Skip to main content

Table 4 Rating of reported validity and reliability for foot posture measures and definition of flexible flat foot in paediatric populations

From: Paediatric flexible flat foot: how are we measuring it and are we getting it right? A systematic review

Foot posture measure

Study code

Flat foot definition used

Age range of participants in years

Validity as reported in paediatric population

Reliability as reported in paediatric population

Rating of validity/reliability

(Yes/No/With caution)

Plain film radiograph angles

Calcaneal pitch

[33, 53]

<  20°

4–6 & 8–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

[38]

<  23°

4–18

Nil

Nil

No/No

[31]

≤ 15.4°

7–12

NR [57]

Nil

No/No

AP talocalcaneal

[53]

>  25°

4–6

Nil

Nil

No/No

[33]

>  30°

8–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

Plantarflexion of talus

[53]

>  23°

4–6

Nil

Nil

No/No

Lateral talocalcaneal

[33]

>  45°

8–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

Calcaneal first metatarsal

[38]

145°-170°

4–18

Nil

Nil

No/No

Talus-first metatarsal

[33] [31]

>  4°

7–13

Nil

NR [80], NA [64]

No/No

Foot print indices

Arch index

[35, 54], [36]

≥ 0.26

3–6, 5–13, 4–14

Nil

Nil

No/No

[37]

≥ 0.26

10

NR [58]

Substantial [81], NR [37]

No/Yes

[30, 32, 42]

>  0.26

6–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

Chippaux-Smirak

[46]

≥ 59%

6–9

Nil

Excellent [46]

No/Yes

[34]

>  62.7%

3–7

Moderate [34]

NR [65]

With caution/No

[56]

>  62.7%

3–7

Moderate [34]

Nil

With caution/No

[37],

≥ 45%

10

NR [59]

NR [37]

No/No

[40]

≥ 45%

3–17

Nil

Nil

No/No

[31]

≥ 40%

9–16

Moderate [31]

NR [60]

Nil

With caution/No

Clarke’s angle

[34]

≤ 14.04

3–6

Moderate [34]

Nil

With caution/No

[37]

≤ 20°

10

Nil

NR [37, 59]

No/No

[38]

<  42°

9–16

Excellent [38]

Nil

With caution/No

[55]

<  42°

4–18

Nil

Nil

No/No

[31]

<  29.9°

9–16

Moderate [31],NR [60]

Nil

With caution/No

Staheli arch index

[46]

≥ 1.28

6–9

Nil

Excellent [46]

No/Yes

[34]

>  1.07

3–6

Moderate [34]

NR [65]

With caution/No

[48]

>  1.15

6–10

NR [59, 61]

Nil

No/No

[52]

>  0.89

10–12

Nil

Nil

No/No

Footprint index

[42]

<  0.25

9–12

Nil

Nil

No/No

Martirosov’s K index

[37]

≥ 1.25

10

Nil

NR [37]

No/No

Footprint evaluation

[51]

X > Y

6–17

Nil

NR [66]

No/No

Instep

[45]

100 mm

6–12

Nil

Nil

No/No

Plantar footprint

[49]

≥ 50%

4–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

Static foot measures

Rearfoot eversion

[53]

>  10°

4–6

Nil

Nil

No/No

[33]

≥ 4°

8–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

[47]

≥ 4°

6–13

Nil

NA [67]

No/No

[55]

>  5°

4–18

Nil

Nil

No/No

[39]

>  5°

3–6

Nil

NR [68]

No/No

[41]

> (7° - age)

3–6

Nil

Substantial [41]

No/Yes

Arch Height Index

[47]

≤ 0.37

6–13

NR [62]

Substantial [47]NR [82, 83]

No/Yes

[50]

<  0.31

8–15

Nil

Nil

No/No

FPI-6

[29]

≥ + 6

3–15

Not rated^ [63]

Substantial [69]

With caution/Yes

[28]

≥ + 4

6–11

Nil

Excellent [70]

No/Yes

Navicular height

[42]

<  20 mm

9–12

Nil

Nil

No/No

Other measures

Plantar pressure analysis (FGP)

[53]

54%

4–6

Nil

Nil

No/No

  1. AP – anterioposterior, FPI-6 – foot posture index – 6 item version, NR – not reported in cited text, NA – not available, FGP – foot ground pressure
  2. Notes: See data management for ratings of reliability and validity. *See Additional file 1 for rating parametres. ^RASCH analysis