Differences and mechanisms
TABLE S1: Interactions between footwear condition and predictors from linear mixed models. Results
depict the preliminary step testing for interactions between footwear condition and biomechanical
predictors for the change in peak KFM (dependant variable). Interactions with p-values < 0.05 were
included in the final mixed model (Table 4). Fixed effect estimates, 95% CI and p values are reported for
each term analysed within the model.
Predictors Change in Peak KFM
Fixed effect estimates, (95% CI), p-value
Stability ×change in sagittal plane knee-GRF lever arm (mm) 0.02, (0.01, 0.03), p= 0<0.001
Neutral ×change in sagittal plane GRF lever arm (mm) 0.02, (0.02, 0.03), p=0<0.001
Stability ×change in sagittal plane resultant GRF magnitude (BW) -0.02, (-0.05, 0.05), p=0.96
Neutral ×change in sagittal plane resultant GRF magnitude (BW) 0.29, (-0.27, 0.82), p=0.32
Stability ×change in knee flexion angle () 0.01, (-0.01, 0.03), p=0.31
Neutral ×change in knee flexion angle () 0.02, (-0.01, 0.04), p=0.19
Stability ×change in knee flexion excursion angle () 0.01, (-0.01, 0.04), p=0.12
Neutral ×change in knee flexion excursion () -0.01, (-0.03, 0.02), p=0.73
Stability ×change in knee flexion at initial contact () 0.001, (-0.01, 0.02), p=0.66
Neutral ×change in knee flexion at initial contact () -0.002, (-0.02, 0.02), p=0.81
Stability ×change in ankle dorsiflexion angle () -0.002, (-0.02, 0.01), p=0.71
Neutral ×change in ankle dorsiflexion angle () 0.002, (-0.01, 0.02), p=0.85
Stability ×change in hip flexion angle () -0.005, (-0.02, 0.01), p=0.38
Neutral ×change in hip flexion angle () -0.003, (-0.02, 0.01), p=0.64
Stability ×change in stance time (s) -3.95, (-8.55, 0.65), p=0.09
Neutral ×change in stance time (s) -1.66, (-6.40, 3.06), p=0.49
BW = bodyweight, KFM = external knee flexion moment, GRF = ground reaction force
24
Pedorthic Footcare Association | www.pedorthics.org