Foot posture index
M AUGUST 2005
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual
Acknowledgments
The FPI was developed with funding from the following agencies
The CMT Association of the USA
The Australasian Podiatry Council, Australian Podiatry Education and Research Fund
The Podiatry Education and Research Account of the NSW Podiatrists’ Registration Board.
In-kind support was also provided by the Arthritis Research Campaign
Sincere thanks are due to the following institutions and individuals for their assistance in the development and testing of the FPI
University of Sydney, Australia
University of Western Sydney, Australia University of South Australia
University of Huddersfield, United Kingdom University of Leeds, United Kingdom
Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children, Sydney, Australia Prof Robert Ouvrier Dr Jack Crosbie
Dr Jennifer Peat
Dr Joshua Burns Rolf Scharfbillig Angela Evans
Alex Copper
Anne-Maree Keenan Dr Jim Woodburn Liz Barr
All staff and students at the University of Western Sydney, School of Exercise and Health
Sciences.
All of the other clinicians in the many disciplines who have contributed with their time,
suggestions and expertise in the development of the FPI to date.
About the author
Dr Anthony Redmond is Arthritis Research Campaign lecturer in the Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease at the University of Leeds. He has worked in clinical podiatry and foot-related research for the majority of his career, mostly in multidisciplinary gait and lower limb clinics. The FPI was conceived as a part answer to the recurring clinical problem of assessing gait and foot posture variables reliably in the clinical setting. Work first started on the various iterations of the FPI in 1996, with a more formal approach to the development of the FPI as part of his PhD candidature in the faculty of medicine at the University of Sydney. Various iterations have appeared in the literature? but only this six-item version has completed all validation studies satisfactorily. We now recommend that the use of any previous versions be discontinued.
The validation process is described in full in:
Redmond AC. Foot Posture in Neuromuscular Disease (PhD Thesis) University of Sydney, 2004. Redmond AC., Crosbie J., Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring foot posture: the Foot Posture Index. Clinical Biomechanics (In Press)
FPI manuals and datasheets
The FPI concept and data sheets have been released into the public domain. The datasheets may be copied freely for clinical or research purposes although they should not be altered or adapted without the express permission of the copyright holder. All rights are reserved for this manual/user guide and it should not should be copied or redistributed in any form without the author’s express consent.
Further information can be found on-line at https://www.wendangku.net/doc/5613455974.html,/medicine/FASTER/FPI
A.R. August 2005
?
Redmond A, Burns J, Crosbie J, Ouvrier R, Peat J. An initial appraisal of the validity of a criterion based, observational clinical rating system for foot posture. Journal of Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy 2001;31(3):160.
Payne C, Oates M, Noakes H. Static stance response to different types of foot orthoses. J Am Pod Med Assoc 2003;93(6):492- 8.
Evans AM, Copper AW, Scharfbillig RW, Scutter SD, Williams MT. The reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures of foot position. J Am Pod Med Assoc 2003;93:203-13.
Yates B, White S . The incidence and risk factors in the development of medial tibial stress syndrome among naval recruits. Am J Sports Med 2004: 32 (3): 772-780
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual
The Foot Posture Index (FPI) is a diagnostic clinical tool aimed at quantifying the degree to which a foot can be considered to be in a pronated, supinated or neutral position.
It is intended to be a simple method of scoring the various features of foot posture into a single quantifiable result, which in turn gives an indication of the overall foot posture. The foot posture index rates weightbearing posture according to a series of predefined criteria. The FPI started life as an eight-item draft version, which during a thorough validation process was eventually refined to the six-item version detailed in this manual.
All observations are made with the subject standing in a relaxed angle and base of gait, double limb support, static stance position. This relaxed double limb support position has been reported to approximate the position about which the foot functions during the gait cycle.
The FPI was derived from a search of the literature yielding details of clinical assessment in more than 140 papers. From these 140 papers, 36 distinct clinical measures were identified. In identifying indicators potentially appropriate for use in the FPI, emphasis was placed on indicators that met the following criteria:
a) Measures must be easy to conduct
b) Measures must be time-efficient to perform
c) Using the measures must not depend on costly technology d) The results of the measure must be simple to understand e) Assessment yields quantifiable data (at a minimum of ordinal level)
In addition it was considered essential for the combination of the chosen measures to, between them, measure foot posture in all of the three body planes and to also provide information on rearfoot, midfoot and forefoot segments.
