Science & Justice
Volume 50, Issue 3 , Pages 113-118 , September 2010

Reliability of a two-dimensional footprint measurement approach

  • Sarah Reel

      Affiliations

    • Dept. of Podiatry, Harrogate District Hospital, Lancaster Park Road, Harrogate HG2 7SX, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +44 1423 553463; fax: +44 1423 553572.
    • ,
  • Simon Rouse

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, York St John University, Lord Mayor's Walk, York YO31 7EX, UK
    • ,
  • Wesley Vernon

      Affiliations

    • Staffordshire University, c/o Jordanthorpe Health Centre, 1 Dyche Close, Sheffield S8 8DJ, UK
    • Tel.: +44 114 2371182; fax: +44 114 2371185.
    • ,
  • Patrick Doherty

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, York St John University, Lord Mayor's Walk, York YO31 7EX, UK
    • Tel.: +44 1904 87632.

Received 7 October 2009 ,Revised 8 November 2009 ,Accepted 15 November 2009.

References 

  1. Cobey JC, Sella E. Standardizing methods of measurement of foot shape by including the effects of subtalar rotation. Foot Ankle. 1981;2:30–36
  2. Hawes M, Sovak D. Quantitative morphology of the human foot in a North American population. Ergonomics. 1994;37:1213–1226
  3. Nikolaidou ME, Boudolos KD. A footprint-based approach for the rational classification of foot types in young schoolchildren. Foot. 2006;16:82–90
  4. Randall FE, Munro EH, White RM. In: Anthropometry of the foot (US Army white male); Report 172. Natick, Mass. USA: Environmental Protection Division, Quartermaster Research and Development Centre; 1951;
  5. Rossi WA. Podometrics: an new methodology for foot typing. J. Test. Eval. 1992;20:301–311
  6. Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M. The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1987;69:426–428
  7. Stavlas P, Grivas TB, Michas C, Vasiliadis E, Polyzois V. The evolution of foot morphology in children between 6 and 17 years of age: a cross-sectional study based on footprints in a Mediterranean population. J. Foot Ankle Surg. 2005;44:424–428
  8. Wearing SC, Hills AP, Byrne NM, Hennig EM, McDonald M. The arch index: a measure of flat or fat feet?. Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25:575–581
  9. Welton EA. The Harris and Beath footprint: interpretation and clinical value. Foot Ankle. 1992;13:462–468
  10. Barker SL, Scheuer JL. Predictive value of human footprints in a forensic context. Med. Sci. Law. 1998;38:341–346
  11. Kippen SC. A preliminary assessment of recording the physical dimensions of an inked footprint. J. Br. Podiatr. Med. 1993;48:74–80
  12. Bodziak W. Footwear impression evidence: detection, recovery, and examination. In: Practical aspects of criminal and forensic investigations. Second ed. CRC Press; 2000;p. 381–411
  13. Borkowski K. Factors influencing the direct identification of a human being on the basis of footprints. In: 16th IAFS Conference I, Montpellier. 2002;
  14. Cassidy MJ. In: Footwear identification. Ottawa: Royal Canadian Mounted Police; 1980;p. 176
  15. Gunn N. New methods of evaluating footprint impressions, R.C.M.P.. Gazette. 1991;53:1–3
  16. Kennedy RB. Ongoing research into barefoot impression evidence. In:  Rich J,  Dean DE,  Powers RH editor. Forensic Medicine of the Lower Extremity: Human Identification and Trauma Analysis of the Thigh, Leg and Foot. Totowa, NJ: The Humana Press Inc; 2005;p. 401–413
  17. Kennedy RB. Uniqueness of bare feet and its use as a possible means of identification. Forensic Sci. Int. 1996;82:81–87
  18. Kennedy RB, Chen S, Pressman IS, Yamashita AB, Pressman AE. A large-scale statistical analysis of barefoot impressions. J. Forensic Sci. 2005;50:1071–1080
  19. Kennedy RB, Pressman IS, Chen S, Petersen PH, Pressman AE. Statistical analysis of barefoot impressions. J. Forensic Sci. 2003;48:55–63
  20. Kerr WG. Seen at the scene—plantar dermatoglyphic use in identification and detection. Br. J. Podiatry. 2000;3:57–60
  21. Laskowski GE, Kyle VL. Barefoot impressions—a preliminary study of identification characteristics and population frequency of their morphological features. J. Forensic Sci. 1988;33:378–388
  22. Qamra SR, Sharma BP, Kaila P. Naked foot marks—a preliminary study of identification factors. Forensic Sci. Int. 1980;16:145–152
  23. Smerecki CJ, Lovejoy CO. Identification via pedal morphology. Int. Crim. Police Rev. 1985;40:186–190
