Abstract
BackgroundBoth calliper devices and digital photographic methods have been used to quantify foot arch height parameters. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of both a calliper device and digital photographic method in determining the arch height index (AHI).MethodsTwenty subjects underwent measurements of AHI on two separate days. On each day, AHI measurements during both sitting and standing were taken using the AHIMS and digital photographic methods by the same single tester. The intra-tester reliability of each measurement technique was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Additionally, the relationship between AHI measurements derived from the two different methods was assessed using a correlation analysis.ResultsThe reliability for both the AHIMS and digital photographic methods was excellent with ICC values exceeding 0.86 and SEM values of less than 0.009 for the AHI. Moreover, the reliability of both measurement techniques was equivalent. There was a strong positive correlation between the AHI values collected using both methods. AHI values calculated using the digital photographic method tended to be greater than those derived using the AHIMS.ConclusionDigital photographic methods offer equivalent intra-tester reliability to previously established calliper methods when assessing AHI. While AHI measurements calculated using both methods were highly related, the greater AHI values in the photographic method implied caution should be exercised when comparing absolute values between the two methods. Future studies are required to determine whether digital photographic methods can be developed with improved validity.
Highlights
Both calliper devices and digital photographic methods have been used to quantify foot arch height parameters
Descriptive statistical values for truncated foot length (TFL), dorsal arch (DH) and arch height index (AHI) for both the arch height index measurement system (AHIMS) and photo methods are presented in AHIMS Mean SD
There were no discernible differences between the two measurement techniques in terms of either standard error of measurement (SEM) or intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) values, with both demonstrating excellent reliability
Summary
Both calliper devices and digital photographic methods have been used to quantify foot arch height parameters. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of both a calliper device and digital photographic method in determining the arch height index (AHI). Since the foot transfers these loads further up the kinetic chain, its structure has often been studied in relation to overuse injuries of the lower extremity [13]. The height of the medial longitudinal arch has become a common measurement used to classify foot structure [4,5,6,7]. While radiographic measurements are the gold standard in determining the bony structure of the foot, many research laboratories do not have access to such methods. It is desirable to report reliability within the context of the intended clinical units
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
