Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Background: We examined the ability of foot care professionals to consistently capture the forefoot-to-rearfoot angular relationship of a single-cast foot.
Methods: Eleven Canadian certified pedorthists each cast a single foot twice using the plaster of Paris and foam box techniques. Three independent raters subsequently measured the resultant casts. Statistical analysis of the data provided generalizability coefficient estimates (2) of the intracaster, intercaster, and rater reliabilities.
Results: Intracaster reliabilities were excellent when the plaster and foam box techniques were used (2 = 0.831 and 0.939, respectively). The casters were more intrareliable when foam was used (F = 2.755, P = .003). Intercaster reliabilities were poor for both techniques (2 = 0.410 and 0.425). Although, intrarater reliability was excellent (2 = 0.882), interrater reliability was poor (2 = 0.418).
Conclusion: Although plaster of Paris casting is widely perceived by the foot care community as the gold standard, other casting techniques may prove to be equally reliable.
Reliability of casting techniques
Threaded Mode
