Publication details
Komparace metod získávání a vyhodnocování plantogramů
| Title in English | Methods of gaining and evaluating plantograms comparison |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2017 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Studia Sportiva |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Keywords | Emed; PodoCam; Chippaux-Šmiřák; Sztriter-Godunov; Method of foot segments; foot arch |
| Description | This paper deals with comparing methods of gaining and evaluating plantograms. The primary goal was to verify similarity of results of plantographic measurements that were carried out on two different platforms – Emed and PodoCam. The second goal of this paper was to evaluate and compare gained plantograms using three methods of evaluating plantograms, specifically Chippaux-Šmiřák (simplified), Sztriter-Godunov and Segment Method. While comparing the platforms we found out, using the Wilcoxon pair test, that plantograms gained on Emed and PodoCam platforms differ significantly. Emed generates plantograms testifying mostly high foot arches, while PodoCam with the same people reports foot arch to be standard or even slightly flat. While comparing three chosen evaluating methods on individual platforms, we primarily used Friedman ANOVA test. We notified statistically significant difference for plantograms gained on the PodoCam platform which Wilcoxon pair test confirmed. For plantograms from the Emed platform Friedman ANOVA did not show any statistically significant difference. Based on the upper mentioned results we recomend to use PodoCam and within the verified evaluating methods we recomend Sztriter-Godunov method. For evaluating high foot arch it would be appropriate to use Chippaux-Šmiřák method. |
| Related projects: |