This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]

On: 14 June 2015, At: 21:15

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Footwear Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfws20

Verification of toe allowance of children's footwear

and its categorisation
a a b a
Jana Pavlackova , Pavlina Egner , Pavel Mokrejs & Martina Cernekova
a
Department of Fat, Tenside and Cosmetic Technology, Faculty of Technology, Tomas Bata
University, Zlín, Czech Republic
b
Department of Polymer Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Tomas Bata University, Zlin,
Czech Republic
Published online: 10 Jun 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Jana Pavlackova, Pavlina Egner, Pavel Mokrejs & Martina Cernekova (2015): Verification of toe allowance
of children's footwear and its categorisation, Footwear Science, DOI: 10.1080/19424280.2015.1049299

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2015.1049299

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Footwear Science, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2015.1049299

Verification of toe allowance of children’s footwear and its categorisation

Jana Pavlackovaa*, Pavlina Egnera, Pavel Mokrejsb and Martina Cernekovaa
a
Department of Fat, Tenside and Cosmetic Technology, Faculty of Technology, Tomas Bata University, Zl
ın, Czech Republic;
b
Department of Polymer Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Tomas Bata University, Zlin, Czech Republic
(Received 20 November 2014; accepted 5 May 2015)

This study verifies the declared sizes of children’s footwear, categorising it according to gender and age, the cut of the
upper, the assembling method, the material of the upper, the lining material, the fastening, the heights of the upper and the
heights of the heel. The study looked into the allocation given to toe allowance, which represents growing room for a
child’s foot, while ensuring the shoes remain comfortable. Research was conducted on 115 pairs of children’s footwear, at
the French sizes of 22, 25 and 30. It was found that in all examples at size 22, the recommended design specifications for
toe allowance were most consistently observed, while for size 25 this applied in 91% of cases, but an alarming percentage

54% of pairs
was discerned for size 30. This provision for growth exists to prevent possible damage to the soft tissues
of children’s feet and also to prevent forefoot deformities from occurring. Maintaining the specifications for toe allowance
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 21:15 14 June 2015

also contributes to easier customer guidance when selecting the optimum shoe size.
Keywords: children’s footwear; comfort; fit; foot; size; toe allowance

1. Introduction and shape determining footwear generally, it still has to

At present, the range of footwear available is greatly
diverse and varied, mainly as a consequence of technolog-
ical advances. Footwear is capable of delivering assorted
special properties (drainage of moisture, elimination of
odour, insulation of feet from the cold, etc.), but the
requirement to maintain the proportionality of footwear in
relation to the foot remains utterly crucial. Some types of
fashionable footwear serve as accessories to garments,
meaning the form of such footwear has importance but
does not always fully support the physiological function
of the foot (Goonetilleke 1999; Kuklane, 2009; Park,
2012; Staheli, 1991; Tailby, 1997).
The appropriate size of a shoe is one of the most
important requirements for healthy footwear, primarily
among children. Aligning the shape of the foot with the
interior space of the shoe is termed the ‘fit’, which is opti-
mum when all parts or sections of the foot correspond to
the relevant parts of the footwear (Hawes & Sovak, 1994;
Janisse, 1992; Mauch, Grau, Krauss, Maiwald, & Horst-
mann, 2009; Rossi, 1994; Rossi & Tennant, 1984).
The behaviour of a foot enclosed in a shoe is different
when walking or at rest, while variation can also be
observed in the morning and in the evening, or even at dif-
ferent conditions of humidity and temperature. As several
hours are spent in shoes every day, these factors need to
be taken into account. Despite the overriding uniformity
conform to the foot, even under varying conditions. The
right foot may differ from the left foot in length, perimeter
and width measurements. As is apparent from the exam-
ples provided, even so-called close-fitting footwear shall
exert a certain degree of discomfort (poor fit) on one foot
but not the other (Penkala, Harris, Hunt, & Naughton,
2011; Pivecka & Laure, 1995). Comfort is a subjective
sensation experienced by the user and, therefore, it can
prove very difficult to find ‘the right shoe for the right
foot’. If the shoe is too tight, it causes pressure on the tis-
sue of the feet, so the shoe becomes uncomfortable for its
user. However, if footwear is too loose, the wearer experi-
ences shoe slippage when walking, thereby increasing
physical exertion and potentially causing injury to the
soft tissue of the foot as a result of friction (Au &
Goonetilleke, 2007). Studies conducted (Alemany,
Gonz
alez, Garc
ıa, & Olaso, 2005; Cheng & Perng, 1999;
Coughlin, 1995; Echarri & Forriol, 2003; Goonetilleke,
Luximon, & Tsui, 2000; Gould, Moreland, Alvarez, Tre-
vino, & Fenwick, 1989; Hawes et al. 1994; Klein, Groll-
Knapp, Kundi, & Kinz, 2009; Luximon, Goonetilleke, &
Tsui, 2001; Miller et al., 2000; Rao & Joseph, 1992;
Sachithanandam & Joseph, 1995; Staheli, 1991) suggest
that the poor fit of the shoe on the foot can cause health
problems such as blisters, abrasions, bunions and other
forefoot deformities, as well as painful and tired feet.

