Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints

I. Mathieson, D. Upton, A. Birchenough

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In attempting to establish relationships between 'foot-type' and pathology, many researchers have chosen to use parameters calculated from static footprints to define study groups. In this study the ability of such static information to reflect the dynamic foot was investigated by comparing values for three parameters (Stahelis Arch Index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, Footprint Angle) calculated from static and dynamic prints. Three static and three dynamic footprints were obtained for 20 subjects. Reliability of the electronic data collection technique (P < 0.001) was good for all three parameters, while linear parameters displayed greater between-print reliability (P < 0.001) than the angular. Parameters calculated from dynamic prints were found to differ significantly (P < 0.05) from those calculated from static prints, although good correlation's between the two states (P < 0.001) indicate a general dynamic increase of 28%. Further, the Stahelis arch and Chippaux-Smirak indices, both claiming to measure the same condition, correlated very well with each other (P < 0.001). Continued investigation of footprint parameters appears warranted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)145-149
Number of pages5
JournalFoot
Volume9
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Foot
Research Personnel
Pathology

Cite this

Mathieson, I. ; Upton, D. ; Birchenough, A. / Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints. In: Foot. 1999 ; Vol. 9, No. 3. pp. 145-149.
@article{8175b303ab5c41c4bd5be4e474eddafc,
title = "Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints",
abstract = "In attempting to establish relationships between 'foot-type' and pathology, many researchers have chosen to use parameters calculated from static footprints to define study groups. In this study the ability of such static information to reflect the dynamic foot was investigated by comparing values for three parameters (Stahelis Arch Index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, Footprint Angle) calculated from static and dynamic prints. Three static and three dynamic footprints were obtained for 20 subjects. Reliability of the electronic data collection technique (P < 0.001) was good for all three parameters, while linear parameters displayed greater between-print reliability (P < 0.001) than the angular. Parameters calculated from dynamic prints were found to differ significantly (P < 0.05) from those calculated from static prints, although good correlation's between the two states (P < 0.001) indicate a general dynamic increase of 28{\%}. Further, the Stahelis arch and Chippaux-Smirak indices, both claiming to measure the same condition, correlated very well with each other (P < 0.001). Continued investigation of footprint parameters appears warranted.",
author = "I. Mathieson and D. Upton and A. Birchenough",
year = "1999",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1054/foot.1999.0544",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "145--149",
journal = "Foot",
issn = "0958-2592",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "3",

}

Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints. / Mathieson, I.; Upton, D.; Birchenough, A.

In: Foot, Vol. 9, No. 3, 09.1999, p. 145-149.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints

AU - Mathieson, I.

AU - Upton, D.

AU - Birchenough, A.

PY - 1999/9

Y1 - 1999/9

N2 - In attempting to establish relationships between 'foot-type' and pathology, many researchers have chosen to use parameters calculated from static footprints to define study groups. In this study the ability of such static information to reflect the dynamic foot was investigated by comparing values for three parameters (Stahelis Arch Index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, Footprint Angle) calculated from static and dynamic prints. Three static and three dynamic footprints were obtained for 20 subjects. Reliability of the electronic data collection technique (P < 0.001) was good for all three parameters, while linear parameters displayed greater between-print reliability (P < 0.001) than the angular. Parameters calculated from dynamic prints were found to differ significantly (P < 0.05) from those calculated from static prints, although good correlation's between the two states (P < 0.001) indicate a general dynamic increase of 28%. Further, the Stahelis arch and Chippaux-Smirak indices, both claiming to measure the same condition, correlated very well with each other (P < 0.001). Continued investigation of footprint parameters appears warranted.

AB - In attempting to establish relationships between 'foot-type' and pathology, many researchers have chosen to use parameters calculated from static footprints to define study groups. In this study the ability of such static information to reflect the dynamic foot was investigated by comparing values for three parameters (Stahelis Arch Index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, Footprint Angle) calculated from static and dynamic prints. Three static and three dynamic footprints were obtained for 20 subjects. Reliability of the electronic data collection technique (P < 0.001) was good for all three parameters, while linear parameters displayed greater between-print reliability (P < 0.001) than the angular. Parameters calculated from dynamic prints were found to differ significantly (P < 0.05) from those calculated from static prints, although good correlation's between the two states (P < 0.001) indicate a general dynamic increase of 28%. Further, the Stahelis arch and Chippaux-Smirak indices, both claiming to measure the same condition, correlated very well with each other (P < 0.001). Continued investigation of footprint parameters appears warranted.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032878429&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1054/foot.1999.0544

DO - 10.1054/foot.1999.0544

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 145

EP - 149

JO - Foot

JF - Foot

SN - 0958-2592

IS - 3

ER -