  24. Johnson DJ. In: Ridgeflow of the feet, IAI 93rd International Education Conference. 2008;Kentucky, USA
  25. Sharma BR. Foot and foot wear evidence. J. Indian Acad. Forensic Sci. 1970;9:9–13
  26. Vernon W. The Foot. In:  Thompson T,  Black S editor. Forensic Human Identification: An Introduction. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press; 2007;p. 303–320
  27. Mathieson I, Upton D, Birchenough A. Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints. Foot. 1999;9:145–149
  28. Baumgartner T. Norm-referenced measurement: reliability. In:  Safrit MJ,  Wood TM editor. Measurement Concepts in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 1989. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics Books; 1989;p. 45–72
  29. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310
  30. Bruton A, Conway J, Holgate S. Reliability: what is it, and how is it measured?. Physiotherapy. 2000;86:94–99
  31. Rankin G, Stokes M. Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. Clin Rehabil. 1998;12:187–199
  32. Robbins LM, Gantt R. In:  Thomas CC editors. Footprints: Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation. Ill., U.S.A: Springfield; 1985;p. 67–84
  33. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ. 1996;313:744
  34. National Academy of Sciences, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, 2009.
  35. In: Science Review of the Home Office and Ministry for Justice, Government Office for Science. 2003;p. 1–52
  36. Bowers CM. Problem-based analysis of bitemark misidentifications: the role of DNA. Forensic Sci. Int. 2006;159:104–109
  37. Cole SA. Toward evidence-based evidence: supporting forensic knowledge claims in the post-Daubert era. Tulsa Law Rev. 2007;43:263–283
  38. Mercer D. SSK and law/science encounters involving controversial science and technology: a brief critical overview. In:  Beal A editors. 2002 Yearbook of the Institute of Advanced Studies on Science and Technology. Graz: Profil; 2002;p. 254–272
  39. Pretty IA. The barriers to achieving an evidence base for bitemark analysis. Forensic Sci. Int. 2006;159:110–120
  40. Saks MJ, Faigman DL. Failed forensics: how forensic science lost its way and how it might yet find it. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2008;4:149–171
  41. Sforza C, Michielon G, Fragnito N, Ferrario V. Foot asymmetry in healthy adults: elliptic fourier analysis of standardized footprints. J. Orthop. Res. 1998;16:758–765
  42. Landorf K. Letter to the Editor. Re: Payne C, Oates M, Mitchel A. The response of the foot to prefabricated orthosis of different arch heights. Australasian J. Podiatr. Med. 2002;36(1):7–12Australasian J. Podiatr. Med. 2002;36:49
  43. Menz HB. Two feet, or one person? Problems associated with statistical analysis of paired data in foot and ankle medicine. Foot. 2004;14:2–5
  44. Meyers-Rice B, Sugars L, McPoil T, Cornwall MW. Comparison of three methods for obtaining plantar pressures in nonpathologic subjects. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 1994;84:499–504
  45. Gunn N. Old and new methods of evaluating footprint impressions by a forensic podiatrist. Br. J. Podiatr. Med. Surg. 1991;3:8–11
  46. Dowling AM, Steele JR, Baur LA. Does obesity influence foot structure and plantar pressure patterns in prepubescent children?. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 2001;25:845–852
  47. Hawes MR, Nachbauer W, Sovak D, Nigg BM. Footprint parameters as a measure of arch height. Foot Ankle. 1992;13:22–26
  48. Lin CH, Chen JJ, Wu CH, Lee HY, Liu YH. Image analysis system for acquiring three-dimensional contour of foot arch during balanced standing. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2004;75:147–157
  49. Riddiford-Harland DL, Steele JR, Storlien LH. Does obesity influence foot structure in prepubescent children?. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 2000;24:541–544
  50. Chinn S. Statistics in respiratory medicine. 2. Repeatability and method comparison. Thorax. 1991;46:454–456
  51. State v Jones . Opinion 26699. State of South Carolina: The Supreme Court; 2009;
  52. Sim J. Unreliable reliability analysis. Physiotherapy. 2001;87:612
  53. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26:217–238

PII: S1355-0306(09)00179-8

doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.11.007

Science & Justice
Volume 50, Issue 3 , Pages 113-118 , September 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution