r’ '\
LIBRARY
Michigan State

I University

L

 

 

.*

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOD FINES return on or before due due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ij l

 

MSU to An Nflrmetlve Action/Equal Opportunity Inetitution
chimeras-gt

 

A COMPARISON OF ATHLETIC ANKLE TAPING TECHNIQUES

WITH RESPECT TO ANKLE INVERSION

by
PAUL EDWARD PLUMMER

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science

1991

ABSTRACT

The effects of restriction on ankle motion by
athletic ankle taping was studied on twenty (n = 20)
college football athletes. Pre-exercise and post-
exercise ankle inversion motion was measured bilaterally
under four conditions (a control - no taping, closed
basketweave taping, moleskin stirrup taping, and spartan
slipper taping). A modified Inman Ankle Testing Machine
was used to obtain these measures. The design was a one
factor randomized complete block design combined over
days. Pre-exercise measures showed no significant (p <
.05) difference between taping techniques but they were
all statistically more restrictive than the control.
There was also an interaction between the right and left
foot. Post-exercise measures indicated a significant (p
< .05) difference between taping techniques. The spartan
slipper was the most restrictive of the taping
techniques. The moleskin stirrup and the closed
basketweave taping techniques were not statistically
different from each other but they were significantly (p

< .05) more restrictive than the control.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank two assistants, Nate Golembeske
and Michael Morand for their help with this project.
Also, Thank You, to Dr. Eugene Brown, Dr. Douglas McKeag,
Dr. John Rogers, Jeff Monroe, and Sally Nogle for their
advice and guidance with this experiment. Most of all,
thanks to my wife, Deborah, and children, Stephanie and
Robert for their patience and thoughtfulness during my
many late nights working on this investigation.

iii

Table of Contents

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .
Purpose. . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms. . . .
Assumptions. . . . . . . .
Delimitations. . . . . . .
Limitations. . . . . . . .
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Overview . . . . . . .

Motion Resistance Studies.

Studies of Ankle Joint Motion.

Studies of Ankle Injury Rates.

Studies Comparing Taping Techniques.

Inman Ankle Testing Machine.

III. METHODS
Subjects . . . . . . . . .
Design . . . . . . . . . .
Treatment. . . . . . . . .
Procedures . . . . . . . .
Control. . . . . . . . . .
Statistical Analysis . . .

iv

Page

vi

vii

11
12

13

15
15
16
18
20

21

Table of Contents (continued)
CHAPTER Page
IV. RESULTS
Reliability of the Modified Inman Machine 22
Main Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Interaction Effect . . . . . . . . . . . 27
V. DISCUSSION

Reliability of the Modified Inman Machine 32

Restriction of Inversion . . . . . . . . 32
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Biographical Sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appendix
A. Modified Inman Ankle Testing Machine. . . . 42
B. Subject Profile Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . 44
C. Closed Basketweave Taping Technique . . . . 46
D. Moleskin Stirrup Taping Technique . . . . . 49
E. Spartan Slipper Taping Technique. . . . . . 52
F. Agility Drills and Sprint Testing . . . . . 55
G. Testing Procedures for Inman Ankle Machine. 58

H. Subject Record Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table

List of Tables

Page
Reliability Correlation for Inman Machine . . 23
Percentage/Number of Degrees of Inversion Lost 28
Main Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Degrees of Freedom and Mean Squares . . . . . 30

Absolute Differences Between Left/Right Feet. 31

vi

List of Figures

Figure Page
1. Left/Right Pre-Exercise Inversion Measures. . 24
2. Left/Right Post-Exercise Inversion Measures . 26
3. ECG Voltmeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4. Control Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

vii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Twenty-five percent of all injuries related to
sports are ankle injuries (Garrick, 1975). Most of these
injuries are sprains to the lateral ligaments as a result
of excessive inversion forces (Garrick, 1977). Knight
(1979) demonstrated that the rupture of lateral ankle
ligaments occurs at the end of the inversion range of
motion. Taping methods have been commonly used to reduce
the range of motion of the ankle with the intent of not
allowing the ankle to reach the point of inversion at
which ligaments tear. Much research has been conducted
on the ability of tape to limit ankle motion (Abdenour,
Saville, White, and Abdenour, 1979; Delacerda, 1978;
Fumich, Ellison, Guerin, and Grace, 1981; Glick, Gordon,
and Nishimoto, 1976; Laughman, Carr, Chao, Youdas, and
Sim, 1980; Malina, Plagenz, and Rarick, 1963; Morris and
Musnicki, 1983; Rarick, Bigley, Karst, and Malina, 1962;
Vaes, Boeck, Handelberg, and Opdecam, 1985). However,
the research does not agree on the taping technique most

efficient at controlling ankle inversion.

EUEQOSB

Due to the frequency of ankle injuries in athletics,

many athletic trainers are searching for additional and

more effective methods of managing these injuries. When
an injury occurs, the athlete usually needs additional
protection of the previously injured joint to resume
athletic participation. The purpose of this study was to
determine the effectiveness of the widely used closed
basketweave taping technique and two variations of the
closed basketweave (moleskin stirrup and spartan slipper)
on controlling ankle motion. Inversion of the ankle
joint was studied under a control (untaped) condition.
Pre-exercise and post—exercise measurements were
conducted for each treatment. The dependent variable was
the inversion range of motion in degrees. The
independent variables were the treatment form, the ankle

used, and the exercise state.

fiypotheses

It was hypothesized that the treatment conditions
(taping techniques) would be significantly different from
each other with respect to their ability to restrict
ankle inversion. The second hypothesis was that the
treatment conditions would show equal loss of restriction
of motion following an exercise bout. Third, it was
hypothesized that a significant restriction of motion
would remain following an exercise bout for each taping

technique compared to the control.

Definition_2f_1ern§

Dorsiflexion. Dorsiflexion refers to movements of
the foot and ankle in the sagittal plane in which the
toes approach the lower leg (Donatelli, 1990).

Eversion. Eversion is a movement of the foot and
ankle in the frontal plane laterally (Donatelli, 1990).
Eversion Neutral. Eversion Neutral refers to

performing eversion with the longitudinal axis of the
lower leg perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
fifth metatarsal (Fumich et al., 1981).

Inversion. Inversion is a movement of the foot and
ankle in the frontal plane medially (Donatelli, 1990).

Inversion Neutral. Inversion Neutral refers to
performing inversion with the longitudinal axis of the
lower leg perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
fifth metatarsal (Fumich et al., 1981).

Isometric. Isometric is a contraction of a muscle
statically without changing the muscle’s length (Arnheim,
1989).

Plantar Flexion. Plantar Flexion refers to the
movement of the foot and ankle in the sagittal plane in
which the toes move away from the lower leg (Donatelli,
1990).

Sprain. A sprain is a traumatic joint twist that
results in stretching or total tearing of the stabilizing

connective tissues (Arnheim, 1989).

4

Supination. Supination refers to raising the medial
margin of the foot (Arnheim, 1989).

Talar Tilt. Talar tilt refers to the angle (in the
sagittal plane) of the talus in the mortise of the ankle
(Donatelli, 1990).

Taping. Taping involves the use of linen or elastic

tape to hold a body part in place (Arnheim, 1989).

Assumptions

Each subject was given the same instructions at each
testing session. Therefore, it was assumed that the
subjects relaxed their lower leg muscles in a consistent
manner under each treatment condition so that their ankle
motion was not affected by muscular contraction.

Also, it was assumed that the amount of torque
applied to the ankle was consistent. The same amount of
resistance (6 kg which resulted in an 11.76 N-m torque)

was applied each testing session.

Qelimitations

Actual rates for injury under each treatment
condition were not studied. Only the amount of

restriction of inversion at the ankle joint was studied.

The amount of muscular guarding of the joint during

testing was not able to be controlled. The same
instructions to relax the leg muscles were given each
testing session. The tester waited thirty (30) seconds
after adding the torque to the ankle before reading the

inversion measurement.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Overview

The limitation of ankle joint motion to prevent
injury has been popular with athletic trainers for many
years. Even so, some research has lead a few authors to
believe that ankle taping is not beneficial to the
athlete and may put them at greater risk for injury.
Ferguson (1973) declared that tape loosens quickly during
exercise and provides no significant support to the
ankle. He supports his statement by adding that, because
the tape slides over the skin and soft tissues of the
leg, it does not protect the ligamentous structures of
the ankle. Ferguson also claimed that the knee is
predisposed to injury and the lower leg muscles are
weakened when the ankles are taped. Further research has
refuted Ferguson's work (Garrick and Requa, 1973;

Laughman et al., 1980; Morris and Musnicki, 1983).

Motion Resistance Studies

The effects of tape on the ankle can be obtained by
measuring the amount of resistance to motion. Rarick et
al. (1962) and Malina et a1. (1963) measured the amount
of torque necessary to invert and plantar flex the ankle

a fixed number of degrees. Rarick et al. found a forty

percent (40%) decrease in the initial resistance after
ten minutes of exercise for all four of his taping
techniques. He compared the closed basketweave taping,
the closed basketweave with stirrups taping, the closed
basketweave with heel lock taping and the closed
basketweave with a combination of stirrups and heel lock
taping technique. Malina et al. compared athletic ankle
taping to cloth wraps. He compared the Louisiana Wrap
and the closed basketweave with stirrups taping technique
applied directly to the skin and over a stockinette. He
also found that all of his taping and wrapping techniques
lost their restrictive qualities over time. Neither
author offered any data as to the statistical
significance of their results.

Abdenour et a1. (1979), studied the effects of
torque on the range of motion of ankles that had been
taped with a closed basketweave with heel lock taping
technique. He found that taping had a significant
reduction only on the inversion range of motion.

Greene and Hillman (1990) studied the restrictive
qualities of one taping technique (a closed basketweave
with figure of eights and heel locks) before, during, and
after exercise. They found that after twenty minutes of
exercise, the tape support had lost an average of forty-
one percent of its combined inversion-eversion

restrictive capabilities.

8

Fischer (1982) used a Cybex II Dynamometer (Cybex II
Dynamometer: Cybex Division of Lumex Inc. Bay Shore, New
York) with a special inversion-eversion adapter to
compare the amount of torque and range of motion subjects
were able to generate under three taping techniques
(closed basketweave with two heel locks medially and two
heel locks laterally, closed basketweave with two figure
of eights, and closed basketweave with a combination of
two heel locks medially and two heel locks laterally and
two figure of eights). Only the pre-exercise inversion
condition revealed results that allowed the author to
conclude that torque production was not equal between
taping techniques. The basketweave with two heel locks
medially and two heel locks laterally limited torque
production in this condition. There was a significant
interaction between joint range of motion and torque
production that followed the muscular length-tension
relationship. The results of this study were in
agreement with Abdenour et al. (1979), who also suggested
that preventative ankle taping does not impair the
maximum production of isometric torque.

Pope, Renstrom, Donnermeyer, and Morgenstern (1987)
used a wooden model of a human ankle and subtalar joints
to measure the restrictive qualities of athletic taping
techniques on ankle inversion and eversion. The ankle

joints were simulated by steel hinges screwed into the

wood. A cable was fitted through a hole drilled at the
level of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. The model
was taped using two techniques, a closed basketweave and
a closed basketweave with figure of eights. The closed
basketweave with the figure of eights was significantly
more restrictive on the wooden ankle model. The use of
this model may not be as valid as using an ankle of a
human because there is no movement of the skin and these

joints only moved in one plane.

Studies of Ankle Joint Motion

Another method of determining the effectiveness of
tape is to quantitatively measure the motions of the
ankle. This can be done by using various goniometric,
cinematographic, and radiographic techniques.

Fumich et a1. (1981) measured the restriction of
ankle joint motion before and after a two and one-half to
three hour football practice. The results showed that
inversion neutral, plantar flexion-inversion, and
eversion neutral retained 50% or more of their
restriction after exercise compared to pre-exercise
measurements. The taping technique used was a closed
basketweave with two medial and two lateral heel locks.

A significant restriction of combined ankle
inversion and eversion from athletic ankle taping was

reported by Morris and Musnicki (1983). The taping

10
technique employed in their study was a Gibney
basketweave with heel lock. Using a mechanical
goniometer, the authors found a significant reduction in
the supination motion of the ankle both before and after
a two hour football practice.

A three-dimensional goniometer was used by Laughman
et a1. (1980) to study ankle joint motion. All
conditions associated with inversion exhibited a
significant reduction in motion when comparing the taped
post-fifteen minute exercise bout condition to the
untaped control condition. The taping technique used in
this study was a closed basketweave with heel lock and a
half figure of eight.

Radiographic studies of talar tilt were conducted by
Glick et a1. (1976) and Vaes et al. (1985). X-ray
provides evidence of subtalar motion. The amount of
talar tilt is an indication of the amount of inversion
occurring at the ankle joint. Glick et al. found that
the closed basketweave taping technique held the talus
'stable in the ankle mortise for up to twenty minutes of
exercise, while Vaes et al. showed that the Gibney
basketweave taping technique provided significant
restriction of talar tilt before and after an exercise
bout of thirty minutes.

From the above studies, tape appears to be effective

at limiting the ankle from moving to the end of its range

11
of inversion motion. Therefore, tape is an effective
means of preventing ankle sprains. However, none of the
above studies compared the incidence of ankle sprains

that occurred during taped to untaped conditions.

Studies of Ankle Injury Rates

In a study reviewing a survey done in 1967 with New
York high school football players (n = 17,777), Ryan
(1969) found that nearly twice as many ankle injuries
occurred to players that were untaped as compared to
taped or wrapped. Later, Garrick and Requa (1973)
studied 2,562 intramural basketball players over a two
year period. Their data showed that the injury rates of
ankle sprains for untaped subjects (32.5 sprains/1,000
exposures) were over twice as high as that of taped
subjects (14.6 sprains/1,000 exposures). Also, the
untaped subjects suffered more severe (greater than first
degree) ankle sprains when compared to the taped
subjects.

Rovere, Clarke, Yates, and Burley (1987) presented
the results of a study comparing the incidence of ankle
sprains in football players wearing either tape or a
reusable lace-up ankle brace. The taping technique used
was a closed basketweave with a figure of eight and heel

lock. This six year study of the Wake Forest University

12
football team involved two hundred ninety-six athletes
and more than fifty thousand player exposures to injury.
An exposure constitutes one practice or game. Injury
rates varied by position but the injury rate for players
using the brace was consistently lower than for taped
players. Injury rates for the tape users varied from
2.70 to 5.88/1,000 exposures. Injury rates for those
wearing the brace varied from 0.00 to 4.79/1,000

exposures.

Studies Comparing Taping Techniques
A review by Metcalf and Denegar (1983) concluded

that athletic taping has significant value in supporting
and protecting the ankle. They stated that taping is an
effective adjunct to a sound conditioning or
rehabilitation program in preventing ankle injury or
reinjury. A

Libera (1972) studied the effects of a football
practice session on the support and retention of support
of tape and wraps. He used ten football players at the
wide receiver and defensive back positions as subjects.
A Louisiana ankle wrap, Illinois ankle wrap, modified
closed basketweave taping, modified closed basketweave
taping with heel locks, and control (no tape or wrap)
were randomly applied to the subjects. The practiCe

session consisted of 110 minutes of the "usual drill and

13
scrimmage situations". The closed basketweave with heel
locks taping technique maintained 72.5% of the initial
support while the other experimental methods were
approximately 65% effective. The taping methods gave
significantly greater support (34%) than the wraps in
pre- and post-exercise measurements. The author
concluded that the closed basketweave with heel locks
taping technique provided the best support to the ankle
joint.

Seitz and Goldfuss (1984) compared a closed
basketweave taping method with the Hinton-Boswell method
of taping. They took control measures of the subjects'
ankle motion, taped the subjects with both methods on
separate days, took ankle motion measurements, put the
subjects through an exercise session, and retested range
of motion of the ankle. Their results showed that
initially the Hinton-Boswell method of taping was the
more restrictive. After the exercise session, both
methods were equally restrictive. The authors concluded
that either method of taping was adequate for restricting

ankle motion.

anan Ankle Testing Machine

Inman (1976) designed a testing device to measure
the ankle range of motion for inversion and eversion

under different conditions of plantar flexion and

14
dorsiflexion. The ankle joints were aligned with the
axis of rotation of the machine. By observing the amount
of rotation of the turntable, the number of degrees of
ankle motion could be recorded. Any combination of
plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, eversion, or inversion
could be measured. Originally, the number of degrees of
motion was measured by using a mechanical goniometer.

The center of the goniometer was aligned with the center
of the ankle joint and the two axes from the center of
the goniometer were lined up parallel to the longitudinal
axis of the fifth metatarsal and the fibula,
respectively. Angles between these axes were used to
determine starting positions and ranges of motion.
Several modifications of Inman's device have been made by
other researchers, including electronic equipment to
digitally read the number of degrees of motion (see

Appendix A).

15
CHAPTER III

METHODS

Subjects

Twenty (n = 20) males, ranging in age from 19 to 22
years, volunteered to participate in this study. The
subjects' physical condition was excellent. Body weight
varied among the subjects, ranging from 155 pounds to 220
pounds. All subjects were members of the Michigan State
University football team, playing at a variety of
positions. Each subject had no previous injury to their
ankles that affected their range of motion as self-

reported on the subject profile sheet (see Appendix B).

es' n

The design was a one factor randomized complete
block design combined over days. Four types of
restriction (control, closed basketweave, closed
basketweave with a moleskin stirrup, and closed
basketweave with a spartan slipper) and two levels of the
exercise condition (pre-exercise and post-exercise) were
tested. All subjects were tested under all conditions.
Random assignment of the order for the four types of
restriction was made for each subject. The twenty
subjects were divided randomly into four groups of five.

Each group was then randomly assigned a predetermined

16
order of treatment variables. The four orders were: 1)
control, closed basketweave, closed basketweave with a
moleskin stirrup, and closed basketweave with a spartan
slipper; 2) closed basketweave with a spartan slipper,
closed basketweave with a moleskin stirrup, closed
basketweave, and control; 3) closed basketweave, closed
basketweave with a spartan slipper, control, and closed
basketweave with a moleskin stirrup; and 4) closed
basketweave with a moleskin stirrup, control, closed
basketweave with a spartan slipper, and closed
basketweave. Each subject number was assigned to a group
before the number was given to the subjects so there
would not be any biasing of the groups or the order of

the treatment variables.

Ipegpment

Two types of treatment conditions (restriction and
exercise) were studied for each subject. The restriction
condition consisted of four types: 1) control, 2) closed
basketweave, 3) closed basketweave with a moleskin
stirrup, and 4) closed basketweave with a spartan
slipper. In the control condition, the subjects wore
nothing on their ankle. For the closed basketweave
level, the subjects had their ankles taped with Johnson &
Johnson (Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc. New Brunswick,

NJ 08903) 2" Zonas athletic tape. Each subject was taped

17
by the same certified athletic trainer. Spray tape
adherent, pre-wrap, and heel-and-lace pads were applied
to the subject's ankles. A closed basketweave technique
with two medial heel locks and two lateral heel locks was
used for the tapings (see Appendix C). For the closed
basketweave with moleskin taping technique, the subject
was given a closed basketweave taping with two medial
heel locks and two lateral heel locks with the addition
of a moleskin stirrup added before the heel locks were
applied (see Appendix D). For the closed basketweave
with a spartan slipper taping technique, the subject was
given a closed basketweave taping with two medial heel
locks and two lateral heel locks with the addition of a
piece of 3" Elastikon (Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903) that was approximately 18 inches
long, in which the ends were split down the middle so
that when it was applied as a stirrup (medial to lateral)
the ends could be wrapped around the lower leg just above
the malleoli (see Appendix E). The spartan slipper was
'also added before the heel looks.

The exercise condition consisted of two levels (pre-
exercise and post-exercise). Pre-exercise measurements
were taken immediately after application of the tape.
Post-exercise measurements were taken immediately after
the exercise bout was completed. The exercise consisted

of agility drills (see Appendix F) Michigan State

18
University football players perform during conditioning

practice. These lasted approximately one hour.

Procedures

All testing was carried out in the Michigan State
University athletic training room located in the Duffy
Daugherty Football Building. Each subject was tested
eight times, once under each of the four restrictions,
both before and after the exercise regimen. Only one
session was done per day and all four sessions were
conducted within one week.

Each subject had the inversion motion of his right
and left ankle measured pre-exercise and post-exercise
under all four types of restriction. The instrument used
to perform the measurements was a modified Inman Ankle
Testing Machine (see Appendix A). The Inman Device was
set so that the only movement permitted was at the
subtalar joint of the ankle, allowing only inversion and
eversion. The calcaneus was stabilized with a vise-like
clamping system. It was made out of wood and the contact
areas were padded with grey memory foam. The clamp was
positioned low enough on the calcaneus to stabilize the
foot to the foot plate and still allow normal inversion
and eversion. The toes of the foot were also stabilized
with a velcro strap that did not interfere with the

taping techniques. The subject was reclined on a testing

19
table with the knee flexed (so that the lower leg muscles
would not be on stretch to interfere with ankle range of
motion) and the ankle joint in a neutral position (90
degree angle of the fifth metatarsal relative to the
longitudinal axis of the lower leg). The lower leg was
stabilized with velcro straps to isolate movement to the
ankle joint. The subjects were told to lie back and relax
throughout the entire testing procedure (see Appendix G).
No shoes or socks were worn during the measurements. For
the exercise sessions, low-top, flat bottom shoes were
worn and the subjects wore the same pair of shoes for
each session.

The procedure for testing was explained to the
subject at a meeting prior to the first testing session.
The subject was instructed to relax the muscles of his
lower leg as the torque causing the inversion was
applied. The subject was taped (if appropriate) and
secured into position on the testing table for
measurement. After the subject was properly positioned,
the tester moved the foot plate of the Modified Inman
Ankle Testing Machine to a neutral position as indicated
by a reading of 0 degrees on the digital readout. A six
kilogram weight was then added to the end of the pulley
system to produce an 11.76 N-m torque causing inversion
of the ankle joint. To allow the subject to fully relax

his lower leg, the tester waited 30 seconds from the time

20
the weight was applied until the reading of the inversion
motion was taken. Measurements were taken and recorded

on the subject’s record sheet (see Appendix H).

Coptpol

In order to obtain reliable results and isolate any
effects seen to the treatment conditions, several factors
had to be controlled in this study.

The exercise sessions were controlled so that all
the exercises were approximately the same duration,
distance, and intensity. It was also controlled by
having four groups, each having a separate treatment for
that session. Therefore, we can assume that similar
stresses were placed on the ankle joint during the
session for each type of restriction.

Each subject wore the same low-top shoes and similar
socks each session so that the amount of traction and
ankle support could be assumed to the consistent across
all subjects.

The amount of torque causing inversion was always
the same since the same weight was applied in the same
manner before and after each exercise session. The
weight used was 6.0 kg (Inman, 1976 and Wilson, 1990).
This weight generated enough torque (11.76 N-m) to cause

significant inversion-eversion without generating so much

21

torque as to cause muscular guarding of the ankle joint.

Reliability and objectivity of the modified Inman
Ankle Testing Machine was tested by having the twenty
subjects’ right ankle tested twice by two separate
testers prior to collecting experimental data.
Reliability testing of each subject was conducted under
control conditions. One test was immediately followed by
the second to minimize the effects of any intervening
factors on ankle range of motion. The subjects were
strapped into the machine as previously described. The
inversion measure in degrees was recorded. The subject
was then completely removed from the machine and
immediately retested by another tester who had no
knowledge of the results of the first test. The measures
for each subject were then correlated to determine the
reliability of the measures. The results of this will be

discussed in Chapter 4.

Spgpistical Analysis

The design was a one factor randomized complete
block design combined over days. An analysis of variance
was performed to test for main effects and an interaction
effect. The Least Significant Difference test (p<.05)

was used to separate means.

22
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Reliability of the Modified Inman Machine

As a reliability check of the modified Inman Ankle
Testing Machine, the inversion range of motion in degrees
of twenty subjects in the control condition (no tape)
were measured twice by two separate testers. Each
subject was completely unstrapped before the second
measurements were started. The tester did not see the
digital display for any of the measures to bias the
results. The mean and standard deviation for all first
trials were 30.8 (5.8) and for all second trials were
31.2 (4.7). A Pearson correlation coefficient of .919
indicated a positive relationship and very good
reliability between trials. The results are summarized

in Table 1.

Main Effects

The means in degrees for pre-exercise inversion
measures for the right/left foot were 29.2/27.3 for the
control, 17.6/16.9 for the closed basketweave, 14.0/13.6
for the moleskin slipper, and 15.1/15.4 for the spartan
slipper. Figure 1 shows the right and left foot measures
for each treatment. The Least Significant Difference

test (alpha 0.05) separated the pre-exercise means for

TABLE 1. CORRELATION DATA (IN DEGREES) FOR THE MODIFIED
INMAN ANKLE DEVICE WITH SUBJECTS IN CONTROL CONDITIONS.

23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUBJECT NUMBER TRIAL ONE TRIAL TWO

1 29 31

2 32 29

3 31 29

4 26 29

5 29 3O

6 31 34

7 25 29

8 34 32

9 32 36

10 23 24

11 44 43

12 30 32

13 43 39

14 41 39

15 24 25

16 26 27

17 26 29

18 30 28

19 31 30

20 28 29
MEAN 30.8 31.2
STANDARD DEVIATION 5.8 4.7

PEARSON CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT 0.919

 

 

FIGURE 1.

24

RIGHT AND LEFT FOOT PRE-EXERCISE INVERSION

MEASURES FOR EACH TREATMENT AVERAGED OVER FOUR DAYS.

ZOHI-JOHWBUJMW

MMMNOMU 2H

35

30

25

20

15

10

 

 

 

 

\ 15.1 15.4

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R L R L R L R L
control closed molesk in spartan
basketweave stirrup slipper
TREATMENTS

25

the right and left foot with values of 3.6 and 3.8,
respectively. All ankle taping techniques significantly
(p < .05) differed from the control group, but the ankle
taping techniques did not significantly differ from each
other. Figure 2 shows the right and left measures for
each treatment. The post-exercise means in degrees for
the right/left foot were 32.1/30.0 for the control,
24.7/22.1 for the closed basketweave, 21.6/22.2 for the
moleskin stirrup, and 20.6/21.0 for the spartan slipper.
For the right and left foot all of the ankle taping
techniques significantly (p < .05) differed from the
control group. The Least Significant Difference test
separated the post-exercise means for the left and right
foot with values of 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. The post-
exercise measures for the ankle taping techniques on the
left foot did not significantly (p < .05) differ from
each other. The post-exercise measures on the right foot
for the closed basketweave (24.7 degrees) were
significantly (p < .05) different from the spartan
slipper measures (20.6 degrees) but the moleskin stirrup
measures (21.6 degrees) were not different than either of
them.

The difference between post-exercise and pre-
exercise inversion measures was analyzed for significant
differences. These measures in degrees were 2.8 for the

control, 6.2 for the closed basketweave, 8.1 for the

FIGURE 2.

RIGHT AND LEFT FOOT POST-EXERCISE INVERSION

MEASURES FOR EACH TREATMENT AVERAGED OVER FOUR DAYS.

ZOHD-JOHNEIUIMN

mmmwomo 2H

35

30

25

20

15

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

 

 

R L R L R L R L
control closed moleskin spartan
basketweave stirrup slipper

TREATMENTS

27
moleskin stirrup, and 5.6 for the spartan slipper. The
Least Significant Difference test (3.1) indicated that
the control significantly (p < .05) differed from the
closed basketweave and moleskin stirrup ankle taping
techniques but the spartan slipper was not different from
any of the treatments.

Table 2 contains the percentage of restriction lost
and the number of degrees lost for each treatment
comparing pre-exercise and post-exercise measures. The
moleskin stirrup lost the most degrees (8.1) followed by
the closed basketweave (6.2), spartan slipper (5.6), and
the control (2.8).

There were no significant differences between the
days or the absolute differences between feet for left
minus right foot inversion measurements, either pre-
exercise or post-exercise. All of the main effects are
summarized in Table 3. The degrees of freedom and mean

square for each condition are listed in Table 4.

Ipperaction Effect

The pre-exercise inversion measures for left minus
right foot were significant with an alpha of .05. The
means were separated with the Least Significant
Difference test. Table 5 displays the Interaction

effects.

TABLE 2.

MEANS OF INVERSION IN DEGREES, PERCENT OF

INVERSION LOST, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF DEGREES LOST FOR
EACH TREATMENT COMBINED ACROSS DAYS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRE- POST- AVERAGE PERCENT
EXERCISE EXERCISE DEGREES LOST
CONTROL 28.2 31.0 2.8 9.0
AVERAGE
CLOSED
BASKET- 17.2 23.4 6.2 26.5
WEAVE
AVERAGE
MOLESKIN
STIRRUP 13.8 21.9 8.1 37.0
AVERAGE
SPARTAN
SLIPPER 15.2 20.8 5.6 26.9
AVERAGE

 

 

28

TABLE 3.

 

 

 

 

29

EFFECTS OF ANKLE TAPING TECHNIQUES ON INVERSION
MEASUREMENTS FOR LEFT AND RIGHT FEET AND PRE- AND POST-
EXERCISE CONDITIONS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F = =
RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT POST-
TAPING FOOT FOOT FOOT FOOT MINUS
TECHNIQUE PRE- PRE- POST- POST- PRE-
EXER- EXER- EXER- EXER- EXER-
CISE CISE CISE CISE CISE
CONTROL 29.2 27.3 32.1 30.0 2.8
CLOSED
BASKET- 17.6 16.9 24.7 22.1 6.2
WEAVE
MOLESKIN 14.0 13.6 21.6 22.2 8.1
STIRRUP
SPARTAN 15.1 15.4 20.6 21.0 5.6
SLIPPER
LSD 3.8 3.6 4.2 4.1 3.1

 

 

LSD - LEAST

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE

30

TABLE 4. DEGREES OF FREEDOM AND MEAN SQUARES FOR EACH OF
THE CONDITIONS. ALL MEAN SQUARES WERE CALCULATED FROM
MEASURES IN DEGREES. PRE- AND POST- REFER TO PRE-

EXERCISE AND POST-EXERCISE MEASURES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEAN MEAN
MEAN SQUARE MEAN SQUARE
SQUARE FOR SQUARE FOR MEAN
FOR LEFT FOR LEFT SQUARE
DEG RIGHT MINUS RIGHT MINUS FOR
OF /LEFT RIGHT /LEFT RIGHT POST-
FREE- FOOT FOOT FOOT FOOT MINUS
SOURCE DOM PRE- PRE- POST- POST- PRE-
DAYS 3 24.9 29.2 32.6 78.6 8.3
/9.7 /23.3
ERROR 16 24.5 43.4 30.0 52.4 5.8
/18.0 /26.2
TREAT- 3 968.8 16.2 541.1 54.1 93.5
MENT /53.3 /346.0
INTER-
ACTION
BET-
WEEN 9 40.2 69.3 42.0 44.3 22.6
DAYS /6l.8 /31.o
AND
TREAT—
MENT
ERROR 48 34.8 25.9 43.6 25.6 24.5
/31.6 /40.8

 

 

TABLE 5.

ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT
FOOT INVERSION MEASUREMENTS IN THE PRE-EXERCISE

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIFFERENCE

 

CONDITION. EACH TREATMENT ANALYZED BY THE DAY.
TAPING DAY ONE DAY TWO DAY THREE DAY FOUR
TECHNIQUE
CONTROL 3.0 4.0 -6.8 -7.8
CLOSED
BASKETWEAVE -1.6 -2.2 -0.6 1.6
MOLESKIN
STIRRUP 2.0 -2.6 -0.6 -0.4
SPARTAN
SLIPPER -0.8 0.2 -0.6 2.2
LEAST
SIGNIFICANT

 

 

32
CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Reiiability of the Modified Inman Machine

As can be seen the high Pearson correlation
coefficient (r = 0.919) yielded by the test-retest
comparisons (Table 1), the modified Inman Ankle Testing
Machine was reliable. The measurement of the subjects

was consistent.

Reetriction of Inversion

A significant main effect for the exercise factor
showed that all groups (control, closed basketweave,
moleskin stirrup, and spartan slipper) allowed more
inversion following the exercise bout. The increase for
the taping techniques was at least 25 percent and for the
control group only nine percent (see Table 2). Lyle
(1987) stated that the loss of restriction or increase in
range of motion was due to a "warming up effect of the
ankle joint and associated muscles" and not as much a
loosening of the tape. This data is inconsistent with
his statement.

Since there was not a significant difference between
the ankle taping techniques in the pre-exercise
condition, none of the ankle taping techniques can be

judged more or less effective at limiting ankle inversion

33
initially. All taping techniques provided significant
inversion restriction compared to the control group.
Even though the ankle taping techniques were not
different statistically, it is interesting to note that
the moleskin stirrup is the most restrictive with an
average of 13.8 degrees of inversion followed by the
spartan slipper and closed basketweave taping techniques
with averages of 15.3 and 17.2 degrees of inversion,
respectively. These degrees of inversion for the pre-
exercise condition are averaged over the left and right
feet. The moleskin stirrup had a tendency to be more
restrictive, initially.

Post-exercise measures indicate there was a
statistical difference between ankle taping techniques
(Table 3). All of the ankle taping techniques were
significant (p < .05) at restricting ankle inversion as
compared to the control. The spartan slipper taping
technique on the right foot was significantly more
restrictive than the closed basketweave but the moleskin
stirrup was not statistically different from either of
them. The spartan slipper (20.6 degrees of inversion)
was the most effective at limiting ankle inversion post-
exercise on the right foot. The moleskin stirrup (21.9
degrees of ankle inversion) was a few degrees more
restrictive than the closed basketweave (23.4 degrees of

inversion).

