This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
The paediatric flat foot and general anthropometry in 140 Australian school children aged 7 - 10 years
© Evans; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
Received: 21 May 2010
Accepted: 22 April 2011
Published: 22 April 2011
Many studies have found a positive relationship between increased body weight and flat foot posture in children.
From a study population of 140 children aged seven to 10 years, a sample of 31 children with flat feet was identified by screening with the FPI-6. Basic anthropometric measures were compared between subjects with and without flat feet as designated.
The results of this study, in contrast to many others, question the association of flat feet and heavy children. A significant relationship between foot posture and weight (FPI (L) r = -0.186 (p < 0.05), FPI(R) r = -0.194 (p < 0.05), waist girth (FPI (L) r = -0.213 (p < 0.05), FPI(R) r = -0.228 (p < 0.01) and BMI (FPI (L) r = -0.243 (p < 0.01), FPI(R) r = -0.263 (p < 0.01) was identified, but was both weak and inverse.
This study presents results which conflict with those of many previous investigations addressing the relationship between children's weight and foot posture. In contrast to previous studies, the implication of these results is that heavy children have less flat feet. Further investigation is warranted using a standardized approach to assessment and a larger sample of children to test this apparent contradiction.
Over the last decade, the incidence of childhood obesity has increased across the globe [1, 2]. The significance of overweight and obesity in children and relationship to foot morphology, specifically that of "flat feet", has been investigated by numerous authors [2–7]. Obesity is associated with many orthopaedic problems, yet few studies have closely examined the specific influence of excess body mass in children. Typical lower limb complications cited as possibly associated with obesity include: musculoskeletal pain, fractures, increased tibial/genu varum (Blount's disease), slipped capital femoral epiphysis, and a flat foot posture . The paediatric flat foot is a controversial topic within the general community, medical and allied health fields, and has been debated and disputed for decades [8–19]. Despite this, there are huge gaps in our knowledge about flatfoot, as identified by a review .
The definition of flat foot is not standardized, nevertheless, there is general consensus that the height of the medial longitudinal arch is the principal parameter to be observed and measured [2, 21]. The presence of flat footed posture has long been described as a foot abnormality often associated with pain and poor function. For this reason, many parents are naturally anxious to obtain prophylactic advice and treatment if they suspect that their child may suffer from this condition.
Overweight and obesity are well recognized as health problems and have been internationally standardized for children . Previous investigation has found that both overweight and obesity were associated with flat foot posture in 835 children aged three to six years with flat foot found in 51% overweight children, 62% of obese children, and 42% of children of normal weight . A German study used a scanner to investigate the influence of body mass on the development of a child's foot in 1450 boys and 1437 girls aged 2-14 years. This study identified five types of feet: flat, robust, slender, short and long. Flat and robust feet were more common in overweight children, whereas underweight children showed more slender and long feet . Similarly in a study of 1024 Taiwanese children aged five to 13 years, there was significant difference in the prevalence of flatfoot between normal-weight (27%), overweight (31%), and obese (56%) children . Another Taiwanese study sampled 2,083 children, between 7 and 12 years of age, determining the presence of flatfoot from footprints. Using this method, 59% of children were documented with flatfoot. The incidences of flatfoot were: 67% of males, 49% of females, and 75%, 65%, 57%, and 48% of obese, overweight, normal weight, and underweight children, respectively. A preponderance of flatfoot was observed among eight year olds, with males twice as likely to have flatfoot as females. Children who were obese or overweight were found to be 2.66 and 1.39 times more likely to have flatfoot than those of average weight . Similar findings have been found in previous studies conducted on overweight and obese Australian children [3, 5].
Clinicians often disagree about the management of flatfeet [26, 27], partly because there is no standard approach to assessment or classification. This study investigated the relationship between flat foot posture, as rated by the FPI-6 method, and body weight and related anthropometric measurements, in a sample of Australian school children aged seven to ten years.
Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research and Ethics committee at the University of South Australia. Two primary schools in Port Pirie were approached and consented to being involved in the study. Consent forms were returned from the parents of 140 children, aged between seven and 10 years. Gender distribution for the study population consisted of 68 males and 72 females. Demographic data was collected from the returned consent forms as was inclusion (age)/exclusion (no history of foot surgery or congenital disorders) criteria.
