Content uploaded by Vassilios Panoutsakopoulos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vassilios Panoutsakopoulos on Feb 05, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of
Functional Morphology
and Kinesiology
Article
The Ankle Joint Range of Motion and Its Effect on Squat Jump
Performance with and without Arm Swing in Adolescent
Female Volleyball Players
Vassilios Panoutsakopoulos 1, * , Mariana C. Kotzamanidou 2, Georgios Papaiakovou 1and Iraklis A. Kollias 1
Citation: Panoutsakopoulos, V.;
Kotzamanidou, M.C.; Papaiakovou,
G.; Kollias, I.A. The Ankle Joint
Range of Motion and Its Effect on
Squat Jump Performance with and
without Arm Swing in Adolescent
Female Volleyball Players. J. Funct.
Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk6010014
Received: 27 December 2020
Accepted: 31 January 2021
Published: 3 February 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences at Thessaloniki,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece; gpapaiak@phed.auth.gr (G.P.);
hkollias@phed.auth.gr (I.A.K.)
2Faculty of Health Sciences, Metropolitan College of Thessaloniki, 54624 Thessaloniki, Greece;
mkotzamanidou@metropolitan.edu.gr
*Correspondence: bpanouts@phed.auth.gr
Abstract:
A flexible ankle joint is suggested to be a contributing factor for vertical squat jump (SQJ)
performance. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of the active (ACT) and passive
(PAS) ankle joint range of motion (ROM) on SQJ performed by adolescent female volleyball players.
ACT and PAS ankle ROM at knee extension angles of 90, 140, and 180 degrees (180 degrees: full
extension) were measured with a video analysis method for 35 female post-pubertal volleyball
players (16.3
±
1.1 yrs, 1.80
±
0.04 m, 68.8
±
6.8 kg). Additionally, the players fulfilling previously
recommended criteria were assigned to the flexible (n= 10) and inflexible (n= 8) groups and executed
SQJ with and without an arm swing on a force-plate. Results of the 2 ×2×3 MANOVA revealed a
significant (p< 0.05) flexibility type and knee angle effect, as ankle ROM was larger in PAS compared
to ACT and as the knee joint progressed from 90 to 180 degrees extension. The 2
×
2 ANOVA
revealed a significant (p< 0.05) group effect, as flexible players jumped higher in the arm swing
SQJ, along with a significant arm swing effect on key SQJ kinetic parameters. In conclusion, a more
flexible ankle joint result in improved SQJ performance. Therefore, ankle flexibility training should
be implemented in youth volleyball players.
Keywords:
biomechanics; vertical jump; force parameters; knee joint; youth training; exercise;
video-analysis; flexibility; adolescence
1. Introduction
Jumping is considered to be a crucial element in volleyball [
1
], as it is demonstrated
in a variety of skills, such as the spike jump, the block jump, the jump service, and the
overhead set with a jump. Due to the importance of jumping in volleyball, vertical jumping
tests are custom for the assessment of performance of volleyball players [
2
–
4
]. The most
common tests are the squat jumps (SQJ), the countermovement jumps (CMJ), the drop
jumps (DJ), and series of repetitive jumps [
3
]. Out of these vertical jump tests, the SQJ was
found to be highly correlated with the height achieved in a block jump, while the spike
jump height, namely the offensive action to hit the ball with a dynamic arm swing during
a maximal vertical jump aiming to give the ball high velocity and a steep ball trajectory in
the opponents’ court, had a large correlation with CMJ height [
5
]. However, the dynamic
arm swing was found to be a key aspect for jump height in volleyball jumps. This is
because the arm swing effects positively the proximal-to-distal coordination during the
countermovement, resulting in increased work in the torso and higher angular velocities in
the lower limb joints that eventually increase power and ground reaction forces [6]. As in
the countermovement jumps, the jump height in SQJ is also larger when an arm swing is
used [7,8]. This enhancement in SQJ performance results from the augmented work done
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk6010014 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jfmk
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 2 of 13
by the lower extremities due to the additional load resulted from the mechanical work
produced by the shoulder joint during the arm swing [8–10].
