figure 1). Subjects began seated with their right hip, knee and ankle joints at 90°. Two blocks (thickness = 4.5 cm) were placed under the heel and metatarsal heads of the right foot leaving the arch unsupported. The left foot was placed 15 cm medial to the right foot on a weighing scale (thickness = 4.5 cm) so that the distal end of the hallux of the left foot was positioned 5 cm behind the heel of the right foot. This ensured a clear view of the medial aspect of the right foot which was required for the digital photographic method (see below). The AHIMS was then placed so that the heel cup was against the heel of the right foot and sliding horizontal callipers were used to measure the foot length (FL) and truncated foot length (TFL) (distance from the heel to first metatarsal head). A vertical sliding calliper was then positioned at 50% of the FL, and subsequently used to measure the height of the dorsal arch (DH). The AHI was calculated as the ratio DH:TFL [6]. The subject then stood up with their weight equally distributed on both feet (50% WB) and the measurements were repeated. A final set of measurements were also taken with the subject standing with 90% of their body weight distributed on the right foot (90% WB). A load of 90% BW on the right foot was achieved by asking subjects to lift their left foot off the weighing scale without leaning to either side, until the scale showed that only 10% BW remained on that foot.


A comparison of foot arch measurement reliability using both digital photography and calliper methods.

Pohl MB, Farr L - J Foot Ankle Res (2010)

The Arch height index measurement device (AHIMS). The heel is placed against the heel cup (A) and the sliding callipers D and C are aligned against the distal phalanx and first metatarsal head respectively. A third calliper (B) is lowered to the dorsal arch at 50% of the FL.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2914096&req=5

Figure 1: The Arch height index measurement device (AHIMS). The heel is placed against the heel cup (A) and the sliding callipers D and C are aligned against the distal phalanx and first metatarsal head respectively. A third calliper (B) is lowered to the dorsal arch at 50% of the FL.
Mentions: A portable instrument for measuring the AHI was custom-built based on the AHIMS developed by Richards et al. [9]. This device consisted of a heel cup and series of sliding callipers and rulers (Figure 1). Subjects began seated with their right hip, knee and ankle joints at 90°. Two blocks (thickness = 4.5 cm) were placed under the heel and metatarsal heads of the right foot leaving the arch unsupported. The left foot was placed 15 cm medial to the right foot on a weighing scale (thickness = 4.5 cm) so that the distal end of the hallux of the left foot was positioned 5 cm behind the heel of the right foot. This ensured a clear view of the medial aspect of the right foot which was required for the digital photographic method (see below). The AHIMS was then placed so that the heel cup was against the heel of the right foot and sliding horizontal callipers were used to measure the foot length (FL) and truncated foot length (TFL) (distance from the heel to first metatarsal head). A vertical sliding calliper was then positioned at 50% of the FL, and subsequently used to measure the height of the dorsal arch (DH). The AHI was calculated as the ratio DH:TFL [6]. The subject then stood up with their weight equally distributed on both feet (50% WB) and the measurements were repeated. A final set of measurements were also taken with the subject standing with 90% of their body weight distributed on the right foot (90% WB). A load of 90% BW on the right foot was achieved by asking subjects to lift their left foot off the weighing scale without leaning to either side, until the scale showed that only 10% BW remained on that foot.

Bottom Line: AHI values calculated using the digital photographic method tended to be greater than those derived using the AHIMS.While AHI measurements calculated using both methods were highly related, the greater AHI values in the photographic method implied caution should be exercised when comparing absolute values between the two methods.Future studies are required to determine whether digital photographic methods can be developed with improved validity.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, AB, Canada. mbpohl@ucalgary.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: Both calliper devices and digital photographic methods have been used to quantify foot arch height parameters. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of both a calliper device and digital photographic method in determining the arch height index (AHI).

Methods: Twenty subjects underwent measurements of AHI on two separate days. On each day, AHI measurements during both sitting and standing were taken using the AHIMS and digital photographic methods by the same single tester. The intra-tester reliability of each measurement technique was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Additionally, the relationship between AHI measurements derived from the two different methods was assessed using a correlation analysis.

Results: The reliability for both the AHIMS and digital photographic methods was excellent with ICC values exceeding 0.86 and SEM values of less than 0.009 for the AHI. Moreover, the reliability of both measurement techniques was equivalent. There was a strong positive correlation between the AHI values collected using both methods. AHI values calculated using the digital photographic method tended to be greater than those derived using the AHIMS.

Conclusion: Digital photographic methods offer equivalent intra-tester reliability to previously established calliper methods when assessing AHI. While AHI measurements calculated using both methods were highly related, the greater AHI values in the photographic method implied caution should be exercised when comparing absolute values between the two methods. Future studies are required to determine whether digital photographic methods can be developed with improved validity.

No MeSH data available.