JAPMA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cornwall, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cornwall, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, J.
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association
Volume 98 Number 1 7-13 2008
Copyright © 2008 American Podiatric Medical Association

Reliability of the Modified Foot Posture Index

Mark W. Cornwall, PT, PhD, CPed *, Thomas G. McPoil, PT, PhD, ATC *, Michael Lebec, PT, PhD *, Bill Vicenzino, BPhty, GradDipSportsPhty, MSc, PhD {dagger} and Jodi Wilson, BA {ddagger}

* Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Program in Physical Therapy, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
{dagger} Department of Physiotherapy, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
{ddagger} Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Program in Physical Therapy, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Corresponding author: Mark W. Cornwall, PT, PhD, CPed, Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Program in Physical Therapy, Northern Arizona University, PO Box 15105, Flagstaff, AZ 86011.

Abstract

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. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 98(1): 7–13, 2008)






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Podiatric Medical Association.