URL: http://www.una.ac.cr/salud
CORREO: revistamhsalud@una.cr
Revista MHSalud® (ISSN: 1659-097X) Vol. 8. No. 2. Diciembre, 2011.
TECHNICAL PERFOMANCE PROFILE OF THE FOUR-TIME COSTA RICAN SENIOR BASKETBALL LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM
Perfil de rendimiento técnico del equipo tetracampeón de la liga superior de baloncesto de Costa Rica
MSc. Luis Blanco Romero, Dr. Pedro Ureña Bonilla
MSc. Jorge Salas Cabrera, MSc. Braulio Sánchez Ureña
Escuela de Ciencias del Movimiento Humano y Caliad de Vida
Universidad Nacional
Translated by Elieth Salazar-Alpízar
The purpose
of this study was to analyze and compare the technical performance
profile of the four-time Costa Rican Senior Basketball League
championship team. A total of 142 games was recorded throughout the
2007, 2008 and 2009 seasons. Performance indicators selected were: two
and three-point shots (converted, missed, effectiveness rates), free
throws (converted, missed, effectiveness rates), points, offensive and
defensive rebounds, fouls, turnovers, assists and ball steals. The
information was described based on absolute and relative frequency
values. Data was compared by season and by playing period based on the
following non-parametric techniques: U-test, Friedman test and
Chi-square. In all cases, SPSS version 15.0 was used with a
significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Results showed a better profile of
technical performance in the 2008 season, characterized by better
percentages of two-point shots, free throws, fewer turnovers and more
ball steals and assists. In relation to the playing period, the team
showed a better technical performance profile during the second half of
the matches. In general, the effectiveness rate of two-point shots and
free throws was above 60% in both playing periods, while the
three-point shot percentage ranged between 26.4% and 29.2%. In
conclusion, the team showed a similar technical performance profile to
that reported in the literature, as well as a clear evidence of the
importance of recording and following up on technical performance
indicators in basketball.
KEYWORDS: Technical performance indicators; technical performance; effectiveness rates
Resumen
El propósito de este estudio
fue analizar y contrastar el perfil de rendimiento técnico del
equipo tetracampeón de la Liga Superior de Baloncesto de Costa
Rica. Se registró 142 juegos a lo largo de las temporadas 2007,
2008 y 2009. Los indicadores de rendimiento escogido fueron:
lanzamientos de dos y tres puntos (convertidos, fallados, porcentaje de
efectividad), lanzamientos de tiro libre (convertidos, fallados,
porcentaje de efectividad), puntos, rebotes defensivos y ofensivos,
faltas, pérdidas de balón, asistencias y robos de
balón. La descripción de la información se
basó en valores de frecuencia absoluta y relativa. El contraste
de datos por temporada y periodo de juego se hizo con base en las
técnicas no paramétricas U-test, test de Friedman y el
Chi 2. En todos los casos se utilizó el SPSS versión 15.0
con un nivel de significancia de p ≤ 0,05. Los resultados mostraron
un mejor perfil de rendimiento técnico en la temporada 2008,
caracterizándose por mejores porcentajes en tiros de 2, tiros
libres, menor número de pérdidas de balón y mayor
cantidad de robos del balón y asistencias. En relación
con el periodo de juego, el equipo mostró un mejor perfil de
rendimiento técnico durante los segundos tiempos del partido. En
general, el porcentaje de efectividad de tiros de 2 y tiros libres
estuvo arriba del 60 % en ambos periodos de juego, mientras que el
porcentaje de tiros de 3 osciló entre el 26.4 % y el 29.2 %. En
conclusión, el equipo mostró un perfil de rendimiento
técnico similar al reportado en la literatura y deja clara
evidencia de la importancia que tiene el registro y seguimiento de los
indicadores de rendimiento técnico en el baloncesto.
PALABRAS CLAVES: indicadores de rendimiento técnico, rendimiento técnico, porcentajes de eficacia.
INTRODUCTION
Recording technical performance
indicators in sports is an essential tool for coaches and game analysts
to implement interventions during games and practices (García,
Ibáñez, & Feu, 2009; Ibáñez,
García, Feu, Lorenzo & Sampaio, 2009; Chicote, Morante &
Vaquera, 2009; Morante, 2008; Gómez, Lorenzo, Sampaio, &
Ibáñez, 2006; Dias, 2006). Basketball was one of the
first sports in which game observation and notational analysis were
used as a tool to assess and give feedback on player performance (García et al., 2009). Ortega, Cárdenas, Saiz and Palao (2006)
mention that most studies that have
analyzed technical performance in
basketball include indicators such as shots and effectiveness
rates, assists, turnovers, ball steals, fouls, points and rebounds.
