Effects of Kinesio‐taping and rigid‐taping on vertical jump in individuals with pes planus: A randomised crossover comparison

Abstract

Introduction

The effects of Kinesio‐taping (KT) and rigid‐taping (RT) on vertical jump performance have been investigated; however, remain unclear. The study was designed to compare the effects of KT and RT on vertical jump in individuals with pes planus.

Methods

A total of 74 participants were diagnosed with pes planus. The foot posture index (FPI) was used to determine pes planus. Participants were randomly divided into two groups. Before taping, the vertical jump height and power were measured using a VertiMetric device as baseline data. Jump measurement was repeated after Kinesio‐taping (KT) and rigid taping (RT) application to group 1 and group 2 respectively in the first period and after crossing in the second period following a 1‐week washout. Crossover and equivalence analyses were used for data analysis.

Results

KT and RT showed a statistically significant increase in jump height and power. However, the effect of the RT was higher compared to KT (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

While both taping techniques increased jump height and power, RT was more effective than KT in improving jumping performance in individuals with pes planus, possibly because of its direct supporting function on the MLA. RT may also improve performance in various sports or clinical settings to accelerate recovery after injury or lower the risk of injury caused by poor foot posture.

1. INTRODUCTION

The foot is the primary body segment that interacts with the ground and functions as a coherent mechanism and a rigid lever arm. This has been one of the most argued issues in many foot‐related studies. ¹ , ² The anatomical structures of the foot receive and distribute the ground reaction force accordingly to align the foot with the ground to serve these functions. ³ Extreme foot posture, such as pes planus, has been reported to make the foot more prone to injury during physical activities. ⁴ Pes planus, which results in increased medial contact area and greater medial forces and pressures ⁵ can be distinguished with observed loss of the height of the medial longitudinal arch and formation of valgus alignment in the heel supination of the forefoot relative to the rearfoot, eversion of the calcaneus at the level of the subtalar joint, and abduction of the midtarsal joint. ⁶ The effects of variability in human foot and ankle structures on locomotor function are unclear. ⁵ Although pes planus is seen as a static alignment problem involving the ankle and foot complex, it has been reported that it can also affect the dynamics of the lower extremity during locomotor activities such as walking, running, and jumping. ⁷ While the ankle and foot complex has contributed approximately 28% of total power during vertical jump, ⁸ the foot with pes planus does not show a high mechanical advantage for producing a rigid lever arm to generate sufficient counterforce. ⁹ Because excessive pronation of the foot with pes planus prevents subtalar and midtarsal joints supination, which is required for transforming the midfoot into a rigid lever, hence, sufficient propulsive force for vertical jump cannot be provided. ⁷ This condition may be more apparent with extreme loading in athletic performance such as jumping, landing, running and side cutting. Although, athletes can resist these forces more easily due to their training, ¹⁰ , ¹¹ it has been found that athletes with pes planus exhibit a poor ability to control foot movements, which causes poor jumping performance. ¹² It has also been shown that in cases where foot biomechanics and posture are affected in athletes, leg and foot muscles are exposed to a fatigue process that affects athletic success. ¹³ While the forces affecting MLA are less in sedentary people compared to athletes, their MLA is still affected due to poor adaptation mechanisms. ⁹

Many applications, such as insole and taping, for correcting excessive pronation in the foot with pes planus are expected to increase vertical jump performance. ⁷ It has been found that insole application improved ground reaction force (GRF) and resulted in a more effective vertical jump. ⁷ Evidence suggests that rigid taping (RT) can also be a practical application by controlling foot motions, specifically excessive pronation. ⁵

RT is used as a temporary orthosis to support the medial longitudinal arch and control pronation by pulling the posterior aspect of the calcaneus to the anterior and medial direction, thereby limiting hindfoot eversion and preventing associated talar adduction and plantar flexion. ¹⁴ It reduces the tension stress on the plantar fascia by increasing the medial longitudinal arch height and limiting the pronation in the subtalar joint. ¹⁵ Conversely, some studies have argued that RT applied to the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) does not change the subtalar joint position and is insufficient to control the pronation. ¹⁶ , ¹⁷

