Impact Of Foot Type On Countermovement Jump Kinetics In Physically Active College-aged Females

The navicular drop test evaluates the medial longitudinal arch and can categorize foot morphologies into foot types (pes planus and pes cavus). This test quantifies the vertical displacement of the navicular bone as it transitions from a non-weight-bearing to a weight-bearing position, providing clinicians with insights into foot pronation and dynamic arch collapse. Pes planus (flat feet) and pes cavus (high-arched feet) represent distinct foot morphologies that may influence athletic performance and injury risk; countermovement jump metrics may be effective in exploring these differences. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of foot type category on countermovement jump kinetic metrics in a physically active college-aged cohort. METHODS: Age, weight, height, and physical activity-matched cohorts (pes planus: n = 9, 22 ± 1 yr, 66 ± 2 kg,168 ± 6 cm, 200 ± 50 min/week; pes cavus: n = 9, 23 ± 1 yr, 67 ± 2 kg, 171 ± 6 cm, 220 ± 70 min/week) of healthy college-aged females completed clinical assessments of the foot and ankle. Participants then performed three countermovement jumps on a force platform (1000 Hz), which were derived to calculate loading rates during takeoff and landing, positive net impulse, and peak force during landing. All metrics were compared via independent t-tests (α = 0.05) and Cohen’s d with a Hedge’s g correction. RESULTS: No difference (p = 0.34) in jump height was noted between pes planus (23.6 ± 5.1 cm) and pes cavus (23.2 ± 5.6 cm). Further, no significant differences were noted for most kinetic variables (p ≥ 0.23); however, a moderate effect size was observed between navicular drop and positive net impulse (3.3 ± 0.4 BW/s versus 3.1 ± 0.4 BW/s; g = 0.60). Pes planus feet required 7% more positive net impulse to achieve the same jump height as those with pes cavus foot type. This suggests dynamic foot structures can have a small to medium effect on countermovement jump mechanics, specifically during propulsion. CONCLUSION: The present sample is insufficient to identify statistically significant differences in jumping kinetics between cohorts of foot type; however, small to moderate effects were identified for propulsive and landing metrics. Individuals with more dynamic foot structure may necessitate a greater propulsive impulse, possibly as a compensatory mechanism.