Studies on the contribution of game indicators that mostly influence
the success of teams highlight the importance of two-point shots as the
indicator that mostly affects victories or defeats (Ortega et al.,
2006; Sampaio et al., 2009; Ibáñez et al., 2009). In this
regard, Ibáñez et al. (2009) inferred that this is
because a two-point shot is the most commonly performed technique
during a game. They mention that in the NBA 62.8% of the shots are
two-point shots, against 21.4% for free throws and 15.7% for
three-point shots. Sampaio (1987) also states that winning teams
convert more two-point shots and obtain better effectiveness rates,
although there is no evidence of any relationship between the number of
shot attempts and victories in the games. Even though in the end
technical efficiency is calculated from the percentage of successful
shots (Morante, 2004), there is no doubt that this percentage is the
variable that mostly affects performance of teams (Alarcón,
Cárdenas Miranda, Ureña, & Piñar, 2010;
Ibáñez et al., 2009). These authors report several
studies, which showed that winning teams are those with the best
percentages in two and three-point shots (Alarcón et al., 2010).
Another crucial indicator of victories and defeats is the free throw
(Ibáñez et al., 2008; Ortega et al., 2006; Sanz &
Gutiérrez, 2004; Sampaio et al., 2009). For Sampaio et al.
(2009), free throws have a particular impact in the final moments of
balanced games. Teams that win more games convert more free throws as a result of higher percentages, although no relationship is reported between the amount of free
throws attempted and victories in games. According to
Ibáñez et al. (2008), in balanced games free throws and
fouls are important indicators of success or failure. The largest
number of free throws occurs during the second half, even though the highest number of fouls also happens
during this playing period. This could be due to the increased
offensive intensity in the second half (Ibáñez et al.,
2009; García et al., 2009). According to Ortega et al. (2006),
the effectiveness rate in the free throw should be approximately 70%;
therefore, a good effectiveness rate in free throws is critical to
success. According to data from the Spanish professional league, the
number of free throw shots increases as the game advances (first
quarter 22.7%, second quarter 20.5%, third quarter 25.4%, and fourth
quarter 33.5%). This data is similar to the one obtained in the
Spanish amateur league, where free throws occur 16.5% in the first
quarter, 22.0% in the second, 25.1% in the third, and 35.8% in the
fourth (Ibáñez et al., 2007). Significant differences
have also been reported in favor of winning teams in terms of total
defensive rebounds captured (De Rose, 2004; Forde, 2002; García, Parejo, De la Cruz, Domínguez, & Saveedra, 2007; Ibáñez, Sampaio,
Sáenz-López, Giménez & Janeira, 2003;
Karipidis, Fotinakis, Taxildaris & Fatouros, 2001; Montaner &
Montaner, 2004, Sanz & Gutiérrez, 2004). Defensive rebounds
represent a team´s ability to retrieve the ball after the
opponent has failed to shoot, allowing greater opportunity to attempt
field goals, increase the score and obviously hope to win the game
(Ibáñez et al., 2008). García et al. (2010) report
studies that analyze different types of competition and different
phases of the competition. They note that, in the regular phases, the
determining actions to win or lose a basketball game are defensive
rebounds and two and three-point shots scored. In addition, in
postseason games the most important indicators are offensive and
defensive rebounds and assists.
On the other hand, in the case of national teams, the indicators that
best discriminate between winners and losers are offensive and
defensive rebounds, two-point shots, free throws and assists. In
contrast to these results, Ibáñez et al. (2003) suggest
that defensive rebounds and two and three-point shots two are the
indicators that best make the difference between winners and losers.
Dias (2006) conducted an analysis of the technical efficiency of the
teams participating in the 2006 World Basketball
Championship and identified a number
of technical performance indicators to be critical to their
success, including the effectiveness rate of two-point shots, the
overall percentage of shots, free throws converted, fouls, and the
number of assists. In this study, defensive rebounds, total rebounds
and turnovers showed no significant influence on the final outcome of
the matches. This study also stresses the importance of an aggressive
offensive rebound, efficiency in free throws and selection of field
goals. It is emphasized that a good defensive stance
minimizes the possibility of making
fouls, which is a determining factor
especially when games are very well balanced. Despite some
inconsistencies, most studies agree that two and three-point
shots, free throws and rebounds play a decisive role in the success of
basketball teams. According to the literature, recording the
team´s technical indicators for each game and throughout the
seasons is clearly important. This type of information allows the coach
to change and modify the actions of the team and strengthens both
defensive and offensive aspects. Based on this frame of reference, the
purpose of this study was to analyze the technical performance profile
of the four-time Costa Rican basketball championship team by recording
technical performance indicators collected during three consecutive
seasons and comparing them by seasons and playing periods (first half
and second half).
METHODOLOGY
This research is based on notational
analysis studies. The study design was descriptive and qualitative and
data was recorded using observational techniques (Ibáñez
et al., 2009).
Sample:
The sample consisted of all games played by the Ferretería
Brenes team from Barva, Heredia, Costa Rica in the qualifying stages of
the 2007 season (45 games), 2008 (45 games) and
2009 (52 games), for a total of 142 games.
Instruments and materials: The
official game statistics of the Ferretería Brenes team from
Barva for the 2007, 2008 and 2009
seasons were used to determine technical
performance indicators. These statistics
included the following indicators: two
and three-point shots (converted, missed, effectiveness
rate), free throws (converted, missed, effectiveness rate), points,
offensive and defensive rebounds, fouls,
turnovers, assists and ball steals.
Statistics were reviewed and approved by the coaching staff, who
have over 20 years of experience in national and international
basketball. This mechanism ensured the face validity of the observation
instrument used. Information on technical
performance indicators was recorded by
a scorer trained for such purposes, a basketball coach with
extensive experience (more than 5 years) in managing game statistics,
which allows for high levels of reliability.
Procedure: Game statistics were
collected after each match by the team during each season. For
this purpose, a technical performance
indicator observation sheet was used
to record each indicator by occurrence in every game. Based
on the technical performance indicator record defined, a database was
prepared and statistically analyzed.
Statistical analysis: Due to
the nature of the data collected (categorical values), descriptive
statistical techniques were used to characterize the recorded
information in terms of frequency and percentages, as well as
non-parametric techniques: U-test, Friedman test and Chi-square. The
U-test was used to compare average ranks for the first and second half
times. The (z) value is reported since groups are large. The Friedman
test was used to compare the average ranks registered for
each technical performance indicator in
each of the three seasons. Statistics
reported were the Chi square. All data was analyzed with SPSS version
15 with a significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS
Table 1 includes average performance results by the three seasons.
![imagen001](https://www.revistas.una.ac.cr/index.php/mhsalud/article/download/3567/version/3101/11022/29303/imagen001.JPG)
Based on the information presented in
Table 1, the overall comparison of the team´s performance by
season showed significant differences in the following variables:
two-point shots missed, two- point shots converted, two-point shot
percentage, free throws converted, fouls, ball steals and assists. The
second season was the best season since it shows significantly better
performance in terms of increased number of free throws converted,
two-point shot percentage, effectiveness of free throws, fewer
turnovers, more ball steals and more assists. However, the first season
was significantly more efficient in terms of two-point shots. According
to recorded data, the worst season was the
third. Performance percentage for
three-point shots ranged from 25.66% to
30.33% throughout the seasons. As
for effectiveness rate in two-point
shots, the team'sperformance varied between 56.01% and 63.93%, while the effectiveness rate in free throws ranged from 62.32% to 64.51%.
In order to compare the team´s technical performance by playing
period, average values were compared for the first and second half
(Table 2).
![imagen002](https://www.revistas.una.ac.cr/index.php/mhsalud/article/download/3567/version/3101/11022/29304/imagen002.JPG)
As seen in Table 2, after comparing
the team´s performance by playing period (first half and second
half), the first half shows significant differences only in the
three-point shots missed, while in the second half there were
significant differences in: free throws converted, free throws missed,
total points and fouls. In addition, in the second half the team missed
significantly less three-point shots. In the rest of the variables
analyzed there were no significant differences between the team's
performance in the first and second half. Overall, percentage for
two-point shots and free throws was above 60% in both playing periods,
while the percentage for three- point shots ranged from 26.46% to
29.23%.