Eight measures were incorporated into a working draft of the FPI and this was refined to six items after a series of validation studies.
The user attaches a score to a series of observations that are routinely used by experienced practitioners. Features commensurate with an approximately neutral foot posture are graded as zero, while pronated postures are given a positive value, and supinated features a negative value.
Introduction
Derivation of the foot posture index
Scoring foot posture
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual
When the scores are combined, the aggregate value gives an estimate of the overall foot posture. High positive aggregate values indicate a pronated posture, significantly negative aggregate values indicate a supinated overall foot posture, while for a neutral foot the final FPI aggregate score should lie somewhere around zero. While the measures are conducted in double limb support each foot should be scored independently.
The six clinical criteria employed in the FPI-6 are: 1. Talar head palpation
2. Supra and infra lateral malleolar curvature
3. Calcaneal frontal plane position
4. Prominence in the region of the talonavicular joint
5. Congruence of the medial longitudinal arch
6. Abduction/adduction of the forefoot on the rearfoot
Full explanations of each of the FPI constituent parts are detailed subsequently, and the derivation of each is referenced and detailed in Appendix 1. Each of the component tests or observations are simply graded 0 for neutral, with a minimum score of –2 for clear signs of supination, and + 2 for positive signs of pronation. Unless the criteria outlined for each of the features are clearly met then the more conservative score should be awarded. It is also to be emphasised that the gradings need to be awarded on the basis of the criteria outlined below. Variation resulting from observations based on ‘clinical feel’ or past experience alone will result in unacceptable inter-observer error.
The patient should stand in their relaxed stance position with double limb support. The patient should be instructed to stand still, with their arms by the side and looking straight ahead. It may be helpful to ask the patient to take several steps, marching on the spot, prior to settling into a comfortable stance position. During the assessment, it is important to ensure that the patient does not swivel to try to see what is happening for themself, as this will significantly affect the foot posture. The patient will need to stand still for approximately two minutes in total, in order for the assessment to be conducted. The assessor needs to be able to move around the patient during the assessment and to have uninterrupted access to the posterior aspect of the leg and foot.
FPI scoring criteria
Using the specified criteria
Preparing the patient
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual
1.Talar Head
Palpation
(Palpation for
talo-navicular
congruence)
Clinical note: This is not an attempt to determine the so-called subtalar neutral position. For the FPI measure the subtalar joint is not manipulated into the position where the head of the talus is in maximal congruence with the navicular. For the FPI measure the head of the talus is simply palpated in the relaxed stance position and the talar head orientation reported.
It may however be useful in some cases to move the foot into inversion and eversion while palpating for the talar head as this can aid in determining wether the head is still palpable in individuals on the border between 1 &2 or –1&-2. This is the only scoring criterion that relies on palpation rather
than observation. The head of the talus is palpated on the medial and lateral side of the anterior aspect of the ankle,
according to the standard method described variously by Root, Elveru and many others. Scores are awarded for the observation of the position as follows.
Diagram showing the position of the fingers when palpating of the head of the talus. The circles indicate the precise point of palpation
on the medial and lateral side.
Score -2 -1
1 2
Talar
head
palpable
on lateral
side/but
not on
medial
side
Talar head
palpable on
lateral
side/slightly
palpable on
medial side
Talar head
equally
palpable on
lateral and
medial side
Talar head
slightly
palpable
on lateral
side/
palpable
on medial
side
Talar head
not
palpable
on lateral
side/ but
palpable
on medial
side
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual
In the neutral foot it has been suggested that the curves should be approximately equal. In the pronated foot the curve BELOW the malleolus will be more acute than the curve above due to the abduction of the foot, and eversion of the calcaneus. The opposite is true in the supinated foot.
