This PPT served as a supplementary presentation for a group research paper.

1. The Effect of Ankle Dorsiflexion
on Squat Depth
Presented by: Hanna Panch, Victoria Diaz, Sarah Ayoade, and Emily Powell

2. Definition of Terms
Standard Squat, ROM, Dorsiflexion
• Standard Bodyweight Squat:
– (Escamilla et al., 2001)
• Multi-joint exercise
– eccentric and concentric phases
• Full ROM (Range of Motion) in Squat:
– (Kritz et. al., 2009)
• ≤ 90 degree knee flexion as good quality in
a squat position
• Ankle Dorsiflexion:
– (Betts et al., 2014)
• When the angle of the ankle joint
decreases between the shin and toes,
which moves the toes up towards the shin

3. Definition of Terms
Muscle Action Phases
• Eccentric Movement:
– (Jensen et al., 2000)
• Contraction (i.e. increase in muscle length)
– Increased z line → z line distance
• Negative phase (standing → bottom
position)
• Concentric Movement:
– (Jensen et al., 2000)
• Contraction (i.e. decrease in muscle length)
– Reduced z line → z line distance
• Positive phase (bottom position → standing)
Concentric vs. Eccentric
phases in the squat

4. Definition of Terms
Ankle Joint Movement Positions
• Close Chain Stance:
– (Hoch, Farwell, Gaven, Weinhandl, 2015)
• Weight bearing ankle joint movement
position
• Open Chain Stance:
– (Hoch, Farwell, Gaven, Weinhandl, 2015)
• non-weight bearing ankle joint
movement position
Close Chain
Stance
Open Chain
Stance

5. Definition of Terms
Dominant Leg
• Dominant Leg:
– (Macrum et al., 2012)
• Leg used to kick a ball the farthest maximal distance.

6. Previous Research
• Using a wedge underneath the heels of feet during a squat
increased ankle dorsiflexion
– (Macrum et al., 2012)
• Ankle dorsiflexion does not increase ROM in a squat for men or
women
– (Kim et al., 2015)
• There was no statistical correlation between ankle
plantarflexion and optimal ankle dorsiflexion angles in male
participants during a barbell squat (close chain position) when
utilizing a wedge
– Measurements for kinematic data (including a marker on the ASIS) was taken with
a 3-D motion capture system (Raptor-E, Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa,
CA)
– (Charlton et al., 2017)

7. Problem Statement
• Current scientific consensus lacks evaluation of the
joint demands when using different wedged conditions
during a squat (Charlton et al., 2017)
– Previous Research treatments:
• (Macrum et al., 2012)
– 15 male and 15 female participants between
ages 18 to 30-years-old, performed 7
standard squats w/ wedge angled at 12 ° and
then w/o wedge w/ feet flat on the floor

8. Purpose
• Research Question:
– Is there a difference between the squat depth (SD) when using a
wedge vs. without a wedge?
• SD = resulting distance (i.e. distance between floor to anterior
superior iliac spine- ASIS)
• Purpose:
– To examine the relationship between SD and ankle dorsiflexion
• Alternative Hypothesis:
– △ROM Wedged > △ROM non-wedged condition
• Null Hypothesis:
– Wedged condition = non-wedged condition

9. Methods-
Participants & Treatment Order
• Experimental Design = Cause and Effect
– Randomized Order- Repeated Measures Design
• Participants
– Sample randomly selected from KINS 3130 (population)
• A random number generator randomly selected
participants (n = 20) from our population (n = 39).
• (Urbaniak and Plous, 2013)

10. Methods-
Participants & Treatment Order
• Experimental - Randomized Order- Repeated Measures Design
• Participants
– Sample randomly selected from KINS 3130 (Population)
• Randomization (by Coin Toss)= Order of Treatment
– Coin Toss 1 (Heads= Wedge 1st); Coin Toss 2 (No wedge 1st)
1. Group 1 Pretest → Treatment 1 → Group 1 Posttest
2. Group 2 Pretest → Treatment 2 → Group 2 Posttest

11. Methods-
Participants & Treatment Order
• Treatments (IVs)
– Wedge:
• Tumble Forms 2 Wedge (Sammons Preston, USA) was
used for this study.
• Wedge measurements: W of 20 in X L of 22 in,
Elevation = 4 in, incline ∠ = 8°
• Placed under feet to create increased dorsiflexion
when performing the squat
– (1 rep= 3 sec (eccentric negative) + 1 sec pause (at
bottom) + 1 sec (concentric)
– No Wedge:
• Performing squat w/o wedge under feet; feet flat on
floor
– (1 rep= 3 sec (eccentric negative) + 1 sec pause (at
bottom) + 1 sec (concentric)
Tumble Forms 2
Wedge
No Wedged
Condition

12. Methods
Pre and Post Treatment
• Variables
– IV= condition
• Wedge
• Non-wedge
– DV= Squat depth
• Pre intervention vs. post
intervention in measuring from
floor to ASIS of participant’s
dominant leg
• Data was collected from
dominant leg for all data
Anterior Superior Iliac Spine
(ASIS)
Measurement: from ASIS to
floor

13. Participant Details
Table 1: Summary Statistics
Variables Mean StDev Median
Age (years) 21.79 2.68
Height (in) 68.10 8.16
Weight (lbs) 183.60 27.54
Gender (1=m, 2=f) 1.60 0.50
BMI 28.11 3.46
Rank (freshman=1, sophomore=2, junior=3, senior=4) 2.00
Note: StDev= standard deviation; in= inches; lbs= pounds; m=males; 2=female; BMI= body mass index

14. Statistical Analysis
• Paired t-test (n=2)
– Pre ROM vs. Post ROM (same participants)
• DV= squat depth (floor to ASIS); peak
DF(degrees)
• Squat w/ wedge (pre vs. post)
• Squat w/ o wedge (pre vs. post)
– Significant level; ɑ≤0.05
*Data is presented at M ± StDev unless otherwise
indicated

15. Group Correlations Analysis
• Pearson’s Correlation
– There was a high, positive correlation between the variables of
squatting w/ wedge vs. w/o wedge
– Pearson’s r (r value + p- value)
• r=0.95; p ≤ 0.001
• Pearson’s Correlation
– There was a high, positive correlation between the variables of
peak DF (degrees) w/Wedge vs. w/o Wedge
– Pearson’s r (r value + p- value)
• r=0.95; p ≤ 0.001

16. Group Correlation-
Floor to Asis w/Wedge vs. w/o Wedge
Pearson’s correlation between squatting w/ wedge vs. w/o wedge when
measuring from floor to ASIS

17. Group Correlation-
Peak DF (degrees) w/ Wedge vs. w/o Wedge
Pearson’s correlation between squatting w/ wedge vs. w/o wedge when
measuring peak DF (degrees) in ankle joint

18. Pre vs. Post: Floor to ASIS: w/ & w/o Wedge
Figure 2: Summary Statistics = Mean (measure of central tendency ± StDev (Variability) by error bar
*denotes statistical difference (pre vs. post) result (paired t-test); p﹤0.001
* *

19. Pre vs. Post: Peak DF (Degrees) w/ & w/o Wedge
Figure 3: Summary Statistics = Mean (measure of central tendency ± StDev (Variability) by error bar
*denotes statistical difference (pre vs. post) result (paired t-test); p﹤0.001
**

20. Discussion- Addition to Science
Summary of Previous & Current Findings
1. Using a wedge during a squat increased ankle dorsiflexion
– (Macrum et al., 2012)
– Treatment consisted of different participants
– Treatments used were similar but not exact
• data both taken on dominant leg only ; both used 2 conditions of wedged vs. non
wedged squats; both used close chain positions
• subjects in study of Macrum et al. performed 7 body-weight squats, whereas this
study only did one rep under each wedged condition
• wedge created 8° ankle dorsiflexion vs. wedge created 12° ankle dorsiflexion
1. Ankle dorsiflexion did not increase ROM in a squat for men or women
– (Kim et al., 2015)
– Treatment consisted of different participants
– Difference in treatment time
• (1 rep= 3 sec (eccentric negative) + 1 sec pause (at bottom) + 1 sec (concentric) vs.
holding max squat position for 5 sec

21. Discussion- Addition to Science
Summary of Previous & Current Findings
1. No correlation between ankle plantarflexion and optimal ankle dorsiflexion
angles in a barbell squat
– (Charlton et al., 2017)
– Treatment consisted of different participants
• males and females vs. males only
– Difference in treatments
• standard squat with shoes on vs. weighted barbell squat barefoot

22. Discussion
Summary of Current Findings
1. Paired T- test (same participants)
– squat w/ wedge
– squat w/o wedge
2. △ROM Wedged > △ROM non-wedged condition; p < 0.00
– 21.25 in ± 3.02 in vs. 22.80 in ± 3.14 in
3. Peak DF (degrees) w/ wedge > Peak DF (degrees) w/out
wedge; p < 0.00
– 26.55° ± 6.75° vs. 23.15° ±6.14°
Practical Application:
Squatting w/ the wedge was statistically greater than w/out the wedge

23. Discussion
Summary of Previous and Current Findings
1. Current Research
– Treatment = same variables = Strength
– Treatments = same = weakness
– Treatments were in same participants= weakness
– Treatment intensity = (1 rep= 3 sec (eccentric negative) + 1
sec pause (at bottom) + 1 sec (concentric)
• Possible limitations to our findings

24. Discussion
Summary of Previous and Current Findings
1. Treatment intensity = (1 rep= 3 sec (eccentric negative) + 1 sec
pause (at bottom) + 1 sec (concentric)
– Did holding the squat position affect squat depth
measurements?
2. Differences in treatments
– Did using weights affect squat depth in dorsiflexion as well?
– Did performing squats with shoes vs. barefoot affect squat
depth under the wedged conditions?
3. Differences in participants
– Would women performing a barefoot squat show differences
when compared to men under the same conditions?

25. Discussion
Summary of Previous and Current Findings
Future Research
1. Comparisons should be made between holding the squat position and
not holding the position with same participants under the same wedged
conditions
1. Male and female participants under the same wedged conditions should
perform a weighted squat vs. non-weighted back squat to analyze
differences in squat depth.
1. Participants should include both men and women under the same
wedged conditions. The analysis should be done two time showing
difference between shoes being worn and being barefoot as well.

26. Thank you!
What questions may we answer?

27. References
Betts, J. G., DeSaix, P., Johnson, J. E., Korol, O., Kruse, D. H., … & Young. K. A. (2014). Anatomy and Physiology.
Charlton, J. M., Hammond, C. A., Cochrane, C. K., Hatfield, G. L., & Hunt, M. A. (2017). The effects of a heel wedge on hip,
pelvis, and trunk biomechanics during squatting in resistance trained individuals, The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research; 31(6), 1678-1687.
Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Zheng, Naiquan, Lander, J. E., Barrentine, S. W., Andrews, J. R., … & Moorman III, C. T. (2001).
Effects of technique variations on knee biomechanics during the squat and leg press. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 33(9), 1552-1566.
Hoch, M. C., Farwell, K. E., Gaven, S. L., & Weinhandl, J. T. (2015). Weight-bearing dorsiflexion range of motion and
biomechanics in individuals with chronic ankle instability. Journal of Athletic Training, 50(8), 833-839.
Jensen, R. L., Ebben, W. P. (2000). Hamstring electromyographic response of the back squat at different knee angles during
concentric and eccentric phases. In ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive.

28. References
Kim, S. H., Kwon, O. Y., Park, K. N., Jeon, I. C., & Weon, J. H. (2015). Lower extremity strength and the range of motion in
relation to squat depth. Journal of Human Kinetics, 45(1), 59-69.
Kritz, M., Cronin, J., & Hume, P. (2009). The Bodyweight Squat: A movement screen for the squat pattern. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 31 (1), 76-85.
Macrum, E., Bell, D. R., Boling, M., Lewek, M., & Padua, D. (2012). Effect of limiting ankle-dorsiflexion range of motion on
lower extremity kinematics and muscle-activation patterns during a squat. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 21 (2), 144-150.
Urbaniak, G. C., & Plous, S. (2013). Research Randomizer (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved on June 22, 2013, from
http://www.randomizer.org/