The 140 children were assessed by one examiner using the Foot Posture Index (FPI-6) to establish basic static foot posture [28, 29]. The FPI-6 is a scaled instrument widely used to classify foot posture along a 12 point continuum from pronated-normal-supinated. Scores which are positive are pronated, diverging from zero in the direction of a flat foot, where as negative scores indicate a supinated foot posture. Normative data sets show that FPI-6 scores of six and above are indicative of foot types more pronated beyond the mean value/age than the normal range for childhood . The reliability of this examiner's use of the foot posture index has been previously established . Thirty-one children were found to have a FPI-6 raw score of ≥ 6 for both feet  and were deemed to have flat feet .
The following general body anthropometric measurements for each child were made and recorded by an additional research assistant: height, weight and waist girth. Height was measured using a calibrated height gauge, weight using digital read-out scales and waist girth was measured using a standard tape measure . All measures were recorded against each child's allocated identity (ID) code. All measures were performed with children dressed, but with shoes and socks removed.
The recorded assessments yielded both categorical and continuous data. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, frequencies) were used to examine the basic anthropometrical characteristics of the study population. Parametric statistical correlations (Pearson's r) were applied to continuous data, and scatter plots were used to explore and illustrate relationships between parameters. An independent samples t- test was used compare group means for BMI, with Levene's test for equality of variance.
Data were entered and all analyses were performed using constructed data sets in SPSS version 15 (SPSS Science, Chicago, Illinois) and Microsoft Excel 2000 (Microsoft Inc, Redmond, Washington) software packages.
Anthropometric descriptive statistics for the population sample (N = 140), the flatfoot group (n = 31) and the non-flatfoot group (n = 109).
FPI-6 total Left
FPI-6 total Right
Non- flat feet
Non- flat feet
Non- flat feet
Non- flat feet
Non- flat feet
The effect of the outlier (depicted in Figure 1) was investigated for potential to skew the data.
N = 140
110 - 165
17 - 103
13 - 37
53 - 122
N = 139
110 - 155
17 - 63
13 - 26
53 - 96
Children, according to age groups, foot posture and BMI cut-off points.
No. children (-/140 total (%))
No. children with flat feet
No. children without flat feet
BMI - cut off points/age [International Obesity Task Force]
No. of overweight children vs foot posture (-/mean FPI-6 L: R)
No. of overweight children with flat feet
Total no. children
Waist girth correlated significantly with weight (r = 0.938; p < 0.01) and also height (r = 0.664; p < 0.01). Waist girth and foot posture correlations were weak and inverse viz. FPI (L) r = -0.213 (p < 0.05), FPI(R) r = -0.228 (p < 0.01).
The anthropometry results in this study are notable for three main findings. Firstly, there was an overall lack of significant difference in basic anthropometrical attributes found between the flat foot versus the non-flat foot groups. Despite the significant difference in BMI between the flat foot and non-flat foot groups, the disparity in group sizes and the relatively small sample size of this study must be appreciated. However this study did not find the previously postulated/found result, whereby heavier children (i.e. increased body weight) had flatter feet [5, 6, 22–25].
Secondly, the measure of waist girth, commonly used to assess body visceral fat and predictive of secondary increased health risks (e.g. blood pressure, blood lipids, metabolic syndrome)  correlated well with both weight and height (and therefore BMI), which is unsurprising in that taller, heavier children are seen to have greater waist circumference. In comparison to the cut-off values in waist circumference for 90th percentile for children in the US , where the average waist circumference across genders in children aged seven to 10 years was 74.4 cm (range 68.4 - 80.8 cm), the average waist circumference in our study population was 67.4 cm (range 53 - 122 cm); approximately ten percent less. Of greater interest perhaps, was the finding that the measure of waist girth was correlated (if weakly) with foot posture, yet inversely, whereby 'fatter' waists were related to less flat feet. This contrasts to the work of many previous authors including Pfeiffer who, in a larger study than this, found correlation between flat feet and weight/obesity in younger children . This finding is however, supported by previously reported findings in younger children with leg pain (defined as 'growing pains'), which found that children who had growing pains were on average 5% heavier, but had less flat feet .