*Corresponding author. Email: pavlackova@ft.utb.cz

Ó 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 J. Pavlackova et al.

The length of the foot is a crucial dimension in select- 2. Materials and methods
ing the most appropriate size of footwear. Properly fitting 2.1. Materials
shoes should be approximately 9
15 mm longer than the
Verifying the declared size of footwear took place in two
foot (Cheskin, Sherkin, & Bates, 1987; Maier & Kill-
independent children’s footwear specialised stores, when
mann, 2003; McInnes et al., 2012; Pivecka & Laure,
a total of 115 (N D 115) right half-pairs were checked,
1995; Stastna, 2003). This parameter is referred to as toe
size 22 (N22 D 37), 25 (N25 D 43) and 30 (N30 D 35), in
allowance. Maintaining toe allowance values is some-
accordance with the French sizing system, these emanat-
thing that has been increasingly violated by footwear
ing from different footwear manufacturers and represent-
modellers and designers. The main problem is failure on
ing contemporary children’s footwear from the youngest
the part of the manufacturers to indicate the allocation of
children (start of walking) to pre-school children. The
toe allowance for each shoe when selecting suitable
vast majority of shoe samples were manufactured in the
children’s footwear in terms of proportion. In fact, this is
EU (38% in Austria, 25% in the Czech Republic, 22% in
even not required by traders (Hlavacek, 2010). Toe
Italy, 8% in Denmark and 5% in Norway), 2% of shoe
allowance refers to the space (in) which the children’s
samples were produced in the USA. The samples com-
foot can grow, the toes move when walking, allows a
prised from 12 shoe brands
Superfit, Richter, Geox, Pri-
designer to modify the shape of the front (tip) of footwear
migi, Fare, Ecco, Sant
e, KTR, Olang, Viking, ESSI, Keen;
according to trends in fashion (Pivecka & Laure, 1995;
the biggest representatives among them was Austrian
Rossi & Tennant, 1984).
company Superfit, the second and third ones were Richter
Irregular leaps or bursts in growth, a facet not shared
and Geox. Distribution of the nation of manufacturers
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 21:15 14 June 2015

by all children, can be observed in children’s feet that do

amongst the shoe sizes sampled is presented in Table 1
not display regular growth. For this reason, periodical
and distribution of the brands amongst the shoe sizes sam-
checks are necessary on the size of feet and footwear. The
pled is presented in Table 2.
average annual increase in foot length at children
Each model was photographically documented and
aged 3
15 equals approximately 12 mm (Maier, 1990;
recorded under a unique serial number. Categorising the
Pavlackova, Benesova, & Hlavacek, 2011; Pavlackova &
footwear was conducted in terms of age and gender