On the other hand, Kinesio taping (KT) has also been applied for the same purpose rather than rigid restrictive tape. ¹⁸ Kinesio taping (KT) is an elastic therapeutic tape used in clinical and nonclinical practice. ¹⁹ Applying the KT allows the body to move normally and react to the fascia through biomechanical or proprioceptive mechanisms. ²⁰ However, studies present contradictory results. A study indicated that KT improves proprioception and kinaesthetic sense, modulates pain, increases local circulation, enhances myofascial mobility and provides a placebo effect. ¹⁹ , ²¹ Contrary to this, Halseth et al. ²² revealed that applying KT does not appear to enhance proprioception. Consequently, there was also insufficient evidence to support using KT over other modalities in clinical practice. ²³ Another study found that KT application to the thigh muscles increased sprint performance, ²⁴ while a recent meta‐analysis argued that KT does not improve muscle strength and functional performance. ²⁵ A research study where KT was applied on the quadriceps also showed no significant change in knee extensor peak torque with or without tape. ²⁶

Previous studies investigated the effects of KT application on foot posture. ¹⁸ , ²⁷ , ²⁸ , ²⁹ , ³⁰ It has been shown that applying KT parallel to the muscle orientation could alter the kinematics of joints and reduce tissue stiffness. ³⁰ A study revealed that KT intended to facilitate the tibialis posterior and reinforce the transverse arch could reduce navicular drop in individuals with flexible pes planus immediately after application and increase their tibialis anterior muscle activity during the first 15 min of running. ³¹ Another study found that a significant increase in the vertical ground reaction force after applying KT on the triceps surae muscle reflected that KT might facilitate the muscle contraction capacity during a vertical jump. ²⁹ In contrast, Tsai et al. ³² and Nakajima et al. ¹⁸ stated that KT does not affect such foot conditions and KT application on the ankle neither decreased nor increased vertical jump height in healthy, non‐injured young individuals. In summary, the differences in material properties and application techniques between KT and RT lead to their varied effects on jump performance. KT's flexibility and proprioceptive benefits may enhance dynamic movements, while RT's stability can be more beneficial for injury prevention but may restrict movement.

The effect of KT and RT on controlling foot pronation remains unclear due to contradicting results. The current literature contains controversial outcomes regarding the effectiveness of KT application under conditions that require a high amount of loading, such as vertical jumping in people with pes planus. ²⁹ , ³³ Moreover, to our knowledge, there is not any study to elucidate the effect of RT on vertical jump performance.

The study aimed to compare the effects of KT and RT on vertical jump performance in sedentary adults with pes planus. It was hypothesised that the RT and the KT change foot posture and support the MLA, resulting in increased jump performance, reflected by increased jump height and power in individuals with pes planus. We have also hypothesised that RT would be more effective in improving vertical jump performance because of its direct mechanical correction of pes planus.

2. METHODS

2.1. Study design and subjects

A total of 74 adults with pes planus aged 18–35 years were purposefully recruited among 361 screened individuals from university communities based on their foot posture and gender/age mix (Figure 1). All participants were given written consent to participate. The six‐item Foot Posture Index (FPI) ³⁴ was used for classifying normal and pes planus foot types because it is reliable and boundaries for different foot types have been developed. A total of 74 participants were randomly divided into two groups of equal size using the computer programme (https://www.randomizer.org) for 2×2 crossover design, and the allocation was concealed. The randomization process was conducted by a researcher who was not involved in any part of the study. A total of 25 out of 37 participants in Group I (G1), and 28 out of 37 participants in Group II (G2) were female. They were free of all lower extremity injuries in the past 12 months. They had no history of lower extremity surgery and visual or vestibular disorders. Those with other foot deformities accompanying pes planus were excluded from the study. The study was approved by the university's institutional ethical committee (EKK21‐22/016/006) and conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration 2008. The study was registered as a clinical trial with the number “NCT06022718”.