34

The significant differences between ankle taping
techniques between post-exercise and pre-exercise
-conditions was tested (Table 3). To find the average
number of degrees lost (Table 2), the pre-exercise
averages in degrees were subtracted from the post-
exercise averages for each treatment, respectively. The
control lost statistically less restriction of inversion
than the closed basketweave or moleskin stirrup ankle
taping techniques. However, the spartan slipper was not
significantly different from any of the other treatments.

The moleskin stirrup lost the most number of degrees
due to the placement of the moleskin onto the anchors of
the base tape on the lower leg. Therefore, all of the
forces from normal ankle motions are placed on the
foundation of the taping technique, which puts more
stress on the anchors causing slippage, and allows
increased inversion range of motion. Conversely, the
spartan slipper retains more of its restrictive
capacities because it does not attach to the anchors of
the lower leg but instead circumvents the stirrups of the
base tape and, by pulling them closer to the contours of
the ankle, makes the taping technique more restrictive to
inversion range of motion.

There was only one significant interaction (Table
5). It occurs between the treatment and the days during

pre-exercise measures. Initially, there was a difference

35
between the left and right foot for the amount of
restriction of inversion between the treatments and the
days. On days two, three, and four the control measures
for the left and right foot were significantly different
from all of the taping techniques. On day one the
control measures were significantly different from the
closed basketweave and spartan slipper taping techniques.
The moleskin stirrup taping technique was only
statistically different from the closed basketweave.

This could indicate that either foot has a tendency to be
more restrictive than the other. Because of the lack of
an interaction for post-exercise measures between the
taping techniques and the days, all of the treatments
lost inversion restriction at similar rates on the left

and right feet.

Conclusions

All of the ankle taping techniques were
significantly (p < .05) more restrictive in inversion
range of motion than the control group. Due to the
lowest degrees of inversion for the spartan slipper on
the right foot during post-exercise measures, its ability
to maintain the inversion restriction post-exercise, and
relatively greater restriction of inversion pre-exercise,
the spartan slipper was the best taping technique to

limit inversion motion of the ankle. The moleskin

36
stirrup, although not statistically significant, was more
restrictive than the closed basketweave in pre-exercise
and post-exercise measures.

The closed basketweave taping technique used in this
investigation was significant (p <.05) compared to the
control group at restricting inversion motion and should
be utilized as part of the athletic trainer's arsenal to
prevent inversion ankle sprains, protect against re-
injury, and reduce the severity of injury from inversion
torque in athletics. However, if an athlete sprains
his/her ankle and needs additional support and protection
from inversion forces, a better choice is the spartan

slipper or moleskin stirrup.

LI ST OF REFERENCES

38

Abdenour, T. E., Saville, W. A., White, R. C., &
Abdenour, M. A. (1979). The effect of ankle taping
upon torque and range of motion. Athletic Training,
15(4). 227-228.

Arnheim, D. D. (1989). Modern Ppinciples of Athiepig
Training (7th ed.). St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.

Delacerda, F. G. (1978). Effect of underwrap conditions
on the supportive effectiveness of ankle strapping

with tape. The Journai of Sports Medicine apd
Ehysical Fitness, i§(1), 77-81.

Donatelli, R. (1990). The Biomechanics of The Fog; gpd
Ankle (lst ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis.

Ferguson, A. B. (1973). The case against ankle taping.
Journal of Sports Medicine, T(1), 46-47.

Fischer, R. (1982). The measured effect of taping,
joint range of motion, and their interaction upon the
production of isometric ankle torques. Athietic
Training, ;(1), 218-223.

Fumich, R. M., Ellison, A. E., Guerin, G. J., & Grace, P.
D. (1981). The measured effect of taping on combined
foot and ankle motion before and after exercise. The

American Journal of Sports Medicine, g(3), 165-170.

Garrick, J. G. (1975). Ankle injuries: Frequency and
mechanism of injury. Athletic Trainin , TQ(2), 109-
111.

Garrick, J. G. (1977). The frequency of injury and

epidemiology of ankle sprains. The Amepigep Jouppai
ofi Spopts Medicine, §(6), 241-242.

Garrick, J. G., & Requa, R. K. (1973). Role of external
support in the prevention of ankle sprains. negigipe
and Sc'ence in S 0 ts, §(3), 200-203.

Glick, J. M., Gordon, R. B., & Nishimoto, D. (1976).
The prevention and treatment of ankle injuries. The

Agerican Jouppai of Spopts Medigine, 5(4), 136-141.

Greene, T. A., & Hillman, S.K. (1990). Comparison of
support provided by a semirigid orthosis and adhesive
ankle taping before, during, and after exercise. The

American Jougnai of Sporpe Medicipe, T§(5), 498-506.

39

 

Inman, V. T. (1976). The Jointe of the Ankle (lst
ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins Company.

Knight, K. L. (1979). Ligament ruptures produced by
forced inversion of cadaver ankles. Athletic

Tgaining, Tg(2), 91-94.

Laughmann, R. K., Carr, T. A., Chao, E. Y., Youdas, J.
W., & Sim, F. H. (1980). Three-dimensional
kinematics of the taped ankle before and after
exercise. The American Journal of S 0 ts Medicine,
8(6), 425-431.

Libera, D. (1972). Ankle taping, wrapping, and injury
prevention. Athletic Training, 1(3), 73-75.

Lyle, T. D. (1987). Comparison of restriction of ankle
inversion by taping versus bracing. Thesis. Arizona
State University.

Malina, R. M., Plagenz, L. B., & Rarick, G. L. (1963).
Effect of exercise upon the measurable supporting
strength of cloth and tape ankle wraps. Reeegpgh

Quarterly, ;g(2), 158-165.

Metcalf, G. R., & Denegar, C. R. (1983). A critical
review of ankle taping. Athletic Trainin , ;(1), 121-
122.

Morris, H. H., & Musnicki, W. (1983). The effect of
taping on ankle mobility following moderate exercise.

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Eitness,
;;(4), 422-426.

 

Pope, M. H., Renstrom, P., Donnermeyer, D., 8
Morgenstern, S. (1987). A comparison of ankle taping

methods. Medicine and Science in Spoppe epd Exepgise,
12(2). 143-147.

Rarick, G. L., Bigley, G., Karst, R., & Malina, R. M.
(1962). The measurable support of the ankle joint by
conventional methods of taping. The Jouppai g: nge
and Joint Supgery, 55(6), 1183-1190.

Rovere, G. D., Clarke, T. J., Yates, C. S., & Burley, K.
(1987). Retrospective comparison of taping and ankle
stabilizers in preventing ankle injuries. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, Orlando, FL.