Tomasova, 2001; Stastna, 2000). Nevertheless, the neces-
group size, the upper cut, the manner of production, the
sary allocation of toe allowance must be determined as
upper and lining materials used, fastenings, and the
precisely as possible at the moment of purchasing foot-
heights of the upper and pitch. The heterogeneity in
wear, this stemming from the individual shape of the feet
shoes sizes, shoe construction and gender split repre-
and the insoles of the footwear selected.
sents children’s footwear market offer of most popular
Current scientific footwear literature does not deeply
styles in the Czech Republic. These styles can be consid-
discuss children’s footwear and toe allowance. The
ered as a representative nationwide data for the Czech
importance of keeping toe allowance is reported in
market.
papers of worldwide-known shoe experts, such as Piv-
ecka, Laure, Rossi and Tennant who settled construction
principles of harmless foot. Pivecka and Laure emphasize
the importance of additional toe allowance not to prevent 2.2. Measurements
fingers movement in shoe during walking (Pivecka & 2.2.1. Pitch measurement
Laure, 1995). In children’s shoes, the extra length of The pitch of the heel was measured as the difference
width allowed foot growth (Rossi & Tennant, 1984). between the height of the sole measured at the toe cap
Based on the gap in current literature, there is the need of and the height of the heel at the heel seat, utilising a
the study focused on verification of toe allowance of shoemaking meter placed perpendicularly to the ground
children’s footwear. Results of such study will be wel- level.
comed by shoe manufacturers and customers as well.
The research question of our study is as follows. Guaran-
tees the current offer of children’s footwear within the
frame of toe allowance in The European Union (EU) Table 1. Distribution of the nation of manufacturers (%)
amongst the shoe sizes sampled.
shoe sizes 22, 25 and 30 sufficient growing room for
healthy development of children’s foot? The goals of our Country of origin
study are: (1) to study the declared sizes of children’s Shoe
footwear and verify of toe allowance; (2) categorise size Austria Czech Republic Italy Denmark Norway USA
children’s footwear according to gender and age, the cut 22 33 29 24 14 0 0
of the upper, the assembling method, the material of the 25 55 17 16 7 5 0
upper, the lining material, the fastening, the heights of 30 32 17 34 0 11 6
the upper and the heights of the heel.
 Footwear Science 3

Table 2. Distribution of the brands (%) amongst the shoe sizes sampled.

Brands of manufacturers

(Austria) (Czech Republic) (Italy) (Denmark) (Norway) (USA)

Shoe size Superfit Richter KTR ESSI Sant
e Fare Geox Primigi Olang Ecco Viking Keen

22 22 11 5 8 5 11 11 13 0 14 0 0
25 39 16 5 0 5 7 9 5 2 7 5 0
30 23 9 3 0 3 11 20 11 3 0 11 6

2.2.2. Measurement of footwear length
The inside length of footwear was determined in each
half-pair from the toe cap to the curve of the heel using a
special in-shoe length measuring device (PFI, Germany),
see Figure 1. This hand-held device determines the in-
shoe length and hence the insole length of shoes with dif-
ferent heel and toe spring values. The measurement
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 21:15 14 June 2015
allowance were defined under four mathematical inter-
vals: unacceptable in the interval <5; 0), permissible in
the interval <0; 5), healthy in the interval <5; 15), critical
in the interval <15; 25). The healthy range covered foot-
wear that was found to have a toe allowance of 5
15 mm,
allowing space for the feet to move in when walking, as
well as providing sufficient growing room. A 5
15 mm
border was set, because 5 mm toe allowance is still

arrived at was adjusted by a conversion table value

expressing the heel height or the pitch of the toe cap, this
comprising an accessory to the instrument.
2.2.3. Determining toe allowance
Toe allowance values were established as the difference
between the footwear’s interior length and the foot length
(FL22 D 136.7 mm, FL25 D 156.8 mm and FL30 D 190.1
mm) according to equation for each pair of the set of foot-
wear, disregarding fashionable toe allowance, the value of
which is unfounded design-wise in the toe-cap shapes of
children’s footwear:
FL D ½ðF ¢0:667Þ
1 ¢10:
acceptable in open patterns of shoes (Pivecka & Laure,
1995). In the critical range was included footwear with a
toe allowance greater than 15 mm, as well as footwear
with no toe allowance. Footwear extended by more than
15 mm often causes one to slip or trip up while walking,
with the resultant risk of injury ( Goonetilleke et al., 2000;
Miller et al., 2000). Totally unacceptable designs of foot-
wear feature a toe allowance of 0 and less. Such products
may naturally be sought out in the store by customers
requiring a short sole. Items exhibiting a permissible
range of toe allowance of up to 5 mm provide users with a
less comfortable experience than items falling under the
healthy range; said toe allowance meets minimum values,
and the foot may suffer discomfort through contact with
(1)
the footwear, thereby leading to damage of the foot.