The team´s technical
performance was also compared by season per playing period. In the
first season significant differences were found between the first and
second half in the following variables: three-point shots missed, free
throws missed, free throws converted and fouls. In the second half, the
team missed significantly less three-point shots (Z =- 2.44, p = 0.01),
although it missed significantly more free throw shots (Z = -3.28, p =
0.00) but it also converted more shots from the free throw line (Z =
-3.03, p = 0.00). Finally, the team committed significantly more fouls.
In the second season, differences
were recorded between the first half and second half in the following
variables: two-point shots missed, two-point shot percentage, free
throws missed, free throws converted, and fouls. In the first half, the
team missed significantly less two-point shots (Z= -2.02, p = 0.04) and
also showed a higher percentage of two-point shots (Z = -2.08, p
=0.03). In the second half, the team missed more free throws (Z =
-4.16, p = 0.00), converted more free throws (Z = -3.89, p = 0.00) and
committed more fouls (Z = 12.08, p = 0.00).
In the third season, there were
differences between the first half and the second half on the following
technical performance variables: three-point shot percentage, free
throws missed, free throws converted, total points, defensive rebounds
and fouls. In the second half a better performance was recorded in the
three-point shot percentage (-1.97, p = 0.04), total points (Z = -2.51,
p = 0.01) and defensive rebounds (Z =- 2.25, p = 0.02). In this playing
period, the team missed more free throws (Z = -3.31, p = 0.00),
converted more free shots (Z = -3.83, p = 0.00) and committed more
fouls (Z = -5.74, p = 0.00).
A comparison of
the team´s performance over the
three seasons in the first half
showed significant differences in relation to the following variables:
three-point shots converted, three- point shot percentage, two-point
shots missed and two-point shot percentage. The second season showed
significantly better results than the first and third seasons in
three-point shots (X² = 8.04, p = 0.01), three-point shot
percentage (X² = 6.46, p = 0.04), fewer two-point shots missed,
(X² = 43.99, p = 0.00) and better two-point shot percentage (X² = 17.86, p = 0.00).
In the second half times, significant
differences were found in the following variables: two-point shots
missed, two-point shots converted, defensive rebounds, ball steals, and
assists. The team's performance was higher in the first season as far
as two-point shots converted (X² = 9.30, p = 0.00) and assists
(X² = 6.45, p = 0.04). However, in the second season, the team's
performance was significantly superior from the rest of the seasons
regarding fewer two-point shots missed (X² = 31.11, p = 0.00). Finally, the third season showed better performance in defensive rebounds (X² = 8.55, p = 0.01) and ball steals (X² = 6.45, p = 0.04).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to
identify and compare the technical efficiency profile of the four-
time Costa Rican Senior Basketball League
championship team over three seasons. Results
showed significant differences by season in the following indicators:
two-point shots missed; two point shots converted; two-point shot
percentage, free throws converted, free throw percentage, turnovers,
ball steals and assists. With the exception of the two-point shot
converted variable, the team showed the best technical efficiency
profile in the second season. These are regarded as decisive indicators
for the team´s success or failure (Alarcón et al., 2010;
Gómez et al., 2006; Karipidis et al., 2001, Ortega et al., 2006,
Sampaio et al., 2009; Ibáñez et al., 2009). This means
that any team that registers good efficiency in these indicators is
very likely to win. Particularly, the authors referred to above
highlight the two-point shot as the most important indicator for the
success of a team (Alarcón et al., 2010). Without any particular
order of importance, Dias (2006) mentions the free throw as another key
indicator in the success of the teams. According to Sanz and
Gutiérrez (2004), the more free throws are made and converted,
the greater the likelihood of success in games. This argument clearly
suggests a strong offensive game dynamic that generates the choice of
many free-throw shots, very important resource for success. It is also
argued that teams´ success is largely determined by a small
number of turnovers, as this guarantees the possession of the ball, the
team's own initiative and therefore the possibility of throwing and
scoring (Sampaio, 1987). In addition, assists and ball steals are
factors that significantly influence the success of the teams and make
the difference between winners and losers (Fierro, 2002; De Rose,
Barros, & Marcos, 2003). Consequently, the technical performance
profile during the second season was characterized by efficient
two-point shots, precise free-throws, reduced turnovers and a good
performance in ball steals and assists. The team showed a good
technical- tactical performance, which
ultimately lead to a championship.
