Abstract

Research Article

Reliability and validity of the Sit-To-Stand Test to assess Global Foot Mobility

Mark W Cornwall*, Carissa Lane, Jennifer Norwood, Sara Patterson and Daniel Strauss

Published: 23 June, 2017 | Volume 2 - Issue 2 | Pages: 066-073

The Sit-to-Stand test (STST) involves comparing the change in a person’s non-weight-bearing and weight-bearing foot posture to quickly classify a person’s overall foot mobility. Despite the simplicity of the test, its reliability and validity has not been established. The purpose of this study is to determine the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the STST as well as its validity. Ninety-seven subjects with a mean age of 25 years (±3.7) participated in the study. Each subject’s foot posture from non-weight-bearing to weight-bearing was evaluated by two different raters. Each rater classified each subject’s change in foot posture as “Hypomobile”, “Normal” or “Hypermobile”. This same procedure was repeated approximately one week later without the raters being able to review what their original classification for that subject had been. The subjects also had their foot mobility quantified by measuring the height and width of their dorsal arch in both non-weight-bearing and weight-bearing. These quantitative measures of foot mobility were then classified as “Hypomobile”, “Normal”, or “Hypermobile” using quartiles. A series of Cohen’s Kappa coefficients were used to assess the amount of agreement between the visual classifications by each rater as well as the classification between the observational and objective classifications. The between-day Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.613 to 0.719 and the inter-rater Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.473 to 0.531. The Kappa coefficients between the visual and quantitative classifications ranged from 0.281 to 0.436. The STST should therefore be used with caution because of its moderate between-rater reliability and validity.

Read Full Article HTML DOI: 10.29328/journal.jsmt.1001010 Cite this Article Read Full Article PDF

References

  1. Williams DSB, Tierney RN, Butler RJ. Increased medial longitudinal arch mobility, lower extremity kinematics, and ground reaction forces in high-arched runners. J Ath Train. 2014; 49: 290-296. Ref.: https://goo.gl/8FDw5R
  2. Williams DS, Davis IM, Scholz JP, Hamill J, Buchanan TS. High-arched runner’s exhibit increased leg stiffness compared to low-arched runners. Gait Posture. 2004; 9: 263-269. Ref.: https://goo.gl/BX6TQ3
  3. Wyndow N, De Jong A, Rial K, Tucker K, Collins NJ, et al. The relationship of foot and ankle mobility to the frontal plane projection angle in asymptomatic adults. J Foot Ankle Res. 2016; 9: 1-7. Ref.: https://goo.gl/ffs41s
  4. Barton CJ, Bonanno D, Levinger P, Menz HB. Foot and ankle characteristics in patellofemoral pain syndrome: a case control and reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010; 40: 286-296. Ref.: https://goo.gl/vMqUB5
  5. McPoil TG, Warren M, Vicenzino B, Cornwall MW. Variations in foot posture and mobility between individuals with patellofemoral pain and those in a control group. J Am Pod Med Assoc. 2011; 101: 289-296. Ref.: https://goo.gl/KhqixN
  6. Mills K, Blanch P, Dev P, Martin M, Vicenzino B. A randomised control trial of short term efficacy of in-shoe foot orthoses compared with a wait and see policy for anterior knee pain and the role of foot mobility. Br J Sports Med. 2012; 46: 247-252. Ref.: https://goo.gl/NuV9Vd
  7. Pacey V, Nicholson LL, Adams RD, Munn J, Munns CF. Generalized joint hypermobility and risk of lower limb joint injury during sport: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 1487-1497. Ref.: https://goo.gl/HKJsxP
  8. Sahin N, Ozturk A, Atıcı T. Foot mobility and plantar fascia elasticity in patients with plantar fasciitis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2010; 44: 385-391. Ref.: https://goo.gl/7qNPxS
  9. Reilly KA, Reilly K, Barker KL, Barker K, Shamley D, et al. Influence of foot characteristics on the site of lower limb osteoarthritis. Foot Ankle Int. 2006; 27: 206-211. Ref.: https://goo.gl/EVSvd4
  10. Bandholm T, Boysen L, Haugaard S, Zebis MK, Bencke J. Foot medial longitudinal-arch deformation during quiet standing and gait in subjects with medial tibial stress syndrome. J Foot and Ankle Surg. 2008; 47: 89-95. Ref.: https://goo.gl/DUti9C
  11. Bennett JE, Reinking MF, Pluemer B, Pentel A, Seaton M, et al. Factors contributing to the development of medical tibial stress syndrome in high school runners. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2001; 31: 504-510. Ref.: https://goo.gl/r5TJnp
  12. Loudon JK, Jenkins W, Loudon KL. The relationship between static posture and ACL injury in female athletes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1996; 24: 91-97. Ref.: https://goo.gl/p7GHBH
  13. Brody DM. Techniques in the evaluation and treatment of the injured runner. Orthop Clin North Am. 1982; 13: 541-558. Ref.: https://goo.gl/Cfjcsc
  14. 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: 203-213. Ref.: https://goo.gl/vvLdQi
  15. Picciano AM, Rowlands MS, Worrell T. Reliability of open and closed kinetic chain subtalar joint neutral positions and navicular drop test. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1993; 18: 553-558. Ref.: https://goo.gl/THjZnp
  16. Schultz S, Nguyen DM, Windley T, Kulas AS, Botic T, et al. Intratester and intertester reliability of clinical measures of lower extremity anatomic characteristics: Implications for muticenter studies. Clin J Sports Med. 2006; 16: 155-161. Ref.: https://goo.gl/hDNT8n
  17. McPoil TG, Cornwall MW, Vicenzino B, Teyhen DS, Molloy JM, et al. Effect of using truncated versus total foot length to calculate the arch height ratio. Foot. 2008; 18: 220-227. Ref.: https://goo.gl/u6ZZeu
  18. McPoil TG, Vicenzino B, Cornwall MW, Collins NJ, Warren M. Reliability and normative values for the foot mobility magnitude: a composite measure of vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009; 2: 1-12. Ref.: https://goo.gl/qWcnXe
  19. Hoppenfeld S. Physical examination of the spine and extremities. Appleton-Century Crofts. New York. 1976; 232.
  20. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993; 46: 423-429. Ref.: https://goo.gl/tSr2PN
  21. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174. Ref.: https://goo.gl/AVFipS
  22. Williams DS, McClay IS. Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Phys Ther. 2000; 80: 864-871. Ref.: https://goo.gl/xh412b
  23. Elveru RA, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL. Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting. Subtalar and ankle joint measurements. Phys Ther. 1988; 68: 672-677. Ref.: https://goo.gl/yNn4Ft
  24. Cornwall MW, McPoil TG. Relationship between static foot posture and foot mobility. J Foot Ankle Res. 2011; 4: 1-9. Ref.: https://goo.gl/JKH1be
  25. Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J Foot Ankle Res. 2008; 1: 1-9. Ref.: https://goo.gl/VSe9vK

Similar Articles

Recently Viewed

Read More

Most Viewed

Read More