FL is foot length (mm) and F is French size (Pivecka,

1991). The value expressing the difference between foot
length and the measured length of the footwear denotes 2.3. Statistical analysis
how footwear length relates to the length of the foot, pri- The denoted categories herein studied were processed
marily in terms of design. Computed values for toe using Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corporation,

Figure 1. In-shoe length measuring device.

 4 J. Pavlackova et al.
USA) as histograms of relative frequencies. Basic analy-
ses of the internal length of the footwear and toe allow-
ance were carried out on Excel 2010 and Statistica 10.0
(StatSoft, Inc. Tulsa, USA). A 2D box plot was used to
display the statistically processed values of the footwear’s
length and toe allowance. For each size, the box is defined
by the arithmetic mean (&), its upper and lower limits rep-
resenting §SD (standard deviation). Attached is also a lin-
ear definition of the minimum and maximum measured
values of toe allowance, including foot length indicated
by () for better representation of outlying samples.
3. Results and discussion
Footwear toe allowance is primarily given by the con-
struction of front part of the last, which is the basis form
for its production. Selected categorized criteria of child-
ren’s footwear (the cut of the upper, the assembling
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 21:15 14 June 2015
method, the material of the upper, the lining material, the
fastening, the heights of the upper and the heights of the
heel) does not influence of the value of toe allowance.
Thus, toe allowance in relation to categorized criteria is
not discussed. The issue of toe allowance in relation to
footwear length, respectively, its shoe size, is therefore
discussed.
Figure 2. Footwear length in relation to size.
3.1. Analysis of footwear length and toe allowance
The conducted 2D box plot analysis supplemented with
values for foot length (Figure 2) illustrates that the larger
the size, the more such footwear exhibited a greater varia-
tion in length. This, in theory, suggests a wider diversity in
the variability of length compared with smaller sizes, e.g.
22; thus, a more thorough trial when choosing footwear of
appropriate length is necessary. This means that it is better
to try on such footwear properly, on the right and left feet,
rather than simply relying on the size given. Nevertheless,
it can be noted that rules governing the design of toe allow-
ance are followed more strictly in lesser shoe sizes.
Figure 2 corresponds to Figure 3, showing the allocation
of an average amount of toe allowance, ranging from 9.5 to
11.3 mm, for all the pairs of shoes of selected size. Size 30
was found to have diminished, unsatisfactory values for toe
allowance. Low frequency check-up of fitting such footwear
could easily promote certain forefoot deformities. It should
be noted that even size 30 footwear is still designed to facili-
tate the growth and development of children’s feet.
Figure 4 shows the toe allowance range for footwear
of different sizes. As regards size 22, all the pairs of foot-
wear were in compliance with the allocation of toe allow-
ance, while for size 25 it was 91% of shoes. For size 30,
only 54% of footwear corresponded to sufficient amounts
 Footwear Science 5
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 21:15 14 June 2015

Figure 3. Toe allowance in relation to shoe size.

of toe allowance; for this size, 40% of the footwear was
indicated to fail to give the guarantee of comfortable foot-
wear. Therefore, it pertains to shoes in which customers
may not provide the expected sense of comfort because of
their length when trying them in a shop and if they buy
such footwear, such feelings of discomfort or potential
damage to the foot may occur as the feet continue to grow.
With respect to the research question of our study,
values of toe allowance found in lower shoe sizes
(22 and 25) correspond with children’s foot length
increment at this age. Contrarily, in higher size (30)
approximately 50% of tested samples do not provide
sufficient growing room for healthy development of
children’s foot.

Figure 4. Representation of toe allowance values in intervals of 5 mm.

