Background: The aim of this study was to explore students' perceptions of the educational environment (EE) in a Spanish school of podiatry. Various aspects of EE were compared by academic year in the program.Methods: This was a cross‐sectional study using a questionnaire to collect perceptions using data from a 2015 survey. Podiatric medical students from Extremadura University participated in this study. EE was assessed with the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) tool.The DREEM questionnaire covers five domains of student perceptions, including learning, teachers, academic self‐perceptions, atmosphere, and social self‐perceptions.Results: Two hundred thirty‐five students participated, resulting in a 90.73% response rate. Participants included similar numbers of students from different years in the program, and most were women. The global EE score was 2.58 out of 4, indicating that students' perceptions were more positive than negative. Although some weaknesses were detected in this school, students viewed the EE positively in all five DREEM domains. Academic year in the program were generally not related to perceptions of EE.Conclusions: Podiatric medical students declared, in general, that the EE was more positive than negative in our school, according to the DREEM questionnaire. However, although the results are on the whole good, some areas need to be revised to make improvements.

Aims: This study aimed to quantify the degrees of movement that occur in the lower limb using a kinematic system after taking two measurements of 45° and 60° of extension at the first metatarsophalangeal joint (1st MTPJ) and to test the validity of this sensor system using radiography. Methodology: This was a quasi-experimental test-post-test study with a single intervention group (25 subjects). Four inertial sensors were placed on the proximal phalange of the first toe, dorsum of the foot, medial-lateral of the leg (level of tibia), and medial-lateral of the thigh (level of femur). The extension of the 1st MTPJ produced movements of supination in the foot and rotation at the level of leg and thigh. We studied this mechanism in three situations (relaxed, 45°, and 60°) both with the sensors and with X-rays. Results: With the kinematic system, there was an increase in the range of movement in each of the variables, with a value of p < 0.05. The relationship between the kinematic system and the radiography was tested using Spearman’s rho test, obtaining a correlation coefficient of 0.624 and a value of p < 0.05, and the Bland–Altman graph, with 90% of the cases within the tolerance limits. Conclusions: The extension of the 1st MTPJ generated kinematic changes associated with supination movement in the midfoot and external rotation on the tibia and femur level. Both measurement techniques were very similar in the way that they quantified the degrees of extension of the 1st MTPJ. If we extrapolate this result to the measurement technique used by the inertial sensors, we could affirm that the values recorded in the supination and external rotation movements were reliable.