Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Another bl....y outcome measure for the foot

Discussion in 'General Issues and Discussion Forum' started by Craig Payne, Oct 1, 2005.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Validation of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons Scoring Scales.
    Cook JJ, Cook EA, Rosenblum BI, Landsman AS, Roukis TS.
    J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011 Apr 27. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  2. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Active Member

    Measuring the Rothbarts Foot

    Here is a double blind randomized study at Georgia State University to determine the accuracy of measuring the Rothbarts Foot:


    Discussion: Orthosis prescription for forefoot posting is commonly based upon measures of the forefoot performed on a non-weight bearing foot. However, the relationship of measures of the unloaded foot to determine orthosis prescription for compensatory forefoot function during gait is still in question. Another approach [originally introduced by Dr Brian A Rothbart] to determine orthosis prescription is to, [using microwedges], measure the height of forefoot posting necessary to prevent excessive pronation of the subtalar joint during weight bearing.

    Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the intrarater, interrater and day-to-day reliability of forefoot measures during an active, weight bearing movement. Methodology:

    Study: Thirty-two volunteers, 18 females (mean age 38.9 ± 15.3 yr) and 18 males (mean age 44.8 ± 20.6 yr) participated in the study. Four examiners performed repeated forefoot measures on both feet using the weight bearing technique during two test sessions separated by a week. Intrarater and interrater reliability (ICC (3,1)) ranged from 0.90 to 0.95 and 0.87 to 0.94, respectively. Day-to-day reliability (ICC (1,1)) ranged from 0.84 to 0.88 for all measures.

    Conclusion: The weight bearing method used in this study to determine forefoot posting is reliable. The acceptable reliability of this method justifies the need for future investigations of the validity and the clinical efficacy of this technique for orthosis prescription.

    The Cummings study was an, independent, double blind study. It established the accuracy and inter/intra-rater reliability of the PMSv measurements. This same measuring technique is used today in the differential diagnosis for the differential diagnosis of Rothbarts Foot.

    Cummings GS, Higbie, EJ 1997 A weight bearing method for determining forefoot posting for orthotic fabrication. Physiotherapy Research International, Vol 2(1):42-50. [This study was funded by a grant from the College of Health Sciences at Georgia State University]
     
  3. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Re: Measuring the Rothbarts Foot

    Brian,

    I think you are confused - the above is not a double blind randomised study. It is a reliability study.

    Ian
     
  4. Brian A. Rothbart

    Brian A. Rothbart Active Member

    Dear Ian,

    Thanks for the correction. It is a reliability study. Also, forgot to give the publication of the study (see below).

    Cummings GS, Higbie, EJ 1997 A weight bearing method for determining forefoot posting for orthotic fabrication. Physiotherapy Research International, Vol 2(1):42-50. [This study was funded by a grant from the College of Health Sciences at Georgia State University]
     
  5. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Responsiveness of the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) in individuals with diabetes.
    Kivlan BR, Martin RL, Wukich DK.
    Foot (Edinb). 2011 May 6. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  6. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The MOXFQ patient-reported questionnaire: Assessment of data quality, reliability and validity in relation to foot and ankle surgery.
    Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, Jenkinson C.
    Foot (Edinb). 2011 May 20. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  7. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The Foot Heath Status Questionnaire—Correct scale score calculation
    Paul Bennett
    Volume 21, Issue 2, Page 106 (June 2011)
     
  8. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Development of the patient-based outcome instrument for the foot and ankle. Part 1: project description and evaluation of the outcome instrument version 1.
    Niki H, Tatsunami S, Haraguchi N, Aoki T, Okuda R, Suda Y, Takao M, Tanaka Y.
    J Orthop Sci. 2011 Jul 14. [Epub ahead of print]
    Development of the patient-based outcome instrument for foot and ankle: part 2: results from the second field survey: validity of the outcome instrument for the foot and ankle version 2.
    Niki H, Tatsunami S, Haraguchi N, Aoki T, Okuda R, Suda Y, Takao M, Tanaka Y.
    J Orthop Sci. 2011 Jul 14. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  9. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Normative data of the Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS FA) for pathological conditions
    Foot and Ankle Surgery Volume 17, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages 166-172
     
  10. Jonathan

    Jonathan Active Member

    NewsBot -

    Stop it - go buy yourself a beer and relax
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2011
  11. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Visual analogue scale foot and ankle: validity and reliability of Thai version of the new outcome score in subjective form.
    Angthong C, Chernchujit B, Suntharapa T, Harnroongroj T.
    J Med Assoc Thai. 2011 Aug;94(8):952-7.
     
  12. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Lower Limb Functional Index: Development and Clinimetric Properties
    Charles Philip Gabel, Markus Melloh, Brendan Burkett and Lori A. Michener
    Physical Therapy January 2012 vol. 92 no. 1 98-110
     
  13. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS).
    Cöster M, Karlsson MK, Nilsson JA.
    Acta Orthop. 2012 Feb 8.

     
  14. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Lower Extremity-Specific Measures of Disability and Outcomes in Orthopaedic Surgery
    J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(5):468-477 doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01822
    Matthew V. Smith, MD; Sandra E. Klein, MD; John C. Clohisy, MD; Geneva R. Baca, BA; Robert H. Brophy, MD; Rick W. Wright
     
  15. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    A scoring system for the foot and ankle that is acceptable, reliable, valid and responsive.
    Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Jenkinson C, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P.
    Foot (Edinb). 2012 Mar 17.