 6 J. Pavlackova et al.

3.2. Children’s footwear categorisation design has the rear sections applied to the instep section,
3.2.1. Size groups permits better ‘throat’ opening as compared with, for
example, the instep cut. The latter features instep sections
Generally, size groups represent the categorisation of
stapled to the rear sections, which partially limits space
footwear by age and gender. Due to the controversial
when putting on the shoes. Therefore, the Derby style is
trend known as ‘unisex’, such footwear also included
highly suited to small children, meaning that putting on
shoes designed for both genders. This clothing and foot-
shoes is easier for them due to their developing motor
wear fashion is characterised by the neutral colours of the
skills.
materials used and the overall design of shoes acceptable
to both genders. Size 22 comprised 33% of footwear
designed for girls, 43% designed for boys and 24% made 3.2.3. Assembling method
under the unisex category herein being checked. As
Connecting the sole to the upper was done via three tech-
regards size 25, 58% of girls’ footwear, 28% of boys’
nologies: (1) conventional
using an adhesive (22
32%,
shoes and 14% of unisex shoes were assessed, while size
25
35% and 30
46%); (2) by connecting the upper to
30 comprised 43% of girls’ shoes, 54% of boys’ footwear
the soft insole using Strobel technique (22
57%, 25

and 3% of unisex shoes.
42% and 30
54%) which is specific way of stitching
upper leathers and lining to the insole of footwear, as a con-
3.2.2. Footwear upper style sequence of which such footwear benefits from excellent
flexibility properties; (3) direct injection moulding, which
Children’s footwear featured three distinct styles of the
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 21:15 14 June 2015

means direct moulding of a sole material onto the upper,

upper
Oxford (shoelace eyelets attached under
this technique appeared only in the footwear of foreign
the vamp), Derby (shoelace eyelets attached to the top of
manufacturers (22
11% and 25
23%), probably due to
the vamp) and Court shoe style (shoe with a low-cut front
the financial cost of preparing the mould flow.
and usually without a fastening). The Derby style pre-
vailed most frequently (67%) at size 22. The same applied
to size 25 (58%). The Oxford style was prevalent at size 3.2.4. The upper material
30 (51%), while the Derby style came in at 5% less. The
The most common upper material (Figure 5) was natural
least represented among all the sizes was the court shoe
leather in the collection of children’s shoes (22
51%,
style (22
3%, 25
9% and 30
3%), which can be
25
40% and 30
40%). This material meets, from the
rated as positive health-wise. The court shoe upper is held
aspect of hygiene, the most demanding requirements on
onto the foot by pressure on the front and rear of the foot.
the properties of materials used in the manufacture of
Structurally, it is possible to eliminate this pressure using
children’s footwear. Furthermore, combinations of leather
various instep strips. The Derby style, whose structural
with other materials were discerned, particularly in order

Figure 5. Frequency of upper materials for shoe uppers.

 Footwear Science 7
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 21:15 14 June 2015

Figure 6. Frequency of the lining material in shoe uppers.

to reduce the final price of the end product, such examples leather with textile and synthetic leather combinations.
included textile, Gore-Tex (a waterproof/breathable fabric One apparent aspect is the uptake of membrane materials
based on expanded polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) and like Gore-Tex that have thus far been primarily incorpo-
other fluoropolymer products) and synthetic leather. rated in children’s sports shoes.

3.2.5. Lining material 3.2.6. Footwear fastenings

Shoe linings (Figure 6) were most frequently made of nat- The most typical fastenings in the studied selection of
ural leather and textile or combinations of both. Less fre- footwear (Figure 7) were Velcro (a type of hook-and-loop
quent design comprised textile with Gore-Tex, synthetic fastener). Highly useful in terms of ease of putting on and
leather with Gore-Tex, textile with synthetic leather and taking off the items, it also makes it easy to control the

Figure 7. Frequency of shoe fastenings methods.