Thirdly, the FPI-6 scores indicate that a broad range of foot types i.e. supinated to pronated, were encountered within this study group, which is important for the external validity of these findings. The mean FPI-6 scores for the non-flat foot group of the study (n = 109) indicate that the average foot posture is mildly pronated in children aged seven to ten years, which supports the recently compiled normative values for the foot posture index .
Study parameters of the investigations into paediatric foot posture and body mass, show that footprint measures have dominated foot posture assessment.
Year of publication
First author, country
Age of children (years)
Sample size (n)
Method of foot posture assessment
Flat feet related to increased body mass
8 - 9
Footprints, pressure mat
3 - 6
Scanner, rearfoot angle
4 - 5
Footprints, ultrasound measure of heel fat pad
9 - 12
Foot length/width, Navicular height
2 - 14
5 - 13
Footprints, 3D scan
7 - 12
7 - 10
The methods of identifying and classifying foot posture vary greatly between the studies examining this area. Many studies have used foot print measures [2, 3, 5, 25], where in essence, greater surface area is related to lower medial longitudinal arch height. The validity of this widely used assumption remains unfounded however; it is possible that the greater surface area of the foot print is just soft tissue expansion and spread, rather than overt lowering of the medial osseous foot arch per se . Other studies have looked at foot length, width and navicular height  or foot x-rays [2, 21] to assess foot posture. This study employed the FPI-6 to rate subject's foot posture, an observational scale, for which normative values exist . The data set of 1648 individual observations of foot posture (which was used to develop the FPI-6 normative values) in children, adults and older people, found no relationship between foot posture and BMI . It is possible that the use of different foot posture measures may account for some of the discord between the present study's findings and those of other investigators.
The findings of this study are at odds with many other similar investigations, in that not only did it did not find a positive relationship between increased body weight and flatter foot posture, it found the inverse. The sample size, subject ethnicity and assessment method of foot posture may be relevant contributors to this clear disparity, but this warrants further inquiry. Other unidentified variables may also be proponents of altered foot posture in children. A standardized and ideally a validated approach to the assessment of children's foot posture and its relationship to fundamental anthropometry is required to clarify whether any concern about (in particular) children's weight and foot posture is duly warranted.
Angela M Evans is a Senior Research Fellow (adjunct) at the School of Health Science, Division of Health Science, University of South Australia.
The author wishes to thank and acknowledge Hollie Nicholson and Noami Zakaris for assistance with the initial data collection, and Stuart Wood for collegial support.
- Cole TJ, Bellizzi MC, Flegal KM, Dietz WH: Establishing a standard definition for child overweight and obesity worldwide: international survey. BMJ. 2000, 320: 1-6. 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Villarroya MA, Esquivel JM, Tomás C, Moreno LA, Buenafé A, Bueno G: Assessment of the medial longitudinal arch in children and adolescents with obesity: footprints and radiographic study. Eur J Pediatr. 2009, 168: 559-567. 10.1007/s00431-008-0789-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dowling AM, Steele JR, Baur LA: Does obesity influence foot structure and plantar pressure patterns in prepubescent children?. Int J Obes. 2001, 25: 845-852.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- El O, Akcali O, Kosay C, Kaner B, Arslan Y, Sagol E, et al: Flexible flatfoot and related factors in primary school children: a report of a screening study. Rheumatol Int. 2006, 26: 1050-1053. 10.1007/s00296-006-0128-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mickle KJ, Steele JR, Munro BJ: The feet of overweight and obese young children: are they flat or fat?. Obesity. 2006, 14: 1949-1953. 10.1038/oby.2006.227.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Morrison SC, Durward BR, Watt GF, Donaldosn MDC: Anthropometric Foot Structure of Peripubescent Children with Excessive versusNormal Body Mass. A Cross-sectional Study. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2007, 97: 366-370.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Onodera AN, Saccoa ICN, Morioka EH, Souza PS, deSa MR, madio AC: What is the best method for child longitudinal plantar arch assessment and when does arch maturation occur?. Foot. 2008, 18: 142-149. 10.1016/j.foot.2008.03.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Alakija W: Prevalence of flat foot in school children in Benin City, Nigeria. Trop Doct. 1979, 9: 192-194.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bordelon RL: Hypermobile flatfoot in children. Comprehension, evaluation, and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983, Dec: 7-14.Google Scholar