Figure 1.

Participant selection and crossover design.

2.2. Sample size

The sample size was calculated with the G*Power programme (version 3.1.9.2). When the power analysis was performed, the number of participants to be included in the study was calculated as 74 when type I error (alpha value) was 0.05, the type II error (1‐β value) was 0.8, and the effect size (Cohen's d) was 0.5.

2.3. Data collection and outcome measures

All the participants have shown sedentary physical activity levels according to the Turkish version of International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ‐SF). ³⁵

FPI is used for clinical diagnostic purposes that evaluate whether a foot is in pronation, supination, or normal posture. The sum of six‐item scores between 0 and 5 are interpreted as normal foot, scores of 6–12 as pes planus, and scores <0 as pes cavus. ³⁴

The jumping performance of each participant was evaluated using the VertiMetric (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN) device. The reliability of the VertiMetric device ranged from 0.91 to 0.93 in a study conducted by previous investigators examining the device ³⁶ and ranged from 0.85 to 0.89 in another study. ¹⁸ The maximal vertical jump from a squat position without counter‐movement was selected. This condition was performed as a pure concentric contraction called the squatting jump (SJ). ³⁷ The participants were familiarised with the test procedure by practising vertical jumping several times. The VertiMetric device is attached to the right ankle. Individuals were asked to stand upright in barefoot condition, evenly distributing their body weight on both feet and then jump from a half‐squat position to the maximum possible height. The jump height was recorded in centimetres (cm), and the power was recorded in watts (W). Three measurements were obtained with 30‐second rest intervals, and their average was taken as baseline data.

2.4. Interventions

After evaluating the baseline vertical jump performance, KT was applied to the G1, RT was applied to the G2, and the vertical jump performance measurement was repeated. As indicated in the earlier studies, ²¹ , ³⁸ a 1‐week washout period was left for the cross‐application. At the end of the washout period, the vertical jump measurement was repeated, applying RT and KT to the G1 and G2, respectively (Figure 1).

Kinesio® Tex Gold FP (USA) was applied on both feet in the prone position with the knee extended and the feet in a slightly plantar flexed position and hanging off the bed. The first KT was cut as an I shape and prepared for the transverse arch ligament correction technique. The non‐stretched starting anchor was attached to the dorsum of the 5th. metatarsal on the lateral side of the foot, passed from the plantar surface to the medial side with 75% tension. ³¹ The non‐stretched end was attached to the medial side of the ankle over the navicular region. The non‐stretched initial anchor of the second KT strip starting from the proximal dorsal of the 5th. metatarsal on the lateral side of the foot, passed from the plantar surface to the medial side of the foot and posterior to the medial malleolus following the tibialis posterior anatomy up to half of the tibia with 75% tension, and the ending anchor was attached without tension as explained elsewhere. ³¹ To maximise the adhesion, the tape was rubbed immediately after the application.

Low dye taping technique was used with a 3.8 cm wide rigid band (Leuko ^® Sportstape Premium, Germany) for rigid taping. RT was performed on both feet in the subtalar neutral position while participants in the prone position with their heels and feet off the bed. The taping protocol described elsewhere was followed. ³⁹ To optimise RT adhesion, feet were washed and dried before taping. To increase consistency, the same researcher (MU) applied all taping.

2.5. Statistical analysis

Statgraphics Centurion 19 trial version software (Statgraphics Technologies, Inc. The Plains, Virginia, USA) was used for analysing the data obtained from volunteer sedentary pes planus participants recruited for the study. Whether the data showed normal distribution was determined by the Shapiro‐Wilk test. Jump height and power were analysed with the 2×2 cross‐analysis module. The significance level was set as p < 0.05. Since there is no published result on the effect of RT, an Equivalence test was performed to show whether vertical jump height and power values obtained from KT and RT were statistically equal.

