↓ Skip to main content

Are clinical measures of foot posture and mobility associated with foot kinematics when walking?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are clinical measures of foot posture and mobility associated with foot kinematics when walking?
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13047-015-0122-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew K. Buldt, George S. Murley, Pazit Levinger, Hylton B. Menz, Christopher J. Nester, Karl B. Landorf

Abstract

There is uncertainty as to which foot posture measures are the most valid in terms of predicting kinematics of the foot. The aim of this study was to investigate the associations of clinical measures of static foot posture and mobility with foot kinematics during barefoot walking. Foot posture and mobility were measured in 97 healthy adults (46 males, 51 females; mean age 24.4 ± 6.2 years). Foot posture was assessed using the 6-item Foot Posture Index (FPI), Arch Index (AI), Normalised Navicular Height (NNHt) and Normalised Dorsal Arch Height (DAH). Foot mobility was evaluated using the Foot Mobility Magnitude (FMM) measure. Following this, a five-segment foot model was used to measure tri-planar motion of the rearfoot, midfoot, medial forefoot, lateral forefoot and hallux. Peak and range of motion variables during load acceptance and midstance/propulsion phases of gait were extracted for all relative segment to segment motion calculations. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, adjusting for potential confounding variables. The degree of variance in peak and range of motion kinematic variables that was independently explained by foot posture measures was as follows: FPI 5 to 22 %, NNHt 6 to 20 %, AI 7 to 13 %, DAH 6 to 8 %, and FMM 8 %. The FPI was retained as a significant predictor across the most number of kinematic variables. However, the amount of variance explained by the FPI for individual kinematic variables did not exceed other measures. Overall, static foot posture measures were more strongly associated with kinematic variables than foot mobility measures and explained more variation in peak variables compared to range of motion variables. Foot posture measures can explain only a small amount of variation in foot kinematics. Static foot posture measures, and in particular the FPI, were more strongly associated with foot kinematics compared with foot mobility measures. These findings suggest that foot kinematics cannot be accurately inferred from clinical observations of foot posture alone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 161 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Researcher 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 37 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 17%
Sports and Recreations 21 13%
Engineering 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 45 28%