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: The Foot Posture Index (FPI) has been advocated as a simple and convenient tool to assess static foot posture in a clinical setting. Although published studies have indicated that the FPI has good intrarater reliability and moderate interrater reliability, these studies were conducted on a previous version of the tool that used eight criteria to score a patient’s foot posture. The revised tool has only six criteria (FPI-6). The purpose, therefore, of this study was to investigate the intrarater and interrater reliability of the revised version of the FPI.
Methods: Three different raters used the FPI-6 to twice evaluate 92 feet from 46 individuals.
Results: Intrarater reliability was high but interrater reliability was only moderate. In addition, using the raw score generated by the FPI-6 to classify feet into one of five categories did not improve agreement between raters.
Conclusions: The FPI-6 should be used with extreme caution and may actually have limited value, especially from a research perspective
We done several (usualy FPI relibility data was done as part of the normal reliability of data collection tools). For eg, in:
Quote:
Hazel Noakes and Craig Payne; The Reliability of the Manual Supination Resistance Test; J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2003 93: 185-189
in which 4 examiners on two days looked at 88 feet (two experienced and two inexpieenced tester were used) we reported:
Quote:
The inter-tester ICC’s for the FPI was 0.91 (95%CI = 0.88-0.94) for day one and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.87-0.93) for day two. The intra-tester ICC for the four clinicians was 0.89 (95%CI = 0.84-0.93), 0.89 (95%CI = 0.83-0.93), 0.89 (95%CI = 0.83-0.93) and 0.88 (95% = 0.82-0.92).
This was on the original FPI-8 and not the modified FPI-6
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
We done several (usualy FPI relibility data was done as part of the normal reliability of data collection tools). For eg, in:in which 4 examiners on two days looked at 88 feet (two experienced and two inexpieenced tester were used) we reported:This was on the original FPI-8 and not the modified FPI-6
Are these the studies referred to by Cornwall et al.?
Are these the studies referred to by Cornwall et al.?
Nope.
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
Despite the improvement in the validity of the FPI-6 compared with the FPI-8, information concerning the reliability of the revised tool is not available. Evans et al7 conducted a study of the intrarater and interrater reliability of the FPI-8 in adults and found that intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values for intrarater reliability ranged from 0.72 to 0.86 (mean, 0.809). Standard errors of the mean for the four raters used in their study ranged from 1.1 to 1.5 (mean, 1.3). The interrater reliability ICC value for the four raters was found to be 0.58 (95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.72). In a more recent study by Menz and Munteanu,4 a test-retest ICC value of 0.61 was reported; but, again, this was for the FPI-8 version of the tool.
Quote:
MENZ HB, MUNTEANU SE: Validity of 3 clinical techniques for the measurement of static foot posture in older people. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 35: 479, 2005.
EVANS AM, COPPER AW, SCHARFBILLIG RW, ET AL: Reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures of foot position. JAPMA 93: 203, 2003.
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
Dear All,
Last year we reported excellent intrarater (ICC = 0.81 to 0.92) and good interrater (ICC=0.69) reliability of the revised FPI-6 between an experienced podiatrist, physiotherapist and physiotherapy student (Cain LE. Nicholson LL. Adams RD. Burns J. Foot morphology and foot/ankle injury in indoor football. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 10(5):311-9, 2007).
Is the foot posture index unreliable?
Linear Mode
