> /. \pJava Excel API v2.6 Ba==h\:#8X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial + ) , * `7DC, 4$titletitle[alternative]title[translated]author[google(nobreakline)] contributor[author(nobreakline)]"contributor[scopusid(nobreakline)]date[issued]relation[journaltitle]identifier[issn] citationsidentifier[major]subject(nobreakline) publisheridentifier[thesisdegree]contributor[advisor]relation[ispartofseries]relation[index(nobreakline)]typeabstractidentifier[govdoc]identifier[uri]identifier[doi(doi)]identifier[isbn]identifier[ismn]
identifier ! )X 1JFoot Deformity Measurement Validity: The Relationship between CSI,SAI,RCSP2012P!Y !P!
tTŐYP P!YMastertǽ%Master's ThesisThe purpose of this study was to measure the foot type for a female junior high school student according to CSI (Chippaux-Smirak Index), SAI (Stahelis Arch Index), and RCSP (Resting Calcaneal Stance Position) for foot type, and compare the results of each methods, therefore it is to find the most validity method to measure foot type at school. These would be useful basic material of physical education program application for a foot injury precaution and a foot deformation protection in the physical activity and education of a female junior high school student.
We constructed the experimental group of 133 attending female students of a junior high school located in Gyeonggi province and measured CSI, SAI, and RCSP from their foot prints. A foot shape & deformation, a correlation among foot shapes, a unity modulus among foot shapes, and s pressure distribution are analyzed with measurement results.
Conclusion by the above research methodology and procedure is shown below.
1. Feasibility of foot shape measurement method
1) Foot shape measurement method
SAI and RCSP can be used identically because there is a high agreement between both methods (53.4%) among three foot shape measurement methods. However, RCSP is difficult to a teacher because it needs skilled technique. Therefore, SAI measurement method is the easy approach to a physical education teacher in school field.
2) Dynamic/static measurement
The dynamic measurement method can represent walking features of an actual student better because there appears a significant statistical difference(X2=164.90**,P=0.00) between dynamic and static measurement methods when they ar eprocessed respectively.
2. Real condition of foot deformation
1) Foot deformation condition of female junior high school student
There are pes planus(10.9%), pes rectus(64.7%), and pes cavus(24.4%) of female junior school student s feet measured by SAI measurement method. So, 35.3% of students have foot deformations.
(1) Foot deformation according to weight
Target group is divided into above and below average groups according to their weights, and SAI dynamic foot shapes are inspected. There are pes planus(11.1%), pes rectus(62.0%), and pes cavus(26.9%) below the average, and pes planus(13.4%), pes rectus(68.8%), and pes cavus(17.9%) above the average. There is only a statistically significant difference in pes rectus between two groups(F=-3.46, P=0.03).
(2) Foot deformation according to height
Target group is divided into the above and below average group according to their heights, and SAI dynamic foot shapes are inspected. There are pes planus(12.5%), pes rectus(66.3%), and pes cavus(21.2%) above average, and pes planus(9.8%), pes rectus(61.5%), and pes cavus(28.7%) below average. There is statistically significant difference in pes cavus (F=0.96,P=0.37), but no difference in flat and normal foot.
(3) Foot deformation according to obesity degree
Target group is divided into underweight, normal, overweight, and obese groups according to their obesity degrees and foot shapes are compared.
The underweight group consists of flat foot(7.6%), pes rectus(59.7%), and pes cavus(32.6%), the normal group pes planus(15.1%), pes rectus(69.8%), pes cavus(15.1%), the overweight group pes planus(20.0%), pes rectus(80.0%), but there is no posteriori test in the obese group because of its few number. Increasing Flat foot can be observed from underweight to overweight. So, obesity is the f<actor influencing deformation of pes planus.; lX @ 10 Ő YD <\ \), q-qD((CSI; Chippaux-Smirak Index), q-qD((SAI; Stahelis Arch Index), ɽ
(RCSP; Resting Calcaneal Stance Position) ! )D X X D X `D EX, ) X 1D XՔ t. t ̸| 0<\ X YP ֥ X x ȩ )D Xଐ \. t\ l ̸ X ´\ٳ, !P! , t) )| \ ! \ ȩX 0̸͐\ ǩ` t.
0ĳ YP Y x 133D <\ D l1X, !ȕ q8(Foot Print) !\ q-qD(, q-qD(@ ɽ
D !X. ! | , X Ĭ, X |Xĳ, U%| X.
tX l ) (| X @ L .
1. ! )X 1
1) ! )
8 XX ! ) q-qD(@ ɽ
X |Xĳ И(53.4%) P XX )@ ٳ|XՌ ` D t. 췘 ɽ
@ U\ !D t ( 0 t l\ YP ֥ !P X0 $t . 0| q-qD( !ȕt ֥ !P tXՌ ` ǔ )t| й` .
2) ٳ/ !
q-qD(X ٳ⋅ ! Ŕ Ĭ<\ X\ (t Ь(X2=164.90**, P=0.00), q-qD(X ٳ⋅ ! Ŕ Ĭ<\ X\ (t Ь(X2=78.77**, P=0.00). \ ٳ<\ !XՔ t YX И D ` D t.
2.
1) X
q-qD( ٳ !ȕ<\ !\ X @ q(10.9%), q(64.7%), q(24.4%)<\ И, 35.3% D ǔ <\ Ь.
(1) 4 0x
pX 4| 0<\ tX@ , t<\ D q-qD( ٳ D \ , tX q(11.1%), q(62.0%), q(26.9%)t q(4.3%), q(60.9%), q(34.8%), t q(13.4%), q(68.8%), q(17.9%)<\ Ь. tX@ , t Ĭ<\ X\ (t (F=3.46, P=0.03)
(2) 0x
pX | 0<\ tX@ , t<\ D q-qD( ٳ D \ , tXX q(12.5%), q(66.3%), q(21.2%)t, q(10.0%), q(70.0%), q(20.0%), tX q(9.8%), q(61.5%), q(28.7%)<\ Ь. tX@ , t Ĭ<\ X\ (t (F=0.96, P=0.37).
(3) D̹ĳ 0x
pX D̹ĳ| 0<\ ȴ, , , D̹ 4<\ D DPX.
ȴ@ q(7.6%), q(59.7%), q(32.6%)<\ Ь. @ q(15.1%), q(69.8%), q(15.1%)<\ Ь. @ q(20.0%), q(80.0%), q(0%)t Ь. D̹@ q(0%), q(66.7%), q(33.3%)<\ Ь. D̹pX Y ȴ D X X. ȴ <\ ] qt XՔ D 0 ` @
!"#$%'()*+,-Root EntryWorkbook<SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8&