Gómez Conesa, AntoniaZuil Escobar, Juan CarlosMartín Urrialde, José AntonioMartínez Cepa, Carmen Belén2021-11-052021-11-052018-11-05http://hdl.handle.net/10637/13125En colaboración con: Carmen B. Martínez-Cepa, Jose A. Martín-Urrialde, Antonia Gómez-ConesaEn: Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. e-ISSN 1532-6586 2018, vol 41, n.8, 672-679Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlation among the navicular drop test, the arch angle, the Staheli index and the Chippaux-Smirak index. The reliability and the correlation among the footprint parameters were also estimated. Methods: A cross-sectional study (n = 86; 59.3% women; 27.8 years, standard deviation: 4.8 years) was carried out. The navicular drop test was evaluated and footprint parameters using a plantar pressure platform were recorded in the dominant foot. Pearson correlation coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement, and minimum detectable change were calculated. Results: Both intrarater and interrater reliability were excellent for all the parameters evaluated (intraclass correlation coefficients N 0.880). Statistically significant correlations existed between the navicular drop test and footprints parameters (arch angle = 0,643; Staheli index = 0.633; Chippaux-Smirak index = 0.614). The footprint parameters had excellent correlation with each other (0.838-0.881). The navicular drop test and the footprint parameters studied were reproducible and thus had excellent reliability. Conclusion: The correlations obtained between the navicular drop test and the footprint parameters evaluated were good. The navicular drop test appears to be a reproducible, valid, and simple test for evaluating medial longitudinal arch height, having fewer disadvantages than using footprint parameters.application/pdfenopen accessData AccuracyFootReproducibility of ResultsArtículohttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2018.04.001https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es