Supinated (-2) Neutral (0) Pronated (+2)
Score -2 -1 0 1 2
Curve below the malleolus either straight or convex Curve below
the malleolus concave, but flatter/ more shallow than
the curve above the malleolus
Both infra and supra malleolar curves roughly equal
Curve below malleolus more concave than curve above malleolus
Curve below malleolus markedly more concave than curve above malleolus
2. Supra and
infra lateral malleolar curvature
(Observation
and comparison
of the curves above and below the lateral ankle malleoli)
Clinical note 1: For estimating malleolar curvature, it may be helpful to use a straight edge for reference. This can be a set square, ruler or even a pen
according to availability.
Clinical note 2: Where oedema or obesity obscures the curvature this measures should be either scored at zero or removed from the assessment and indicated as such.
This is an observational equivalent of the measurements often employed in quantifying the relaxed and neutral calcaneal stance positions. With the patient standing in the relaxed stance position, the posterior aspect of the calcaneus is visualised with the observer in line with the long axis of the foot.
Angular measurements are not required for the FPI, the foot is graded according to visual appraisal of the frontal plane position.
Supinated (-2) Neutral (0) Pronated (+2)
Score -2 -1 0 1 2 More than an estimated 5° inverted
(varus)
Between
vertical and an
estimated 5° inverted (varus) Vertical Between vertical and an estimated 5° everted (valgus)
More than
an estimated 5° everted (valgus)
3. Calcaneal frontal plane position
(Inversion / eversion of the calcaneus)
In the neutral foot the area of skin immediately superficial to the TNJ will be flat. The TNJ becomes more prominent if the head of the talus is adducted in rearfoot pronation. Bulging in this area is thus associated with a pronating foot. In the supinated foot this area may be indented.
Supinated (-2) Neutral (0) Pronated (+2)
Score -2 -1 0 1 2
Area of TNJ markedly concave Area of TNJ
slightly, but definitely concave
Area of
TNJ flat
Area of TNJ bulging slightly
Area of TNJ bulging markedly
4. Bulging in
the region of the talo-navicular joint (TNJ)
Clinical note: Bulging of the TNJ area is a common finding in pronated feet. However, true convexity of the area is usually only seen with highly supinated postures. Unless there is a definite indentation,
assigning negative scores to this
observation should
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual
While arch height is a strong indicator of foot function, the shape of the arch can also be equally important. In a neutral foot the curvature of the arch should be relatively uniform, similar to a
segment of the circumference of a circle. When a foot is supinated the curve of the MLA becomes more acute at the posterior end of the arch. In the excessively pronated foot the MLA becomes
flattened in the centre as the midtarsal and Lisfranc’s joints open up.
Neutral (0)
This observation should be made taking both the arch height and the arch congruence into consideration.
Supinated foot (-2) Pronated foot (+2)
Score -2 -1 0 1 2 Arch high and acutely angled towards the posterior end of the medial arch Arch moderately high and slightly acute posteriorly Arch height normal and concentric ally curved Arch lowered with some flattening in the central portion Arch very
low with severe flattening in the central
portion –
arch making ground contact
5. Height and congruence of the medial longitudinal arch
Clinical note: While
simple arch height will usually be the more readily
apparent of the two components of this measure, arch congruence is
probably more subtle and informative. Careful observation of the arch
congruence should be the main element of this measure with arch height factored in secondarily.
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual
When viewed from directly behind, and in-line with the long axis of the heel (not the long axis of the whole foot), the neutral foot will allow the observer to see the forefoot equally on the medial and lateral sides. In the supinated foot the forefoot will adduct on the rearfoot resulting more of the forefoot being visible on the medial side. Conversely pronation of the foot causes the forefoot to abduct resulting in more of the forefoot being visible on the lateral side. Supinated (-2) Neutral(0) Pronated (+2)
Score -2 -1 0 1 2 No lateral toes visible. Medial toes clearly visible Medial toes clearly more visible than lateral Medial and lateral toes equally visible Lateral toes clearly more visible than medial
No medial
toes visible. Lateral toes clearly
visible
6. Abduction/ adduction of the forefoot on the rearfoot.
(Too many toes sign)
Clinical note: This measure should be treated with caution where there is a fixed adduction deformity of the forefoot on the rearfoot in the non-weightbearing state. Normally it is possible to see the toes by the observer raising their angle of view slightly. If the toes are obscured by other structures the mtp
joints or more proximal structures can be used as a guide.
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual FPI total
The final FPI score will be a whole number between –12 and +12. score
In most cases there will be a consistent pattern of scores and the
clinical picture will be immediately clear. However in some patients
there will be a dominance of motion occurring in one of the three
body planes or a difference between the function of the forefoot and
rearfoot.
The foot segments and the body plane measured by each of the
observations are indicated on the FPI data sheet. This allows the FPI
to provide substantially more information than existing single
segment/single plane assessment techniques. While the information
needs careful clinical interpretation based on the clinician’s
knowledge of anatomy and function, the information yielded by the
FPI assessment allows such interpretation to be better informed by
data.
Examples
Example 1. Abnormal frontal plane observations predominate
in a patient, with transverse and sagittal plane measures
reading near neutral.
Getting to know the FPI Example 2. The rearfoot factors may be near less marked in a patient while the midfoot/forefoot observations indicate substantial instability in the midfoot.
In both of these cases the clinician interprets the results to put the foot posture into its clinically relevant context. The clinician may decide to use the FPI as a general overview of the foot function (just using the total score) or conversely he or she may prefer to keep the planar or segmental information disaggregated in order to retain the differentiation of the individual components of the score. Either way the clinician has more information available, upon which to base a decision.
The FPI is designed to be simple to use and for the set criteria to limit variability in scoring. Nevertheless, it is worth developing some exercise with using the measure before applying the scores in earnest.
We recommend that the novice user rates approximately 30 individuals with as broad a range of foot types as possible before using the FPI formally in clinic.
Validation of the FPI The validation of the FPI was conducted in several stages.
Item validity
FPI scores were compared initially to concurrently derived Valgus Index (VI) scores. Ratings of the eight components making up the draft FPI were undertaken for each of 131 subjects (91 male and 40 female aged 18-65 (Mean=33.7 years) while they stood on a
‘pedograph’, ink and paper mat.
In ordinal regression modelling the
FPI-8 total scores predicted 59% of
the variance in VI values (Cox and
Snell R2=0.590, B=0.551, P<0.001,
N=131)
The inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s
α) was 0.834, indicating good inter-
item reliability overall. The individual
coefficients were >0.65 for six of the
eight FPI components. The
components measuring Helbing’s sign
(0.36) and the congruence of the
lateral border (0.20) of the foot
showed poor inter-item reliability.
Principal components analysis yielded two separate factors. The first included seven of the initial eight FPI items. A second factor, explaining 12% of the variance, was mainly a function of the congruence of the lateral border of the foot suggesting that a separate subgroup with variation in foot position independent of the lateral foot contour might be evident.
A Fastrak? electromagnetic tracking (EMT) system
was then used to reconstruct a three-dimensional
lower limb model for the right leg of 20 healthy
volunteers in each of three positions (pronated,
neutral, supinated). The FPI scoring criteria (again
except lateral border shape) predicted between
63% and 80% of the variance in their EMT derived equivalents.
Item reduction
The items Lateral border congruence and Helbing’s
sign had not demonstrated adequate validity and
were removed to produce the final six-item instrument.
Validation of the FPI
Psychometric properties FPI-6 Instrument validity
Once the FPI had been reduced to its final six-item form the validity was evaluated further. Six item FPI scores were compared with contemporaneous EMT data obtained during quiet standing and during normal walking. The FPI-6 scores predicted 64% of the variation in the static ankle/subtalar position during quiet double limb standing(adjusted R2=0.64, F=73.529, P<0.001, N=14). The same FPI-6 scores predicted 41% of the variance in ankle/subtalar position at midstance (R2 = 0.41, F=31.786, P<0.001, N=15).
Reliability
Reliability is a function of the user and patient group being investigated rather than a characteristic of the instrument. The independently reported inter-tester reliability of the original eight item FPI has ranged from 0.62 to 0.91, depending on population, and intra-tester reliability ranges from 0.81 to 0.91
See
Redmond AC. Foot Posture in Neuromuscular Disease (PhD Thesis) University of Sydney, 2004.
Burns J., Keenan A., Redmond AC. Foot type and lower limb overuse injury in triathletes. J Am Pod Med Assoc 2005, 95:3; 235-241.
Payne C, Oates M, Noakes H. Static stance response to different types of foot orthoses. J Am Pod Med Assoc 2003;93(6):492- 8.
Evans AM, Copper AW, Scharfbillig RW, Scutter SD, Williams MT. The reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures of foot position. J Am Pod Med Assoc 2003;93:203-13.
Yates B, White S . The incidence and risk factors in the development of medial tibial stress syndrome among naval recruits. Am J Sports Med 2004: 32 (3): 772-780
The psychometric properties
including uni-dimensionality and
item-functioning have been evaluated
and demonstrated good fit to the
Rasch model. The robustness of its
psychometric properties (High person
separation, no differential item
functioning and good item fit), combined with the number of levels in the scoring scale (25) means that the FPI can be used in studies employing parametric statistical analysis.
See
Keenan AM, Redmond AC, Horton M, Conaghan PC, Tennant A. "The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot specific outcome measure". Health Outcomes 2005: making a difference. Book of Proceedings. 11th Annual National Conference, 17-18 August 2005, Canberra, Australia.
Talar head Supra and infra (Sanner compared medial and lateral malleoli)
References and further reading
palpation
lateral malleolar curvature.
1. Astrom M, Arvidson T. Alignment and joint motion in the normal foot. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1995;22(5):216-2
2. 2. Bevans JS. Biomechanics and plantar ulcers in diabetes. The Foot 1992;2:166-172.
3. Diamond JE, Mueller MJ, Delitto A, Sinacore DR. Reliability of a diabetic foot evaluation. Physical Therapy 1989;69(10):797-802.
4. Elveru RA, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL, Riddle DL. Methods for taking subtalar joint measurements. A clinical report. Physical Therapy 1988;68(5):678-82.
5. McPoil TG, Cornwall MW. Relationship between three static angles of the rearfoot and the pattern of rearfoot motion during walking. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1996;23(6):370-5.
6. McPoil TG, Schuit D, Knecht HG. Comparison of three methods used to obtain a neutral plaster foot impression. Physical Therapy 1989;69(6):448-52.
7. Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB. Rear foot inversion/eversion during gait relative to the subtalar joint neutral position. Foot & Ankle International 1996;17(7):406-12.
8. Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB, Mlynarczyk JH. Proficiency of foot care specialists to place the rearfoot at subtalar neutral. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 1996;86(5):217-23.
9. Picciano AM, Rowlands MS, Worrell T. Reliability of open and closed kinetic chain subtalar joint neutral positions and navicular drop test. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1993;18(4):553-8. 10. Sell KE, Verity TM, Worrell TW, Pease BJ, Wigglesworth J. Two measurement techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1994;19(3):162-7.
1. Merriman LM, Tollafield DR, editors. Assessment of the Lower Limb. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1995.
2. Sanner WH. Clinical methods for predicting the effectiveness of functional foot orthoses. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine & Surgery 1994;11(2):279-95.
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual
1. Astrom M, Arvidson T. Alignment and joint motion in the normal foot. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1995;22(5):216-2
2. 2. Bevans JS. Biomechanics and plantar ulcers in diabetes. The Foot
1992;2:166-172.
3. Coplan JA. Rotational motion of the knee: A comparison of normal and
pronating subjects. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1989;10(9):366-369.
4. Dahle LK, Mueller M, Delitto A, Diamond JE. Visual assessment of foot type
and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1991;14(2):70-4.
5. Diamond JE, Mueller MJ, Delitto A, Sinacore DR. Reliability of a diabetic
foot evaluation. Physical Therapy 1989;69(10):797-802.
6. Donatelli R, Wooden M, Ekedahl SR, Wilkes JS, Cooper J, Bush AJ.
Relationship between static and dynamic foot postures in professional baseball players. Journal of Orthopaedics and Sports Physical Therapy 1999;29(6):316-330.
7. Jahss MH. Evaluation of the cavus foot for orthopedic treatment. Clinical
Orthopaedics & Related Research 1983(181):52-63.
8. Leppilahti J, Korpelainen R, Karpakka J, Kvist M, Orava S. Ruptures of the
Achilles Tendon - Relationship to Inequality in Length of Legs and to Patterns in the Foot and Ankle. Foot & Ankle International 1998;19(10):683-687.