3. RESULTS

A total of 114 participants with pes planus from screened 316 individuals from the university population were recruited into the study. Of the 35, did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 5 participants rejected to participate. Therefore, a total of 74 participants were randomly divided into two groups. The power of the test was calculated as 0.81 when the confidence interval and effect size were set at 95% and 0.5, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups for all demographic data (Table 1). The comparison of the pre‐intervention measurements yielded that there were no significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the participants.

	Group 1	Group 2
	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p
Age (year)	22.41 ± 2.86	22.16 ± 2.39	0.693
Body weight (kg)	67.22 ± 12.96	65.68 ± 14.70	0.634
Body length (m)	1.68 ± 0.08	1.68 ± 0.09	1.000
BMI (kg/m2)	23.68 ± 3.79	22.99 ± 3.51	0.418
Activity level (MET)	348.82 ± 86.24	335.03 ± 83.30	0.486
Foot posture index (Right)	7.08 ± 0.98	7.22 ± 0.92	0.543
Foot posture index (Left)	7.08 ± 0.98	7.24 ± 0.93	0.467

Note: Significance level set as 0.05.

Abbreviations: MET, Metabolic Equivalent of Task; SD, Standard Deviation.

The jump performance values for both groups in each period are shown in Table 2. In within‐group comparison, the jump height and power values obtained after KT and RT application were higher and statistically significant for both groups in two periods (p < 0.05; Table 3). Despite significant within‐group differences, the crossover analysis showed statistically significant differences in jumping values between KT and RT applications. The absence of a statistically significant period effect and carry‐over permits the use of the statistically highly significant statistic for the effect of RT versus KT in jump height and jump power. With 95% confidence, the true population value for the magnitude of the effect lies between 2.09 and 3.21 for jump height and between 179.28 and 273.58 for jump power. Therefore, the jump height and power values were higher in favour of the RT (p < 0.05; Table 4, Figure 2).

Table 2.

Mean and standard deviation of data in both periods.

		Period 1	Period 2
		Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
Jump height (cm)	Group 1	34.40 ± 7.22 (KT)	36.78 ± 6.23 (RT)
	Group 2	37.57 ± 8.15 (RT)	34.66 ± 5.97 (KT)
Jump power (W)	Group 1	3064.7 ± 878.5 (KT)	3325.2 ± 859.8 (RT)
	Group 2	3247.5 ± 913.4 (RT)	3055.1 ± 872.1 (KT)

Abbreviations: cm, Centimetre; KT, Kinesiotape; RT, Rigid Tape; SD, Standard Deviation; W, Watt.

Table 3.

Within group differences of jump height (cm) and power (W) in two periods.

				Mean
Period	Measurement	Taping	Group	Differences ± SD	p	Cohen's d	LL 95%CI	UL 95%CI
1	Jump Height (cm)	KT	Group 1	−3.76 ± 1.15	<0.001	−3.27	−4.08	−2.25
		RT	Group 2	−4.24 ± 1.69	<0.001	−2.51	−3.17	−1.84
2	Jump Height (cm)	RT	Group 1	−8.67 ± 10.94	<0.001	−0.79	−1.16	−0.42
		KT	Group 2	−4.12 ± 10.92	=0.028	−0.38	−0.71	−0.04
1	Jump Power (W)	KT	Group 1	−230.57 ± 79.02	<0.001	−2.91	−3.69	−2.13
		RT	Group 2	−325.00 ± 115.68	<0.001	−2.81	−3.53	−2.08
2	Jump Power (W)	RT	Group 1	−611.86 ± 332.39	<0.001	−1.84	−2.37	−1.31
		KT	Group 2	−267.22 ± 122.81	<0.001	−2.18	−2.77	−1.58

Note: Significance level set as 0.05.

