Identifying clinically meaningful tools for measuring comfort perception of footwear

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

Volumn 42, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1966-1971

  Mills, Kathryn ^a,b   Blanch, Peter ^b   Vicenzino, Bill ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF SPORT   (Australia)

Author keywords

Minimal clinically important difference; Ranking scale; Shoes; Visual analog scale

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; JOGGING; MALE; PERCEPTION; SHOE; WALKING;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; JOGGING; MALE; PERCEPTION; SHOES; WALKING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77957340306     PISSN: 01959131     EISSN: 15300315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181dbacc8     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Au EY, Goonetilleke RS. A qualitative study on the comfort and fit of ladies' dress shoes. Appl Ergon. 2007;38(6):687-696
2. Bradburn N. Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design\For Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass; 2004. p. 200-230
3. Chen H, Nigg BM, De Koning J. Relationship between plantar pressure distribution under the foot and insole comfort. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1994;9:335-341
4. Chen H, Nigg BM, Hulliger M, de Koning J. Influence of sensory input on plantar pressure distribution. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1995;10(5):271-274
5. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395-407.
6. Finestone A, Novack V, Farfel A, Berg A, Amir H, Milgrom C. A prospective study of the effect of foot orthoses composition and fabrication on comfort and the incidence of overuse injuries. Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25(7):462-466
7. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chron Dis. 1987;40(12):1129-1133
8. Hawes MR, Sovak D, Miyashita M, Kang SJ, Yoshihuku Y, Tanaka S. Ethnic differences in forefoot shape and the determination of shoe comfort. Ergonomics. 1994;37(1):187-196
9. Hopkins W. A New View of Statistics [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2009 May 20]. Available from http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html.
10. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407-415
11. Miller JE, Nigg BM, Liu W, Stefanyshyn DJ, Nurse MA. Influence of foot, leg and shoe characteristics on subjective comfort. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(9):759-767
12. Mundermann A, Nigg BM, Stefanyshyn DJ, Humble RN. Development of a reliable method to assess footwear comfort during running. Gait Posture. 2002;16(1):38-45.
13. Mundermann A, Stefanyshyn DJ, Nigg BM. Relationship between footwear comfort of shoe inserts and anthropometric and sensory factors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(11):1939-1945
14. Neuman W. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 6th ed. Boston (MA): Allyn & Bacon; 2005. p. 400-415
15. Nigg B, Nurse M, Stefanyshyn D. Shoe inserts and orthotics for sport and physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999; 31(7 suppl):S421-8.
16. Oppenheim AN. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London (UK): Continuum; 1992. p. 303.
17. Porter SR, Whitcomb ME, Weitzer WH. Multiple surveys of students and survey fatigue. New Dir Inst Res. 2004;121:63-73.
18. Redelmeier DA, Lorig K. Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements. An illustration in rheumatology. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(11):1337-1342
19. Reinschmidt C, Nigg BM. Current issues in the design of running and court shoes. Sportverletz Sportschaden. 2000;14(3):71-81.
20. van Laerhoven H, van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, Derkx BHF. A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children's questionnaires. Acta Paediatr. 2004;93:830-835
21. Wells G, Anderson J, Beaton D, et al. Minimal clinically important difference module: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(2):452-454
22. Wells GA, Tugwell P, Kraag GR, Baker PR, Groh J, Redelmeier DA. Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient's perspective. J Rheumatol. 1993;20(3): 557-560
23. Williams AE, Nester CJ. Patient perceptions of stock footwear design features. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2006;30(1):61-71.
24. Wunderlich RE, Cavanagh PR. Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001; 33(4):605-611
25. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(9):861-873