Footprint Analysis In Young Female Volleyball And Track And Field (jumpers) Athletes

Introduction

The shape of the foot has been of great interest to numerous authors as a result of its variability and its importance from
both the morphological and functional points of view (Forriol and Pascual, 1990). There have been considerable
attempts to classify different foot types as to establish some form of functional relationship between foot type and
athletic activities. Footprint analysis quantifies the surface of the foot and offers the possibility to make indirect
statement about the structure of the medial longitudinal arch. The purpose of the present study was to classify the foot
type of volleyball and track and field young female athletes and to investigate possible differences among the selected
footprint parameters.

Methods
The static footprints of both feet of 20 athletes (Volleyball (V)=10, aged 14.9±1.5 years, body mass 60.6±7.1 kg and
body height 171.9±6.9 cm / Track & field jumpers (J)=10, aged 15.9±1.3 years, body mass 57.5±5.8 kg and body
height 168.5±6.5 cm) were analysed in a standing full weight-bearing position with the use of the plantography
method.
Foot type was assessed according to the results of 3 selected footprint indexes, namely Arch Index (AI) by means of a
planimetric analysis (Cavanagh and Rodgers, 1987), Chippaux Smirak Index (C.S.i.), (Forriol and Pascual, 1990) and K
Index (Martiroshov, 1982) by means of graphic-computational data processing methods. To identify possible
differences between footprint indexes and type of athletic activity, a one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests with the
Scheffe criterion were applied (p<.05).

Results
According to the suggested categories of the footprint indexes, the AI and the K index classified the volleyball group
into the normal foot type for both feet, whereas the C.S.i. values classified that group into the intermediary foot type
category (Figure 1). Similar results were observed for the jumpers, who were classified by all 3 footprint indexes into
the normal foot type for both feet, with the exception of the AI results on the right foot, classifying it as a high-arch foot
type (Figure 1). Examining the coefficient of variation values, it can be observed that the two groups showed quite high
values. Respective values in the volleyball group were for the AI, Left = 14.4/Right =11.8, C.S.i, Left =22.6/Right
=17.2, K, Left =21.9/Right =22.7, and in the jumpers group for the AI, Left =20.7/Right =31.7, C.S.i, Left =33.4/Right
=47.2, K, Left =22.7/Right =37.0 accordingly.

Discussion/Conclusion
Overall, footprint analysis showed that the volleyball and track and field female athletes were characterized by normal
foot type. Although lower values were observed in all the examined footprint indexes for the J group, no significant
differences were observed between foot type and athletic activity. However, descriptive statistics showed that the
volleyball group appeared to be more homogeneous in the AI compared to the jumpers group, which demonstrated high
variability in the C.S.i, for both feet. The K index seems to be more conservative, since variability reached similar
values in both groups. Present results on K index agree well with Martiroshov’s respective findings (1982), who has
reported K index values for track and field athletes, in the range from 0.85 to 1.03 for the normal foot type. Despite the
descriptive nature of this study, presents results could be integrated into a complete anthropometric profile of athletic
populations in order to be able to analyze and quantify the contribution of every parameter involved.

References
[1]. Cavanagh, PR, Rodgers, MM (1987). J Biomechanics, 20, 547-551.
[2]. Forriol, F, and Pascual, J (1990). Foot Ankle International, 11, 101-104.

NOTA: O texto com a iconografia está no anexo.

Arquivo