This information provides, without doubt, an important
criterion when planning technical-tactical training and of course when
managing during a game.
The comparison
between playing periods showed
significant differences in the following
technical performance indicators: three-point shots missed, free throws
missed, free throws converted, points and fouls. All second half times
in the three seasons analyzed showed a profile characterized by more
accurate three-point shots, free throws, related to more free throws
missed and points scored, as well as fouls committed. Better accuracy
in three-point shots coincides with what has been reported by
Ibáñez et al. (2009), who point out that this type of
shot is the only one that seems to improve over the course of the
game. It is a technical resource used to shorten or enlarge
differences, which seems to sharpen the players´ accuracy. Proof
of this is the spectacular three-point shots that often decide games in
the final seconds of a match. In an attempt to explain the differences
between the dynamics of the first and second playing periods,
Ibáñez et al. (2009) and García et al. (2009)
argue that in the first half periods teams tend to be more relaxed,
with less offensive intensity and less defensive pressure, which is
associated with less fatigue, fewer personal fouls, less turnovers, and
generally more efficient shots. On the contrary, in the second half
times, the teams seek to ensure a positive outcome in the match,
increasing the game´s intensity and the offensive volume, as well
as the defensive pressure. Consequently, this also
increases physical strain, which is associated to a greater number of
fouls and therefore more free throws, turnovers and scores. The
dynamics of the second half times, as noted before, require special
training strategies, particularly in regard to handling the pressure of
the game itself so as not to deteriorate the technical efficiency of
the players.
As for the percentages of overall
technical efficiency, it was evident throughout the three seasons and
the different playing periods that values agree with what has been
reported internationally (Ibáñez et al., 2009, Ortega et
al., 2006). For example, the effectiveness rate in three-point shots
ranged from 25.66% to 30.33%, while the field goal percentage ranged
between 56.01% and 63.93%. Finally, effectiveness rate for free throws
was between 63.32% and 64.51%. In general, these values indicate a good
technical-tactical performance throughout the seasons.
As a general conclusion, the
information recorded in this study evidenced the value of certain
technical performance indicators in basketball. Therefore, coaches
should pay special attention to using these technical
elements in the practice since they
will make the difference between winning and
losing. Similarly, control, management and planning of practices should
address conditions similar to those
experienced in the second half time
involving fatigue and psychological
pressure and demanding
higher effectiveness rates
in different technical performance indicators.
REFERENCES
Alarcón, F., CárdenaS, D., Miranda, T.,
Ureña, N. y Piñar, MI. (2010). La influencia de un modelo
constructivista para la enseñanza de la táctica en
baloncesto sobre la eficacia del juego durante la competición.
Retos. Nuevas tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y
Recreación, (17), 15-20.
Chicote, J., Morante, G. y Vaquera, M. (2009). Propuesta
metodológica para el análisis táctico de las
acciones ofensivas en equipos profesionales de baloncesto. Consultado:
23/04/2011 en:
http://www.UCAM.edu/congresos/ibericos09/trabajos-presentados.
De Rose, D., Barros, A. y Marcos, R. (2003). Campeonato Paulista
Feminino: análiseestatística do 1º Turno.
Federaçao Paulista de Basquetebol. Consultado el 10/04/2011 en:
http://www.fpb.com.br/_dynamics/publicacoes/anexos/Artigo_004.htm
De Rose, D. (2004). Statistical analysis of basketball performance
indicators according to home/away games and winning and losing teams.
Journal of Human Movement Studies, 47(4), 327-336.
Días, J.M. (2006). La importancia de los indicadores
estadísticos para la obtención de victoria en el
campeonato mundial de baloncesto adulto masculino. Fitness Performance
Journal, 6(1), 57-61.
Fierro, C. (2002). Variables relacionadas con el éxito deportivo
en las ligas NBA y ACB de baloncesto. Revista de Psicología del
Deporte, 11(2), 247-255.
Forde, K. (2002). Relationship between rebounding marging and winning
percentage in the North Central Region. Tesis, Southwest State
University, Minessota.
García, A., Parejo, I., De la Cruz, E., Domínguez, A. y
Saveedra, J. (2007). Differences in basketball game statistic between
winning and losing teams in the Spanish EBA league. Iberian Congress on
Basketball Research, 4, 76-78.