- D'Amico JC: Developmental flatfoot. Clin Podiatry. 1984, 1: 535-546.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ferciot CF: The etiology of developmental flatfoot. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1972, 85: 7-10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gervis WH: Flat foot. BMJ. 1970, 1: 479-481. 10.1136/bmj.1.5694.479.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- McCarthy DJ: The developmental anatomy of pes valgo planus. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 1989, 6: 491-509.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Miller GR: The operative treatment of hypermobile flatfeet in the young child. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1977, Jan-Feb: 95-101.Google Scholar
- Staheli LT: Planovalgus foot deformity. Current status. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1999, 89: 94-99.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sullivan JA: Pediatric flatfoot: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1999, 7: 44-53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Suzuki N: An electromyographic study of the role of muscles in arch support of the normal and flat foot. Nagoya Med J. 1972, 17: 57-79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tareco JM, Miller NH, MacWilliams BA, Michelson JD: Defining flatfoot. Foot Ankle Int. 1999, 20: 456-460.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tax HR: Flexible flatfoot in children. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1977, 67: 616-619.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Harris EJ: The natural history and pathophysiology of flexible flatfoot. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2010, 27: 1-23. 10.1016/j.cpm.2009.09.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kanatli U, Yetkin H, Cila E: Footprint and Radiogeaphic Analysis of the feet. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001, 21: 225-228.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pfeiffer M, Kotz R, Ledl T, Hauser G, Sluga M: Prevalence of flat foot in preschool-aged children. Pediatrics. 2006, 118: 634-639. 10.1542/peds.2005-2126.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mauch M, Grau S, Krauss I, Maiwald C, Horstmann T: Foot morphology of normal, underweight and overweight children. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008, 32: 1068-1075. 10.1038/ijo.2008.52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chen JP, Chung MJ, Wang MJ: Flatfoot prevalence and foot dimensions of 5- to 13-year-old children in taiwan. Foot Ankle Int. 2009, 30: 326-332. 10.3113/FAI.2009.0326.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chang JH, Wang SH, Kuo CL, Shen HC, Hong YW, Lin LC: Prevalence of flexible flatfoot in Taiwanese school-aged children in relation to obesity, gender, and age. Eur J Pediatr. 2010, 169: 447-452. 10.1007/s00431-009-1050-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bresnahan P: The Flat-Footed Child - To Treat or Not to Treat. What is the Clinician to Do?. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2009, 99: 178-View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Evans AM: The Flat-Footed Child - To Treat or Not to Treat. What is the Clinician to Do?. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2009, 99: 179-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Keenan AM, Redmond AC, Horton M, Conaghan PG, Tennant A: The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot specific outcome measure. Rheumatology. 2006, 45: i128-Google Scholar
- Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier R: Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring foot posture: the Foot Posture Index. Clin Biomech. 2006, 21: 89-98. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.08.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB: Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J Foot Ankle Res. 2008, 1:Google Scholar
- Evans AM, Copper AW, Scharfbillig RW, Scutter SD, Williams MT: Reliability of the Foot Posture Index and Traditional Measures of Foot Position. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003, 93: 203-View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Evans AM, Scutter S, Lang LMG, Dansie BR: 'Growing pains' in young children: A study of the profile, experiences and quality of life issues of four to six year old children with recurrent leg pain. The Foot. 2006, 16: 120-124. 10.1016/j.foot.2006.02.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lobstein T, Baur L, Uauy R: Obesity in children and young people: a crisis in public health. Obes Rev. 2004, 5: 4-85. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2004.00133.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee S, Bacha F, Arslanian SA: Waist circumference, blood pressure, and lipid components of the metabolic syndrome. J Pediatr. 2006, 149: 809-816. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.08.075.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Li C, Ford ES, Mokdad AH, Cook S: Recent Trends in Waist Circumference and Waist-Height Ratio Among US Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2006, 118: 1390-1398. 10.1542/peds.2006-1062.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Evans AM, Scutter S: Are Foot Posture and Functional Health different in Children with Growing Pains?. Pediatr Int. 2007, 49: 991-996. 10.1111/j.1442-200X.2007.02493.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.