     
  16. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    A Comparison of the Readability of Two Patient-reported Outcome Measures Used to Evaluate Foot Surgery
    James Alvey, Simon Palmer, Simon Otter,
    Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery
     
  17. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    An analysis of Euroqol EQ-5D and Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire scores six months following podiatric surgery
    Anthony J Maher and Timothy E Kilmartin
    Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:17
     
  18. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    New paradigm for patient-reported outcomes assessment in foot & ankle research: computerized adaptive testing.
    Hung M, Nickisch F, Beals TC, Greene T, Clegg DO, Saltzman CL.
    Foot Ankle Int. 2012 Aug;33(8):621-6.
     
  19. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The Swindon Foot and Ankle Questionnaire: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words?
    Rosemary Waller, Peter Manuel, and Lyn Williamson
    ISRN Rheumatology; Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 105479,
     
  20. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Criterion-Related Validity of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire Regarding Strength and Plantar Pressure Measurements in Elderly People
    Antonio I. Cuesta-Vargas,
    Foot Ankle Spec October 11, 2012
     
  21. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire.
    Cuesta-Vargas A, Bennett P, Jimenez-Cebrian AM, Labajos-Manzanares MT.
    Qual Life Res. 2012 Oct 12.
     
  22. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Pain Dominates Summed Scores for Hindfoot and Ankle Trauma.
    Tornetta BP 3rd, Qadir R, Sanders R.
    J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Oct 30
     
  23. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS).
    Dawson J, Lavis G.
    Acta Orthop. 2012 Nov 11.
    (no abstract available) Full text
     
  24. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Validity and reliability of a self-administered foot evaluation questionnaire (SAFE-Q).
    Niki H, Tatsunami S, Haraguchi N, Aoki T, Okuda R, Suda Y, Takao M, Tanaka Y.
    J Orthop Sci. 2013 Jan 9
     
  25. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Pain Dominates Foot and Ankle Scoring Outcomes
    Paul Tornetta III, MD, Boston, Massachusetts
    Rabah Qadir, MD, Metairie, Louisiana
    Roy W. Sanders, MD, Tampa, Florida
    AAOS Annual Conference 2013
     
  26. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Development and validation of the Sports Athlete Foot and Ankle Score: An instrument for sports-related ankle injuries
    M.L.A. Morssinkhof, O. Wang, L. James, H.J.L. van der Heide, I.G. Winson
    Foot and Ankle Surgery(in press)
     
  27. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Development process and psychometric testing of foot health assessment instrument
    Minna Stolt et al
    Journal of Clinical Nursing; Early View
     
  28. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Validation of PROMIS® Physical Function Computerized Adaptive Tests for Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Outcome Research
    Man Hung PhD, MSTAT, MED, Judith F. Baumhauer MD, MPH, L. Daniel Latt MD, PhD, Charles L. Saltzman MD, Nelson F. SooHoo MD, Kenneth J. Hunt MD
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® June 2013
     
  29. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Foot and Ankle Research
    Kenneth J. Hunt; Daniel Hurwit
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Volume 95, Issue 16 August 21, 2013
     
  30. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Psychometric properties of the foot and ankle outcome score in a community-based study of adults with and without osteoarthritis.
    Golightly YM, Devellis RF, Nelson AE, Hannan MT, Lohmander LS, Renner JB, Jordan JM.
    Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Sep 10
     
  31. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Inter and intra-rater repeatability of the scoring of foot pain drawings
    Benjamin D Chatterton, Sara Muller, Martin J Thomas, Hylton B Menz, Keith Rome and Edward Roddy
    Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2013, 6:44 doi:10.1186/1757-1146-6-44
     
  32. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Evaluation of the Rearfoot Component (Module 3) of the ACFAS Scoring Scale
    Naohiro Shibuya, Ryan T. Kitterman, Daniel C. Jupiter
    Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery; Article in Press
     
  33. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    A systematic review of outcome tools used to measure lower leg conditions.
    Shultz S, Olszewski A, Ramsey O, Schmitz M, Wyatt V, Cook C.
    Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2013 Dec;8(6):838-48
     
  34. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) in forefoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders.
    Cöster MC1, Bremander A, Rosengren BE, Magnusson H, Carlsson A, Karlsson MK.
    Acta Orthop. 2014 Feb 25.
     
  35. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Psychometric Comparison of the PROMIS Physical Function CAT With the FAAM and FFI for Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes
    Man Hung et al
    Foot & Ankle International March 27, 2014
     
  36. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Translation and validation of the German version of the foot and ankle outcome score.
    van Bergen CJ, Sierevelt IN, Hoogervorst P, Waizy H, van Dijk CN, Becher C.
    Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Apr 19.
     
  37. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Validation of the Dutch language version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score
    I. N. Sierevelt, L. Beimers, C. J. A. van Bergen, D. Haverkamp, C. B. Terwee, G. M. M. J. Kerkhoffs
    Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy; May 2014
     
  38. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Comparison of the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS)
    Maria C. Cöster et al
    Foot & Ankle International July 11, 2014

     
  39. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Validity and responsiveness of a self-administered foot evaluation questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis.
    Yano K1, Ikari K, Ochi K, Ishida O, Sakuma Y, Yoshida S, Koyama T, Koenuma N, Momohara S.
    Mod Rheumatol. 2014 Oct 8:1-4
     
  40. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Evidence of Validity for the Japanese Version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure.
    Uematsu D, Suzuki H, Sasaki S, Nagano Y, Shinozuka N, Sunagawa N, Fukubayashi T.
    J Athl Train. 2014 Oct 13
     
Loading...

Share This Page