Abbreviations: Cohen's d, Effect Size; KT, Kinesiotape; LL, Lower; RT, Rigid Tape; SD, Standard Deviation; UL, Upper Limit.

Table 4.

Crossover comparison of the jump height and power.

Variables		Effects	SEM	t	p	LL 95%CI	UL 95%CI
Jump height (cm)	Carry over	−0.54	3.21	−0.167	0.867	−7.05	5.97
	Jump	2.65	0.28	9.405	<0.001	2.09	3.21
	Period	0.52	0.28	1.874	0.065	−0.05	1.09
Jump power (W)	Carry over	68.06	408.09	0.167	0.868	−745.14	881.26
	Jump	226.43	23.66	9.572	<0.001	179.28	273.58
	Period	−43.66	23.66	−1.846	0.069	−90.81	3.49

Note: Significance level 0.05.

Abbreviations: cm, Centimetre; LL, Lower limit; SEM, Standard Error of Mean; UL, Upper limit; W, Watt.

Figure 2.

Equivalence test for (A) jump height and (B) jump power obtained from RT and KT.

In the equivalence analysis, when the jump values obtained from KT were counted as a reference, the 95% CI (2.09–3.21) was out of the equivalence interval defined by the lower equivalence limit (LEL) and the upper equivalence limit (UEL) for jump height (p = 0.96; Figure 2A). The 95% CI (179.28–273.58) was also out of the equivalence interval for jump power (p = 0.99; Figure 2B).

4. DISCUSSION

This study was carried out in 2×2 crossover design to compare KT and RT on vertical jump performance in sedentary individuals with pes planus. Although, both applications have shown to improve vertical jump performance, the RT was more effective than KT.

Vertical jumping is often used as an essential way of determining anaerobic power. ⁸ The most critical kinematic components of the vertical jump are the rapid extension of hips, knee and ankle joints. ⁴⁰ The rapid concentric contraction of the hip and knee extensors and the plantar flexors of the foot and ankle form the kinetic components. It has been stated that the concentric contraction ability required during vertical jumps can be increased with various applications. It is known that cutaneous stimuli increase muscle contraction capacity, and it is frequently used in rehabilitative applications. However, it has been argued that its effect is not long‐lasting. ³¹ Adhesive elastic bands applied on the skin positively affect the joint range of motion by increasing the proprioceptive sensation, and additional sensory input improves sensory‐motor integration and provides a better quality of movement in the applied segment. ²⁹

KT, specially produced in terms of its material, texture properties and adhesive substance, is one of the most frequently used applications; however, the results of the studies in the literature are contradictory. ¹⁸ , ³¹ , ³³ , ⁴¹ It has been observed that KT applied on the quadriceps femoris increases the range of motion of the knee and the EMG activity during muscle contraction. ⁴² It has also been found that KT applied on the medial gastrocnemius muscle increased jump performance by stimulating muscle activity. ²⁹ Aguilar et al. revealed that neuromuscular KT caused a decrease in the FPI score in a foot with pes planus after a 45‐min run. ⁵ While there is a decreasing activity in peroneus longus (PL) in pes planus, ⁴³ it has been shown that KT increases the activity of the tibialis anterior and medial gastrocnemius and delays the decrease of the peroneus longus activity during running, ³¹ therefore, contributes to the improve of MLA because it plantar flexes the 1st. MTP joint. However, it is doubtful whether the moment created by the PL due to the small moment arm and cross‐sectional area contributes to the support of the MLA by plantar flexing the 1st MTP joint under the load. ⁷ Therefore, it can be predicted that although KT maintains the PL activity, it does not have a corrective effect on the foot with pes planus. ³³ Despite limited physical correction, the KT has been shown to improve vertical jump power and height in the current study. These results are similar to those of previous studies that KT applied on the skin along the tibialis posterior muscle stimulates mechanoreceptors, facilitates concentric contraction of the muscle, and prevents further pronation of the foot by limiting the eccentric contraction, thus supporting MLA. ³¹

