机构:
No Arizona Univ, Dept Rehabil Sci, Program Phys Therapy, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USANo Arizona Univ, Dept Rehabil Sci, Program Phys Therapy, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA
Cornwall, Mark W.
[1
]
McPoil, Thomas G.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
No Arizona Univ, Dept Rehabil Sci, Program Phys Therapy, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USANo Arizona Univ, Dept Rehabil Sci, Program Phys Therapy, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA
McPoil, Thomas G.
[1
]
Lebec, Michael
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
No Arizona Univ, Dept Rehabil Sci, Program Phys Therapy, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USANo Arizona Univ, Dept Rehabil Sci, Program Phys Therapy, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA
Lebec, Michael
[1
]
Vicenzino, Bill
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Queensland, Dept Physiotherapy, Brisbane, Qld, AustraliaNo Arizona Univ, Dept Rehabil Sci, Program Phys Therapy, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA
Vicenzino, Bill
[2
]
Wilson, Jodi
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
No Arizona Univ, Dept Rehabil Sci, Program Phys Therapy, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USANo Arizona Univ, Dept Rehabil Sci, Program Phys Therapy, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA
Wilson, Jodi
[1
]
机构:
[1] No Arizona Univ, Dept Rehabil Sci, Program Phys Therapy, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA
[2] Univ Queensland, Dept Physiotherapy, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
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.
机构:
Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Human Movement Sci, Rua Silva Jardim 136, BR-11015020 Santos, SP, BrazilUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Human Movement Sci, Rua Silva Jardim 136, BR-11015020 Santos, SP, Brazil
Martinez, Bruna Reclusa
De Oliveira, Juliana Cassani
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Human Movement Sci, Rua Silva Jardim 136, BR-11015020 Santos, SP, BrazilUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Human Movement Sci, Rua Silva Jardim 136, BR-11015020 Santos, SP, Brazil
De Oliveira, Juliana Cassani
Soares Gomes Vieira, Kamila Verlene
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Human Movement Sci, Rua Silva Jardim 136, BR-11015020 Santos, SP, BrazilUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Human Movement Sci, Rua Silva Jardim 136, BR-11015020 Santos, SP, Brazil
Soares Gomes Vieira, Kamila Verlene
Yi, Liu Chiao
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Human Movement Sci, Rua Silva Jardim 136, BR-11015020 Santos, SP, BrazilUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Human Movement Sci, Rua Silva Jardim 136, BR-11015020 Santos, SP, Brazil