 8 J. Pavlackova et al.
Figure 8. Frequency of footwear heel heights.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 21:15 14 June 2015
width of the shoe at the instep. This applies to shoelaces as
well, followed by a lacing and zip combination. Laces
combined with Velcro were a rarer hybrid form.
3.2.7. Footwear upper height
The heights of the upper of the rated footwear were
defined under two categories
low shoes (22
38%,
25
30% and 30
66%) and ankle boots (22
62%,
25
70% and 30
34%), of which the latter was more
prevalent. It can be stated that all-year-round walking
shoes for children designed in this ankle footwear manner
are considered most suitable in terms of health, such
height of the upper leg above the ankle providing the best
support for the foot in the shoe.
3.2.8. Heel height
The heel height or pitch (Figure 8) for children should not
exceed the value of 25 mm; more than 25 mm is unaccept-
able from the point of healthy development of plantar arch
(Dungl, 2014). The heel heights observed in our selection
ranged between 5 and 25 mm, most of them were 15 mm
(22
40%, 25
46% and 30
57%).
5. Conclusions
Respecting the allocation of toe allowance is something
that should take place as primarily at the design phase of
footwear. Once this allowance is incorporated in footwear,
it may not only provide a certain degree of comfort for
different types of feet from a morphological viewpoint,
but also extra space allowing for the growth of children’s
feet. Making it part of the design stage of footwear could
also contribute to a much wider choice of well-fitting
shoes in shops. Children’s footwear within the frame of
toe allowance in EU shoe sizes 22 and 25 guarantees suffi-
cient growing room for healthy development of children’s
foot, while in size 30 approximately only a half of child-
ren’s footwear available on the market does the same. The
study shows that periodically checking the foot measure-
ments of children is an absolute necessity, as is buying
footwear with sufficient growing room in length. This
would ensure comfortable shoes suitable for the growing
feet of children, while preventing possible deformities
that may occur primarily in the forefoot. In addition, the
shoes currently available on the market are sold in several
size systems, which are not uniform, thus complicating
the matter of choosing suitable shoes if an experienced
shop assistant is not involved in the selection process. In
particular, it is children that should be provided with
high-quality, comfortable footwear, designed for their
specific needs. Shoe manufacturers should focus on con-
struction of front part of a last.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge our teacher, supervisor and
colleague
world-wide known shoe expert associated professor
Petr Hlav
acek (in memoriam)
for his personal support and
knowledge he provided.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Alemany, S., Gonz
alez, J.C., Garc
ıa, A.C., & Olaso, J. (2005,
September 18
21). A novel approach to define customized
functional design solution from user information. Paper pre-
sented at the third Interdisciplinary World Congress on
Mass Customization and Personalization, Hong Kong.
 Footwear Science
Au, E.Y.L., & Goonetilleke, R. (2007). A qualitative study on
the comfort and fit of ladies’ dress shoes. Applied Ergonom-
ics, 38(6), 687
696.
Cheng, F.T., & Perng, D.B. (1999). A systematic approach for
developing a foot size information system for shoe last
design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
25(2), 171
185.
Cheskin, M.P., Sherkin, K.J., & Bates, B.T. (1987). The com-
plete handbook of athletic footwear. New York, NY: Fair-
child Publications.
Coughlin, M.J. (1995). Juvenil hallux valgus: Etiology and treat-
ment. Foot Ankle International, 16(11), 682
697.
Dungl, P. (2014). Orthopedics (2nd ed.). Prague: Grada.
Echarri, J.J., & Forriol, F. (2003). The development in footprint
morphology in 1851 Congolese children from urban and rural
areas, and the relationship between this and wearing shoes.
Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedic
Part B, 12(2), 141
146.
Goonetilleke, R.S. (1999). Footwear cushioning: Relating objec-
tive and subjective measurements. Human Factors, 41(2),
241
256.
Goonetilleke, R.S., Luximon, A., & Tsui, K.L. (2000). Quality of
footwear fit: What we know, don’t know and should know.
Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Soci-
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 21:15 14 June 2015
