目的：內側縱向足弓的高度被認為是影響足部結構和下肢功能的重要因素，尤其是扁平足與高足弓足在下肢疼痛及傷害之發生率比正常足高。足印測量是一種方便的足部量測方法，當前的足印測量工具有電子感應量測與油墨轉印量測等，電子感應量測的儀器使用與資料分析過程較為複雜難以普及，油墨的使用則有不夠環保的問題，因此發展出不使用油墨的新式足印檢測設備。本研究找出不同足印測量工具的相關性，以證實新式足印檢測設備的信度與效度。方法：本實驗收集了39個受試者的 78 個足印（7男、32女）。平均年齡為22.3 ± 1.8歲 ，平均身高為162.1 ± 8.1公分， 平均體重為56.5 ± 11.6公斤。每位受試者的每隻腳皆以新式足印檢測設備及傳統油墨轉印量測重複測量兩次，收集到的足印照片掃描進電腦後，以Sigmascan Pro 5軟體分析出足弓指標及足弓角度。資料的紀錄以平均值標準差表示。所有統計的分析皆以SPSS軟體操作。以皮爾森相關係數檢視兩種不同足印測量的相關性。統計達顯著的標準訂在 α = .01。結果：研究結果顯示新式足印檢測設備及傳統墨水轉印量測在足弓指標的相關性為0.830，達到統計顯著 (p < .01)，在足弓角度的相關性為0.628，達到統計顯著 (p < .01)。先前的研究顯示以足印參數來預測足弓高度具有很高的信度。因此，新式足印檢測設備所測得的足印參數可以應用於預測足弓高度及其他的足部結構參數。結論：新式足印檢測設備與傳統墨水足印檢測之間具有高度統計相關性。這個結果顯示新式足印檢測設備未來可以應用於臨床足部量測，而且和傳統油墨足印檢測比較具有更方便使用以及更環保等優點。未來的研究需要測量更多的受試者以及直接測量足弓高度，以提供更多的證據來支持新式足印檢測設備的使用。

Purpose: The height of the medial longitudinal arch is one of the most important factors to describe foot structure. In particular, people with flat foot and high arch foot have higher injury rate. Footprint is a convenient way to determine foot structure. Current footprint measurement devices use electronic sensor or ink to obtain the footprint which either the analysis process is too complex or the ink is not environmental friendly. Therefore, a new footprint measurement device was developed to determine foot structure without using ink. In order to confirm the accuracy and reliability of this new device, this study tried to determine the correlation between different footprint measurement devices. Methods: 78 footprints were collected from the 39 subjects (7 males, 32 females). The mean age was 22.3 ± 1.8 years, mean height was 162.1 ± 8.1 cm, and mean weight was 56.5 ± 11.6 kg. Subjects were easured two times on each foot by both the new device and traditional ink footprint device. Then the footprint images were scanned into the computer using Sigmascan Pro 5 software to analyze arch index and arch angle. Data were expressed as Mean SD, all statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS The Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to
determine the correlation between two measurement devices. Statistical significant level was set at α = .01. Results: The correlation coefficients between new footprint and traditional ink footprint devices were 0.830 (p < .01) for arch index, 0.628 (p < .01) for arch angle. Previous studies reported high reliability for using footprint parameters
to predict arch height. Therefore, the footprint parameter obtained from this new measurement device can be used to predict arch height and other foot structure parameters. Conclusion: New approach to measure footprint has significant correlation with the traditional ink footprint device. This result shows promising future in clinical applications to use this new footprint device which is more convenient and nvironmentally-friendly and easier to measure than the traditional ink footprint device.
In order to provide more evidence to support this new device, more subjects and direct measurement of arch height should be analyzed in future study.