9. Lepow GM, Valenza PL. Flatfoot overview. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine &
Surgery 1989;6(3):477-89.
10. McPoil TG, Cornwall MW. Relationship between three static angles of the
rearfoot and the pattern of rearfoot motion during walking. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1996;23(6):370-5.
11. Merriman LM, Tollafield DR, editors. Assessment of the Lower Limb.
Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1995.
12. Nester CJ. Rearfoot complex: A review of its interdependent components,
axis orientation and functional model. Foot 1997;7(2):86-96.
13. Novick A, Kelley DL. Position and movement changes of the foot with
orthotic intervention during the loading response of gait. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1990;11(7):301-312.
14. Picciano AM, Rowlands MS, Worrell T. Reliability of open and closed kinetic
chain subtalar joint neutral positions and navicular drop test. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1993;18(4):553-8.
15. Sanner WH. Clinical methods for predicting the effectiveness of functional
foot orthoses. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine & Surgery 1994;11(2):279-95.
16. Sell KE, Verity TM, Worrell TW, Pease BJ, Wigglesworth J. Two
measurement techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1994;19(3):162-7.
17. Sobel E, Levitz S, Caselli M, Brentnall Z, Tran MQ. Natural history of the
rearfoot angle: preliminary values in 150 children. Foot & Ankle International 1996;20(2):119-125.
18. Song J, Hillstrom HJ, Secord D, Levitt J. Foot type biomechanics.
comparison of planus and rectus foot types. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 1996;86(1):16-23.
19. Weiner-Ogilvie S, Rome K. The reliability of three techniques for measuring
foot position. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 1998;88(8):381-6.
20. Wen DY, Puffer JC, Schmalzried TP. Lower extremity alignment and risk of
overuse injuries in runners. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1997;29(10):1291-8.
21. Yamamoto H, Muneta T, Ishibashi T, Furuya K. Posteromedial release of
congenital club foot in children over five years of age. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - British Volume 1994;76(4):555-8.
Calcaneal frontal plane position
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual
1. Dahle LK, Mueller M, Delitto A, Diamond JE. Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1991;14(2):70-4.
2. Fraser RK, Menelaus MB, Williams PF, Cole WG. The Miller procedure for mobile flat feet. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - British Volume 1995;77(3):396-9.
3. Gould N. Evaluation of hyperpronation and pes planus in adults. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 1983(181):37-45.
4.
Merriman LM, Tollafield DR, editors. Assessment of the Lower Limb. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1995.
1. Cowan DN, Jones BH, Robinson JR. Foot morphologic characteristics and risk of exercise-related injury. Archives of Family Medicine 1993;2(7):773-7.
2. Dahle LK, Mueller M, Delitto A, Diamond JE. Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1991;14(2):70-4.
3. Fraser RK, Menelaus MB, Williams PF, Cole WG. The Miller procedure for mobile flat feet. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - British Volume 1995;77(3): 396-9.
4. Jahss MH. Evaluation of the cavus foot for orthopedic treatment. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 1983(181):52-63.
5. Lepow GM, Valenza PL. Flatfoot overview. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine & Surgery 1989;6(3):477-89.
6. Merriman LM, Tollafield DR, editors. Assessment of the Lower Limb. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1995.
7. Nester CJ. Rearfoot complex: A review of its interdependent components, axis orientation and functional model. Foot 1997;7(2):86-96.
8. Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA, Talbot KD. Measurement of the medial longitudinal arch. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1995;76(1):45-9.
9.
Sell KE, Verity TM, Worrell TW, Pease BJ, Wigglesworth J. Two measurement techniques for assessing subtalar joint position: a reliability study. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1994;19(3):162-7.
10. Song J, Hillstrom HJ, Secord D, Levitt J. Foot type biomechanics. comparison of planus and rectus foot types. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 1996;86(1):16-23.
11. Weiner-Ogilvie S, Rome K. The reliability of three techniques for measuring foot position. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 1998;88(8):381-6.
12. Spinner SM, Chussid F, Long DH. Criteria for combined procedure selection in the surgical correction of the acquired flatfoot. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine & Surgery 1989;6(3):561-75.
13.