ety Annual Meeting, International Ergonomics Association,
San Diego.
Gould, N., Moreland, M., Alvarez, R., Trevino, S., & Fenwick, J.
(1989). Development of the child’s arch. Foot Ankle Inter-
national, 9(5), 241
245.
Hawes, M.R., & Sovak, D. (1994). Quantitative morphology of
the human foot in a North American population. Ergonom-
ics, 37(7), 1213
1226.
Hawes, M.R., Sovak, D., Miyashita, M., Kang, S.-J., Yoshihuku,
Y., Tanaka, S. (1994). Ethnic differences in forefoot shape
and the determination of shoe comfort. Ergonomics, 37(1),
187
196.
Hlavacek, P. (2010). Problems of objectivity assessing the harm-
fulness of children’s shoes. Locomotor System Advances in
Research, Diagnostics and Therapy, 17(1C2), 194
202.
Janisse, D.J. (1992). The art and science of fitting shoes. Foot
Ankle International, 13(5), 257
262.
Klein, C., Groll-Knapp, E., Kundi, M., & Kinz, W. (2009).
Increased hallux angle in children and its association with
insufficient length of footwear: A community based cross-sec-
tional study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 10(1), 159
165.
Kuklane, K. (2009). Protection of feet in cold exposure. Indus-
trial Health, 47(3), 342
353.
Luximon, A., Goonetilleke, R.S., & Tsui, K.L. (2001, October
1
2). A fit metric for footwear customization. Paper pre-
sented at the 2001 World Congress on Mass Customization
and Personalization, International Institute on Mass Custom-
ization & Personalization, Hong Kong.
Maier, E. (1990). True-fitting children’s shoes in the federal
republic of Germany. Schuh-Technik, 84(8), 597
600.
Maier, E., & Killmann, M. (2003). Kinderfub und Kinderschuh:
Entwicklung der kindlichen Beine und F€ uße und ihre
9
Anforderungen an fußgerechte Schuhe [Children’s foot and
footwear: development of the child’s legs and feet and their
requirements for foot-fitting shoes] (1st ed.). Munchen:
Verlag Neuer Merkur.
Mauch, M., Grau, S., Krauss, I., Maiwald, C. & Horstmann, T.
(2009). A new approach to children’s footwear based on
foot type classification. Ergonomics, 52(8), 999
1008.
McInnes, A.D., Hashmi, F., Farndon, L.J. , Church, A., Haley,
M., Sanger, D.M., & Vernon, W. (2012). Comparison of
shoe-length fit between people with and without diabetic
peripheral neuropathy: A case-control study. Journal of
Foot and Ankle Research, 5(9), 1
8.
Miller, J.E., Nigg, B.M., Nigg, B.M., Liu, W., Stefanyshyn,
D.J., & Nurse, M.A. (2000). Influence of foot, leg and shoe
characteristics on subjective comfort. Foot Ankle Interna-
tional, 21(9), 759
767.
Park, J. (2012). Gauging the emerging plus-size footwear market
an anthropometric approach. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 31(1), 3
16.
Pavlackova, J., Benesova, M., & Hlavacek, P. (2011). Does
children’s footwear with its length dimensions fit to foot
length? Locomotor system Advances in Research, Diagnos-
tics and Therapy, 18(3C4), 229
243.
Pavlackova, J., & Tomasova, M. (2001). Study of school age
children’s footwear (in Czech). Kozarstvi, 51(6), 8
11.
Penkala, S., Harris, L., Hunt, A., & Naughton, G. (2011). Child-
ren’s shoe styles and parent decisions to fit shoes with store
staff assistance. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research,
4(Suppl 1), 1
2.
Pivecka, J. (1991). Practical handbook on shoe production.
Eschborn: Protrade.
Pivecka, J., & Laure, S. (1995). The shoe last: Practical hand-
book for shoe designers (1st ed.). Slavic
ın: Jan Pivecka
Foundation.
Rao, U.B., & Joseph, B. (1992). The influence of footwear on the
prevalence of flat foot. A survey of 2300 children. Journal of
Bone and Joint Surgery Brasil, 74-B(4), 525
527.
Rossi, W.A. (1994). The complete footwear dictionary. Malabar,
FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Rossi, W.A., & Tennant, R. (1984). Professional shoe fitting (1st
ed.). New York, NY: National Shoe Retailers Association.
Sachithanandam, V., & Joseph, B. (1995). The influence of foot-
wear on the prevalence of flat foot. A survey of 1846 skele-
tally mature persons. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Brasil, 77-B(2), 254
257.
Staheli, L.T. (1991). Shoes for children: A review. Pediatrics,
88(2), 371
375.
Stastna, P. (2000). National surveys results of health youth’s feet
aged from 3 to 19 years (in Czech). Kozarstvi, 50(12), 7
12.
Stastna, P. (2003, September). Level of footwear by children and
youth contrasts with the health of their feet. Paper presented
at the International Conference Baltic Textile and Leather,
Kauno Technologijos Universitetas, Kaunas.
Tailby, S. (1997). Comfort footwear. World Footwear, 11(2),
16
21.