RT has been reported to support the MLA in both static and dynamic conditions in pes planus. ⁴⁴ Although limited studies investigating the effectiveness of RT on pes planus, most of these studies report an acute effect in correcting foot pronation. ³¹ , ⁴⁵ Contrary to this, Holmes et al. found that RT did not immediately affect MLA support in pes planus. ¹⁶ However, it is doubtful that the subtalar neutral position ⁴⁶ was achieved during the measurement of navicular height in the participants included in that study. While the literature demonstrates contradicting results on the effects of RT in correcting overpronation, only one study has been found related to its effects on vertical jump performance, which provides little evidence on the direct mechanical effect, rather suggests changes in lower extremity muscle activities during jumping performance in pes planus. ⁴⁵ With the rapid contraction of the gastrocnemius, soleus and other plantar flexors of the foot, the plantar flexed foot must come to supination and become a rigid lever arm to generate sufficient power. In pes planus, the inability to form a rigid lever arm negatively affects the vertical jump performance as it causes insufficient power generation required for the jumping. ⁷ In agreement with our results, the RT corrects pes planus with its direct mechanical effect that supports the MLA similar to those foot insoles. ¹⁴ Indeed, the foot with pes planus was shown to produce a higher force during vertical jumps when supported with insoles. ⁷ Our results from equivalence analysis also suggest that RT markedly increases the vertical jump height and power with its direct support on the MLA.

When we compare the mechanisms of action of RT and KT techniques; RT provides strong mechanical support and stability to the joints and muscles. ⁵ , ¹⁵ This can be particularly beneficial in activities requiring explosive power, such as jumping, as it helps maintain joint alignment and reduces the risk of injury by limiting excessive movement. KT offers more elastic support, allowing for a greater range of motion. While this can be beneficial for muscle activation and circulation, it may not provide the same level of stability as rigid taping, which can be crucial for optimal jump performance. RT enhances proprioceptive feedback by providing a firm sensation on the skin, which can improve joint position sense and coordination during dynamic activities such as jumping. KT also enhances proprioception ²⁰ but its elasticity allows for more subtle feedback, which might not be as effective in high‐impact activities where stability is prioritised. The RT technique, by restricting certain movements, can help pre‐activate muscles crucial for jumping, potentially leading to better performance. KT aims to facilitate muscle activation and reduce fatigue, but its effects might be more beneficial for endurance and recovery ¹⁹ rather than immediate performance enhancement in power activities. On the other hand, with RT, the feeling of tightness and support can boost confidence in athletes, making them feel more secure during jumps. While KT provides psychological benefits, the perception of support might not be as strong as with rigid taping, which could influence performance outcomes. ¹⁸ , ²⁵ , ³²

There are several limitations in the current study: First, both KT and RT were applied in a short time; however, long‐term usage of KT and RT might be a potential factor altering the results. Second, our sample was selected from a sedentary young population. Therefore, the result may not be generalisable to the athletes.

5. CONCLUSION

This study provides provisional evidence that both applications significantly improve jump performance. Although it was predicted that MLA could be indirectly supported by the facilitating effect of KT on the tibialis posterior muscle, the effects of RT appear to be more assertive on jump height and power in sedentary adult participants with pes planus. Therefore, we concluded that using RT may be more effective in improving jumping performance in various sports or the clinical setting to accelerate the recovery process after injury or lower the risk of injury caused by poor foot posture.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

There was no conflict of interest.

Ünsalan M, Miçooğulları M, Angın S. Effects of Kinesio‐taping and rigid‐taping on vertical jump in individuals with pes planus: a randomised crossover comparison. J Eval Clin Pract. 2024;31:1‐8. 10.1111/jep.14228

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.