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.
Please excuse this posting if you have no interest in the FPI, but I know there are many arena members who have used or seen the FPI in its developmental stages.
After a long gestation period the final, validated version of the Foot Posture Index is about to be published.
The pre-publication version of the Clinical Biomechanics paper is now available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02680033
If you need any further information drop me an email.
Kind regards
Tony
--------------------------------------------
Dr Anthony Redmond
Arthritis Research Campaign Lecturer
School of Medicine, University of Leeds
Address for correspondence:
Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease 2nd Floor, Chapel Allerton Hospital Harehills Lane, Leeds LS7 4SA Tel 0113 392 4914 (Office) Tel 0113 392 2297 (Gait lab) Fax 0113 392 4991 www.leeds.ac.uk/medicine/FASTER/
--------------------------------------------
Congrats .... its been a long hard slog to get it there ...
Now for the bad news .... its just turned up in medline and they left you off as the author!!!:
Quote:
Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: The Foot Posture Index. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005 Sep 20;. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 16182419 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
however, when you click on the link to the abstract, you are listed:
Quote:
Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: The Foot Posture Index.
Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA.
Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease, Rheumatology, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Harehills Lane, Leeds LS7 4SA, United Kingdom; Department of Paediatrics and Child health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia.
__________________
Craig Payne
Department of Podiatry
La Trobe University
Melbourne, Australia http://www.latrobe.edu.au/podiatry
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
The views expressed above are those of the author and not that of La Trobe University This is where I am, where are you?
Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Links
Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: The Foot Posture Index.
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005 Sep 20; [Epub ahead of print]
Due to a programming bug the PubCrawler results
generated over the last week (Sep 22rd, 20:33 till
Sep 30th, 01:20 IST) were corrupted, i.e. the first
author name was never listed.
Mystery solved...
__________________
Craig Payne
Department of Podiatry
La Trobe University
Melbourne, Australia http://www.latrobe.edu.au/podiatry
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
The views expressed above are those of the author and not that of La Trobe University This is where I am, where are you?
Introduction
The limitations of clinical methods for appraising foot posture are well documented. A new measure, the Foot Posture Index is proposed, and its development and validation described.
Methods
A four-phase development process was used: (i) to derive a series of candidate measures, (ii) to define an appropriate scoring system, (iii) to evaluate the validity of components and modify the instrument as appropriate, and (iv) to investigate the predictive validity of the finalised instrument relative to static and dynamic kinematic models. Methods included initial concurrent validation using Rose’s Valgus Index, determination of inter-item reliability, factor analysis, and benchmarking against three dimensional kinematic models derived from electromagnetic motion tracking of the lower limb.
Results
Thirty-six candidate components were reduced to six in the final instrument. The draft version of the instrument predicted 59% of the variance in concurrent Valgus Index scores and demonstrated good inter item reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.83). The relevant variables from the motion tracking lower limb model predicted 58–80% of the variance in the six components retained in the final instrument. The finalised instrument predicted 64% of the variance in static standing posture, and 41% of the variance in midstance posture during normal walking.
Conclusion
The Foot Posture Index has been subjected to thorough evaluation in the course of its development and a final version is proposed comprising six component measures that performed satisfactorily during the validation process. The Foot Posture Index assessment is quick and simple to perform and allows a multiple segment, multiple plane evaluation that offers some advantages over existing clinical measures of foot posture.
Objective
To investigate the internal construct validity of a clinician-assessed measure of foot position, the Foot Posture Index (FPI), versions FPI-8 and FPI-6.
Design
Rasch analysis of baseline FPI scores from studies conducted during the development of the instrument.
Setting
A community-based and a hospital-based study, conducted at 2 institutions.
Participants
Measures were obtained from 143 participants (98 men, 45 women; age range, 8–65y).
Interventions
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures
Rasch analysis was undertaken using RUMM2020 software in order to evaluate the following properties of the FPI: unidimensionality of each item included in the FPI, the differential item functioning (DIF) of each item, and item and person separation indices.
Results
In the developmental draft of the instrument, the 8-item FPI-8 showed some misfit to the Rasch model (χ162 test=27.63, P=.03), indicating lack of unidimensionality. Two items were identified as problematic in the Rasch modeling: Achilles’ tendon insertion (Helbing’s sign), which showed illogical response ordering and “congruence of the lateral border of the foot,” which showed misfit, indicating that this item may be measuring a different construct (χ22 test=15.35, P<.01). All FPI-8 items showed an absence of DIF, and the person separation index (PSI) was good (PSI=.88). The revised FPI-6, which does not include the 2 problematic items, showed unidimensionality (χ122 test=11.49, P=.49), indicating a good overall fit to the model, and improvement over the preliminary version. With the removal of the 2 problematic items, there were no disordered thresholds; all items remained DIF free and all individual items displayed a good fit to the model. The person-separation index for the FPI was similar for both the 8-item (FPI-8=.880) and 6-item (FPI-6=.884) versions.
Conclusions
The original FPI-8 showed significant mismatching to the model. The 2 items in the FPI-8 that were identified as problematic in clinical validation studies were also found to be contributing to the lack of fit to the Rasch model. The finalized 6-item instrument showed good metric properties, including good individual item fit and good overall fit to the model, along with a lack of differential item functioning. This analysis provides further evidence for the validity of the FPI-6 as a clinical instrument for use in screening studies and shows that it has the potential to be analyzed using parametric strategies.
Video based analysis of dynamic midfoot function and its relationship with Foot Posture Index scores.
Nielsen RG, Rathleff MS, Moelgaard CM, Simonsen O, Kaalund S, Olesen CG, Christensen FB, Kersting UG. Gait Posture. 2009 Oct 23. [Epub ahead of print]
Quote:
INTRODUCTION: Various studies have demonstrated significant as well as non-significant relationships between static evaluation of foot posture and injury likelihood. Therefore, the relationship of static and dynamic measures needs to be established as in clinical settings time consuming dynamic methods are often not feasible.
PURPOSE: Assess reliability of a new method to quantify midfoot movement and validate the use of Foot Posture Index (FPI) classification as predictor of dynamic foot function during walking.
METHOD: Foot type was classified using FPI in 280 randomly selected adult participants (mean age 43.4 years). A Video Sequence Analysis (VSA) system was used to quantify midfoot kinematics during walking. Navicula drop (DeltaNH) and minimal navicula height (NHL) were compared with FPI. RESULTS: The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) for DeltaNH and NHL ranged from 0.65 to 0.95 with a coefficient of repeatability of 1.4mm for DeltaNH and 4.5mm for NHL. System precision was estimated at 0.99mm for DeltaNH and 3.18mm for NHL. DeltaNH was significantly positively correlated with FPI scores while NHL decreased with increasing FPI. However, the FPI model predicted only 13.2% of the variation in DeltaNH and 45% of the variation in NHL during walking (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The VSA was proven as a reliable and precise method to quantify midfoot kinematics. FPI scores and individual components of the FPI show strong statistical relationships to dynamic measures but individual predictions remain questionable. Dynamic midfoot measures are recommended for clinical foot assessments.
Foot Posture Index
Linear Mode