García, J., Ibáñez, S. y Feu, S. (2009).
Estadísticas de juego que discriminan las selecciones
participantes en los campeonatos del mundo de 2006 de Baloncesto, en
función del nivel y género de los equipos. Revista
Kronos, 9(17), 57-63.
García, J., Ibáñez, S., Parejo, I.,
Cañadas, M. y Feu, S. (2010). Análisis de los campeonatos
del mundo de baloncesto masculino (2002 y 2006). Diferencias entre
jugadores con diferencias entre jugadores y con diferentes niveles de
experiencia (Senior y Junior). Motricidad European Journal of Human
Movement, 24, 133-145.
Gómez, M.A., Lorenzo, A., Sampaio, J., e Ibáñez,
S.J. (2006). Differences in game-related statistics between winning and
losing teams in women’s basketball. Journal of Human Movement
Studies, 51, 357-369.
Ibáñez, S., Sampaio, J., Sáenz-López, P.,
Giménez, J. y Janeira, M. (2003). Games statistic discriminating
the final outcome of junior World Basketball Championship matches.
Journal of Human Movement Studies, 45, 1-19.
Ibañez, S., García, J., Cañadas, M., Moreno, M.,
Lorenzo, A. y Gómez, M. (2007). Estudio de la eficacia del
lanzamiento a canasta en la liga EBA. Revista Portuguesa de Ciencias do Desporto, 7(sup.1), 78.
Ibáñez, S., Sampaio, J., Feu, S., Lorenzo, A.,
Gómez, M. y Ortega, E. (2008). Basketball game-related statistic
that discrimínate between teams season lung success. European
Journal Sport Science, 6, 369-372.
Ibáñez , S., García, J., Feu, S., Lorenzo, A. y
Sampaio, J. (2009). Effects of consecutive basketball games on the
game-related statistic that discriminate winner and losing teams.
Journal Sport Science and Medicine, 8, 458-462.
Karipidis, A., Fotinakis, P., Taxildaris, K. y Fatouros, J. (2001).
Factors Characterizing a successful performance in basketball. Journal
of Human Movement Studies, 41(5), 385-389.
Montaner, C. y Montaner, A. (2004). Estudio comparativo del tiempo de
posesión y sus efectos en el juego entre un equipo masculino y
uno femenino de élite. Revista Digital Rendimiento Deportivo, 9.
Morante, J.C. (2004). La Valoración de la eficacia
técnica en el deporte. Revista Digital Rendimiento Deportivo, 9.
Morante, J. C. (2008). Evaluación de la técnica deportiva,
Biomecánica y bases neuromusculares de la actividad
física y el deporte. Buenos Aires: Editorial Médica,
Panamericana 158-171.
Ortega, E., Cárdenas, D., Saiz, B. y Palao, J. M. (2006).
Difference Between Winning and Losing Teams in Youth Basketball Games
(14-16 Years Olds). Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 18(2), 1-11.
Sampaio, J. (1987). Los indicadores estadísticos más
determinantes en el resultado final en los partidos de basquetbol.
Revista Digital Lecturas Educación Física y Deportes, 11.
Sampaio, J., Lorenzo, A., Gómez, M., Matarralanha, J.,
Ibáñez, S. y Ortega, E. (2009). Análisis de las
estadísticas discriminantes en jugadores de baloncesto
según puesto específico en las finales de las
competiciones europeas (1988-2006). Diferencias entre jugadores
titulares y suplentes. Apunts. Educación Física y
Deportes, 96(2),53-58.
Sanz, I. y Gutiérrez, P. (2004). El análisis del Juego
ofensivo en baloncesto: un paso más allá de la
estadística convencional. Revista digital Rendimiento
Deportivo, 7.
Reception date: February 08, 2011.
Correction date: May 14, 2011.
Aceptance date: May 14, 2011.
Publication date: December 31, 2011.
![Licencia](https://www.revistas.una.ac.cr/index.php/mhsalud/article/download/3567/version/3101/11022/29305/image003.gif)
Artículo de la Revista MHSalud de la Universidad Nacional, Costa
Rica protegido por Licencia Creative Commons
Attibution-NonComercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Costa Rica. Para más información visite www.una.ac.cr/MHSalud
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at revistamhsalud@una.cr