Ryan, A. J. (1969). In support of ankles. Clinicel
Pedietrics, §(11), 618-619.

40

Seitz, C.J., & Goldfuss, A. J. (1984). The effect of
taping and exercise on passive foot inversion and

ankle plantar flexion. Athletic Training, 1(1), 178-
182.

Vaes, P., Boeck, D. E., Handelberg, F., & Opdecam, P.
(1985). Comparative radiologic study of the influence
of ankle joint bandages on ankle stability. The

Amazigan Journal of Spoppe Medicine, T;(1), 46-50.

Wilson, D. J., Brown, E. W., Kerry, A. G., Monroe, J. S.,
& Nogle S. E. (1990). A comparative study of
selected ankle restriction modalities. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National
Athletic Trainers Association, Indianapolis, IN.

41

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Paul Edward Plummer was born March 3, 1967 in
Defiance, Ohio. He graduated from Central Noble High
School in Albion, Indiana in 1985. He then earned his
Bachelor of Science degree from Southern Illinois
University in Carbondale, Illinois in 1989. He majored
in Physical Education with an emphasis in Athletic
Training. He then studied Human Performance with an
emphasis in Athletic Training at Michigan State
University in East Lansing, Michigan, to earn a Master of
Arts degree in 1991. He is a member of the National
Athletic Trainer Association and Great Lakes Athletic
Trainers Association.

APPENDIX A

MODIFIED INMAN ANKLE TESTING MACHINE

43

     

A - MACHINE AS IT LOOKS TODAY
WITH ELECTRONICS AND CALCANEOUS
STABILIZING EQUIPMENT ADDED.

. W’ ‘ ,

wisplsu v

 

    

A I F.“
1“. , .. , w I,,‘“. .M
__ ,m

B - NOTE STRAPS DO NOT INTERFER
WITH TAPING AND STILL STAB-
ILIZES THE FOOT.

C - WOODEN VISE-LIKE CLAMPING SYSTEM TO STABILIZE THE
CALCANEOUS TO ALLOW NORMAL ANKLE INVERSION MOTION.

APPENDIX B

SUBJECT PROFILE SHEET

45

SUBJECT PROFILE SHEET

NAME STUDENT NUMBER

HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY ANKLE INJURY? YES NO

IF YOU HAVE HAD AN ANKLE INJURY, DID YOU SEE A
PHYSICIAN? YES NO

DID YOU HAVE TO BE PUT ON CRUTCHES BECAUSE OF THE
INJURY? YES NO

HOW LONG WERE YOU UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR
SPORTING ACTIVITIES? 1-3 DAYS 3-8 DAYS 8-24 DAYS
24+ DAYS

DOES YOUR ANKLE FEEL UNSTABLE IN ANY ACTIVITY?
YES NO

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TOLD BY ANY MEDICAL PERSONNEL THAT
YOU HAVE UNSTABLE ANKLES? YES NO

WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT BODY WEIGHT?
POUNDS

 

WHAT POSITION DO YOU PLAY?

 

HEIGHT AGE

 

WHAT IS YOUR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVEL?
LOW MODERATE HIGH

APPENDIX C

CLOSED BASKETWEAVE TAPING TECHNIQUE

47

 

A- HEEL AND LACE PADS APPLIED

TO ANKLE SPRAYED WITH TAPE
ADHERENT.

  

C- THREE ANCHORS APPLIED TO
LOWER LEG AND ONE ANCHOR
PROXIMAL TO THE BASE OF THE

FIFTH METATARSAL ON THE FOOT.

 

E- SECOND STIRRUP AND HORSE-

SHOE APPLIED MEDIAL TO
LATERAL.

B - THIN LAYER OF PRE-WRAP
APPLIED TO COVER ANKLE AND
PADS.

    

D - FIRST STIRRUP AND
HORSESHOE APPLIED MEDIAL
TO LATERAL.

 

F - THIRD STIRRUP AND
HORSESHOE APPLIED MEDIAL
TO LATERAL.

48

 

G- FIRST MEDIAL HEEL LOCK H- FIRST LATERAL HEEL LOCK
APPLIED. APPLIED.

 

I- SECOND MEDIAL HEEL LOCK J- SECOND LATERAL HEEL-
APPLIED. LOCK APPLIED.

 

K- ANCHORS USED TO "CLOSE" L- FINISHED CLOSED BASKET-
TAPING, THREE ANCHORS ON THE WEAVE TAPING.

LOWER LEG AND ONE ANCHOR

PROXIMAL TO THE BASE OF THE

FIFTH METATARSAL ON THE FOOT.

APPENDIX D

MOLESKIN STIRRUP TAPING TECHNIQUE

50

 

A- HEEL AND LACE PADS APPLIED B- THIN LAYER OF PRE-WRAP
TO ANKLE SPRAYED WITH TAPE APPLIED TO COVER THE ANKLE
ADHERENT. AND PADS.

 

C- THREE ANCHORS APPLIED TO D- FIRST STIRRUP AND
LOWER LEG AND ONE ANCHOR HORSESHOE APPLIED MEDIAL
PROXIMAL TO THE BASE OF THE TO LATERAL.

FIFTH METATARSAL ON THE FOOT.

   

E- SECOND STIRRUP AND HORSE- F- THIRD STIRRUP AND
SHOE APPLIED MEDIAL TO HORSESHOE APPLIED MEDIAL
LATERAL. TO LATERAL. .

51

 

G- MOLESKIN STIRRUP ADDED H- FIRST MEDIAL HEEL LOCK
MEDIAL TO LATERAL. APPLIED.

 

I- FIRST LATERAL HEEL LOCK J- SECOND MEDIAL HEEL LOCK
APPLIED. APPLIED.

   

K- SECOND LATERAL HEEL LOCK L- ANCHORS USED TO "CLOSE"

APPLIED. TAPING, THREE ANCHORS ON THE
LOWER LEG AND ONE ANCHOR
PROXIMAL TO THE BASE OF THE
FIFTH METATARSAL OF THE FOOT.

APPENDIX E

SPARTAN SLIPPER TAPING TECHNIQUE

 

A- HEEL AND LACE PADS APPLIED

TO ANKLE SPRAYED WITH TAPE
ADHERENT.

 

C- THREE ANCHORS APPLIED TO
LOWER LEG AND ONE ANCHOR
PROXIMAL TO THE BASE OF THE

FIFTH METATARSAL ON THE FOOT.

 

E- SECOND STIRRUP AND HORSE-

SHOE APPLIED MEDIAL TO
LATERAL.

53

 

B- THIN LAYER OF PRE-WRAP
APPLIED TO COVER THE ANKLE
AND PADS.

2.x... ml- ¥-».

    

D- FIRST STIRRUP AND
HORSESHOE APPLIED MEDIAL
TO LATERAL.