Wen DY, Puffer JC, Schmalzried TP. Lower extremity alignment and risk of overuse injuries in runners. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1997;29(10):1291-8.
Prominence in the region of the talonavicular joint
Height and congruence of the medial longitudinal arch
Foot Posture Index - User guide and manual
1. Dahle LK, Mueller M, Delitto A, Diamond JE. Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1991;14(2):70-4.
2. Fraser RK, Menelaus MB, Williams PF, Cole WG. The Miller procedure for mobile flat feet. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - British Volume 1995;77(3):396-9.
3. Freychat P, Belli A, Carret JP, Lacour JR. Relationship between rearfoot and forefoot orientation and ground reaction forces during running. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1996;28(2):225-32.
4. Jahss MH. Evaluation of the cavus foot for orthopedic treatment. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 1983(181):52-63.
5. Johnson KA. Tibialis posterior tendon rupture. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 1983(177):140-7.
6. Kouchi M, Tsutsumi E. Relation between the medial axis of the foot outline and 3-D foot shape. Ergonmics 1996;39(6):853-861.
7. Lepow GM, Valenza PL. Flatfoot overview. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine & Surgery 1989;6(3):477-89.
8. Merriman LM, Tollafield DR, editors. Assessment of the Lower Limb. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1995.
9. Nester CJ. Rearfoot complex: A review of its interdependent components, axis orientation and functional model. Foot 1997;7(2):86-96.
10. Ross AS, Jones LJ. Non-weightbearing negative cast evaluation. Journal of the American Podiatry Association 1982;72(12):634-8.
11. Sanner WH. Clinical methods for predicting the effectiveness of functional foot orthoses. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine & Surgery 1994;11(2):279-95. 12. Spinner SM, Chussid F, Long DH. Criteria for combined procedure selection in the surgical correction of the acquired flatfoot. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine & Surgery 1989;6(3):561-75.
13.
Yamamoto H, Muneta T, Ishibashi T, Furuya K. Posteromedial release of congenital club foot in children over five years of age. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - British Volume 1994;76(4):555-8.
Abduction/ adduction of the forefoot on the rearfoot.
Foot Posture Index Datasheet
Patient name
ID number
Reference values Anthony Redmond 1998 Normal = 0 to +5
(May be copied for clinical use and adapted
Pronated = +6 to +9, Highly pronated 10+ with the permission of the copyright holder) Supinated = -1 to –4, Highly supinated –5 to -12 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/5613455974.html,/medicine/FASTER/FPI
Foot Posture Index Datasheet
Patient name ID number
Anthony Redmond 1998 Normal = 0 to +5
(May be copied for clinical use and adapted
Pronated = +6 to +9, Highly pronated 10+ with the permission of the copyright holder) Supinated = -1 to –4, Highly supinated –5 to -12 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/5613455974.html,/medicine/FASTER/FPI
FACTOR
PLANE
SCORE 1
Date_______________ Comment___________ SCORE 2
Date_______________ Comment___________ SCORE 3
Date_______________ Comment___________
Left -2 to +2 Right -2 to +2
Left -2 to +2
Right -2 to +2
Left -2 to +2 Right -2 to +2
Talar head palpation
Transverse
Curves above and below the lateral malleolus
Frontal/ transverse
R e a r f o o t
Inversion/eversion of the calcaneus
Frontal
Prominence in the region of the TNJ
Transverse
Congruence of the medial longitudinal arch
Sagittal
F o r e f o o t
Abd/adduction forefoot on rearfoot
Transverse
TOTAL
FACTOR
PLANE
SCORE 1
Date_______________ Comment___________
SCORE 2
Date_______________ Comment___________ SCORE 3
Date_______________ Comment___________
Left -2 to +2 Right -2 to +2
Left -2 to +2
Right -2 to +2
Left -2 to +2
Right -2 to +2
Talar head palpation
Transverse
Curves above and below the lateral malleolus
Frontal/ transverse
R e a r f o o t
Inversion/eversion of the calcaneus
Frontal
Prominence in the region of the TNJ
Transverse
Congruence of the medial longitudinal arch
Sagittal
F o r e f o o t
Abd/adduction forefoot on rearfoot
Transverse
TOTAL