43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reliability and normative values for the foot mobility magnitude: a composite measure of vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A study was conducted to determine the reliability and minimal detectable change for a new composite measure of the vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot called the foot mobility magnitude.

          Methods

          Three hundred and forty-five healthy participants volunteered to take part in the study. The change in dorsal arch height between weight bearing and non-weight bearing as well as the change in midfoot width between weight bearing and non-weight bearing were measured at 50% of total foot length and used to calculate the foot mobility magnitude. The reliability and minimal detectable change for the measurements were then determined based on the assessment of the measurements by three raters with different levels of clinical experience.

          Results

          The change in dorsal arch height between weight bearing and non-weight bearing, midfoot width between weight bearing and non-weight bearing, and the foot mobility magnitude were shown to have high levels of intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. Normative data are provided for the left and right feet of both the female (n = 211) and male (n = 134) subjects.

          Conclusion

          While the measurements of navicular drop and drift have been used as a clinical method to assess both the vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot, poor to fair levels of inter-rater reliability have been reported. The results of the current study suggest that the foot mobility magnitude provides the clinician and researcher with a highly reliable measure of vertical and medial-lateral midfoot mobility.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A taxonomy for responsiveness.

          Responsiveness is quickly becoming a critical criterion for the selection of outcomes measures in studies of treatment effectiveness, economic appraisals, and other program evaluations. Statistical characteristics, specifically "large effect sizes," are often felt to indicate the relative worth of one instrument over another. However, debates about their meaning led the present authors to propose a taxonomy for responsiveness based on the context of the study concerned. The three axes underlying the classification system relate to: who is this being analyzed for (individuals or groups); which scores are being contrasted (over time/at one point in time); and the type of change being quantified (for example, observed change or important change). It is concluded that responsiveness should be considered a highly contextualized attribute of an instrument, rather than a static property and should be described only in that way. A questionnaire could thus be described as being "responsive to" a given category in the new taxonomy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Two feet, or one person? Problems associated with statistical analysis of paired data in foot and ankle medicine

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Use of the standard error as a reliability index of interest: an applied example using elbow flexor strength data.

              The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEM) are two reliability coefficients that are reported frequently. Both measures are related; however, they define distinctly different properties. The magnitude of the ICC defines a measure's ability to discriminate among subjects, and the SEM quantifies error in the same units as the original measurement. Most of the statistical methodology addressing reliability presented in the physical therapy literature (eg, point and interval estimations, sample size calculations) focuses on the ICC. Using actual elbow flexor make and break strength measurements, this article illustrates a method for estimating a confidence interval for the SEM, shows how an a priori specification of confidence interval width can be used to estimate sample size, and provides several approaches for comparing error variances (and square root of the error variance, or the SEM).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Foot Ankle Res
                Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
                BioMed Central
                1757-1146
                2009
                6 March 2009
                : 2
                : 6
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Gait Research Laboratory, Program in Physical Therapy, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
                [2 ]Department of Physiotherapy, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
                Article
                1757-1146-2-6
                10.1186/1757-1146-2-6
                2656480
                19267907
                c8b78d7e-168d-4cc1-87c6-37134ee66014
                Copyright © 2009 McPoil et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 4 February 2009
                : 6 March 2009
                Categories
                Research

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article