 

F - THIRD STIRRUP AND
HORSESHOE APPLIED MEDIAL
TO LATERAL.

54

   

G- ELASTIKON ENDS SPLIT DOWN H- FIRST MEDIAL HEEL LOCK
THE MIDDLE AND WRAPPED AROUND APPLIED.

LOWER LEG PROXIMAL TO BOTH

MALLEOLI, MEDIAL TO LATERAL.

 

I- FIRST LATERAL HEEL LOCK J- SECOND MEDIAL HEEL LOCK
APPLIED. APPLIED.

   

K- SECOND LATERAL HEEL LOCK L- ANCHORS USED TO "CLOSE"

APPLIED. TAPING, THREE ANCHORS ON THE
LOWER LEG AND ONE ANCHOR
PROXIMAL TO THE BASE OF THE
FIFTH METATARSAL ON THE FOOT.

APPENDIX F

AGILITY DRILLS AND SPRINT TESTING

56
i 't r' ls

-Cone Drill: 4 cones are set up in a 10 yard by 10 yard
square. The subjects backpedal from cone A to cone B,
then side-shuffle to cone C, and sprint forward to cone
D. This drill is performed one subject at a time. As
the subject in front reaches cone B, the next subject
starts the drill. The drill is performed 10 times in
which the subjects are encouraged to go as fast as
possible.

Sile-SéuFF/e
T o
”pedal (____ [0,16 jfi‘hlf

 

 

 

mqplcgam

-Shuffle Drill: Each subject shuffles side to side 5
yards and back to the starting position without crossing
their feet. The athletes are encouraged to do this as
fast as they can for 2 minutes.

as.

 

 

-Jumping Drill: 4 squares (4 in by 4 in) have been
painted on the turf one foot apart forming a square. The
subjects will jump from square to square as fast as they
can for 2 minutes in a clock-wise direction. They will
all follow the same pattern.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

-Bag Drill: Each subject participated in 30 seconds of
jumping over the bags (14 inches by 14 inches) with their
feet together as fast as they could. This will be done 5
times.

€-—flWr-—9

1

-Reaction Drill: The subjects stutter step in place as
fast as they can, then as the coach points a direction,
forward, backward, right, or left, the subjects take 3
quick shuffle steps in that direction and continue to
stutter step in place until the coach points a new
direction. Three steps are taken in the new direction
and the subject continues to stutter step. At the
coaches discretion, the subject will sprint forward 10
yards. This drill usually lasts 20 seconds and is
repeated 5 times.

 

 

 

 

Sprints

-Each subject runs ten-100 yard sprints in 14 seconds
with 30 seconds rest between each sprint.

-Each subject runs eight-80 yard sprints in 12 seconds
with 25 seconds rest between each sprint.

APPENDIX G

TESTING PROCEDURES FOR THE MODIFIED

INMAN ANKLE TESTING MACHINE

59

EROTOCOL FOR THE MODIFIED INMAN AflfigE TESTING MACHINE
Positioning the Instrument.

1. The ankle testing apparatus should be used on a
table large enough for both the instrument and
subject.

2. The instrument is placed on the table to allow the

turnstile load wheel to be positioned over the edge
of the table.

Initial Calibration.
Preparing the Instrument (see Figure 3)

1. The red and black rods are clamped in place on the
control panel using the red-to-red, black-to-black
color scheme.

2. Turn on power to potentiometer by turning the power
switch to "ON".

3. The black power switch on the side of the ECG
voltmeter is turned on.

4. The 2000 amp switch on the side of the ECG voltmeter
is pushed in. z—w¢-rw, .H,.

   

FIGURE 4. ”'3'

FIGURE 3 . .....
ECG ECG‘ menu mumumu CONTROL g: .:
VOLTMETER PANEL

 

Turnstile Calibration (Inversion/Eversion) (see Figure 4)

1. Align the turnstile so that the calibration lines
are to the sides of the locking clamp.

2. Secure the turnstile with the locking screw
immediately above it.

3. Turn the calibration switch to the "IE" position
(downward).

4. Calibrate the potentiometer by turning the
calibration screw labeled "IEO" (bottom screw) until
the first two digits from the left side read zero.
Disregard the negative sign.

60

Now release the turnstile locking screw and move the
turnstile clockwise until the vertical support of
the swing arm stops the motion by hitting against
the locking clamp. Secure the turnstile by using
the locking clamp.

Use the calibration screw labeled "IEC" (second from
the bottom) to calibrate the potentiometer to 78
degrees. Remember to read the first two digits from
the left side and disregard the negative sign.

notes: Calibration screws turn right to lower the
readout on the potentiometer.
Recalibration should be done between pre and
post activity measurements and should not
slow down the testing procedure.

Testing Preparation (see Figure 5)

1.
2.

Lock the turnstile and swingarm in the 0 position.
The subject should be placed on his back with the
appropriate leg placed on the calf resting bar, the
shank horizontal and the malleoli in line vertically
with the rotation knobs. The sole of the foot
should be pressed firmly against the foot pad.

The wooden clamp should be moved up or down the
slide until the malleoli line up vertically with the
rotation knobs on either side of the ankle.

Secure the wooden clamp into position, strap the
subject's foot to the pad using the velcro straps,
and make sure the clamp is secured to the subject’s
calcaneus.

The foot pad is now positioned so that an imaginary
line bisecting the lateral and medial malleoli are
in line with the rotation knobs on either side of
the ankle.

Secure the calf in place using the velcro
restraining strap.

Measuring Inversion/Eversion Range of Motion

Be certain the swing arm is raised and locked in the
horizontal position.

The potentiometer switch should be in the "IE"
reading position.

The turnstile locking screw should be loosened to
allow for free movement.

61

The administrator stands behind the turnstile
loading wheel to allow for control of the weights.

A loading cord is placed on the turnstile by hooking
one end on the anchoring screw and following the run
well so that the cord goes around the turnstile in
the appropriate direction depending upon whether
inversion or eversion is being measured.

Instruct the subject to "relax" and add the six
kilogram weight to the loading cord.

After the weights have been added, and the subject
relaxes his lower leg, record the reading on the
potentiometer.

After the measurements have been recorded, remove
the weights and loading cord.

Repeat steps 1 - 8 for the other leg.

Post-Measurement Activities

1.

2.

Check to see that all measurements are recorded
clearly.

Release the calf and foot restraining straps and
release the subject from the instrument.

APPENDIX H

SUBJECT RECORD SHEET

63

SUBJECT CODE

 

 

PRE-EXERCISE POST-EXERCISE

 

CONTROL

 

CLOSED
BASKETWEAVE

 

MOLESKIN
STIRRUP

 

SPARTAN
SLIPPER

 

 

 

 

 

-ALL READING SHOULD BE REPORTED IN DEGREES

-BOTH ANKLES SHOULD HAVE SCORES FOR EACH CELL

“Tlliil'lfljiiiflflflW