To generate energy for the impulse to execute a jump, bi-articular muscles have a key
role, as the energy generated by proximal muscles appears as mechanical work at a distal
joint due to energy transfer facilitated by these muscles leading mechanical energy to be
transferred in a proximal to distal joint reversal sequence [
11
]. This energy is eventually
passed through the ankle joint, where its plantar flexion contributes in approximately
22–23% of the take-off velocity [
12
,
13
]. The contribution of the ankle joint to a vertical
jump depends on the magnitude of the force developed by the ankle plantar flexors, with
the gastrocnemius muscle also aiding as a bi-articular muscle to the energy flow, from the
differences in their stimulation onset times [
14
] and from its range of motion, as individuals
with poor flexibility jumped less than more flexible individuals [
15
]. For example, it is
unavoidable for an individual with limited ankle dorsiflexion to perform a maximum
vertical jump without leaning his trunk forward or lifting his heels off the ground [
15
].
Research findings suggest that the combined effect of improving the ankle dorsiflexion
range of motion and the strength of the muscles acting at the ankle joint could cause
improvements in vertical jumping ability [
16
]. This is probably due to the fact that the
ankle dorsiflexors strength is determined by ankle dorsiflexion range of motion [
17
]. Thus,
the ankle joint can be classified as a key joint for the achievement of optimal vertical jumps.
This is of importance, since the most common acute injury in volleyball is located mostly
in the ankle, namely the ankle sprain [
18
] and it is the most frequent time loss injury in
youth female volleyball players [
19
]. The importance of flexibility, namely the ability of
tissues to achieve the maximum range of movement that is quantitatively measured as joint
range of motion (ROM) [
20
], for injury avoidance and sport-specific performance is well
documented [
21
]. The ankle ROM depends on the ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion
ability and is evaluated in the sagittal plane, with the knee joint angular position at neutral,
in 90
◦
flexion or at maximum knee flexion when the examined person is standing or at
the supine position [
20
]. The range of motion is also measured actively (with muscular
contraction only) or passively (movement of the joint caused by external force) [
22
]. The
ankle ROM can be measured with video analysis, which is suggested to be accurate and
reliable [
23
–
29
]. However, when performing a jump in a volleyball game, such as a spike
jump [
6
,
30
], the ankle joint is dorsiflexed when the knee joint angle is in a position in
between of those reported above and which are used for the evaluation of ankle ROM.
Vertical jump performance is suggested that is not the single main predicting factor
of optimum performance in volleyball [
1
]. Research has conducted to establish relation-
ships between jumping performance and other factors that contribute to performance [
31
].
The relationship between flexibility and jumping performance revealed that, for women
volleyball players, performance in the vertical jumps was negatively correlated with hip
flexibility [
32
]. However, interventions to improve flexibility in adolescent female volleyball
players resulted in enhancements concerning SQJ performance [
33
] and the effectiveness
in volleyball skills [34].
Based on the above, the importance of the ankle ROM in volleyball players is evident.
Nevertheless, flexibility is not commonly regarded among the attributes for performance
in female volleyball [
35
]. In addition, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is limited
evidence about the ankle ROM and its relationship with squat jumping performance in
young female volleyball players. Therefore, the first purpose of this study was to evaluate
the ankle ROM under the perspective of laterality, knee joint flexion and type of flexibility
in young female volleyball players. For this purpose, the ankle ROM was measured for
both legs, in an active and passive condition and at three different knee joint angles. The
second purpose was to examine possible differences between flexible and inflexible players
in the SQJ parameters with and without an arm swing. It was hypothesized that flexible
players would perform better than inflexible players and that flexible players would benefit
more from the arm swing as the greater mobility of the ankle joint will possibly attribute
to an enhanced energy flow for the impulse. The SQJ rather than the countermovement
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 3 of 13
vertical jump was selected to test the hypothesis, aiming to limit possible inter-individual
differences caused by altered mechanics due to self-selected downward velocity and lower
limb joints flexion in the eccentric phase [36].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design of the Study
For the examination of the hypotheses of the study, the experimental procedure was
conducted in two steps at separate testing sessions. At first, the ankle ROM at knee ex-
tension angles of 90
◦
, 140
◦
, and 180
◦
(180
◦
= full extension) was measured for both legs
(Experiment 1). Afterwards, the participants that fulfilled previously recommended cri-
teria [
37
] were assigned to groups with good (“flexible”) and poor (“inflexible”) ankle
dorsiflexion and executed SQJ with and without an arm swing on a force-plate (Experi-
ment 2).
2.2. Experiment 1: Ankle Range of Motion
2.2.1. Participants
Thirty-five (n= 35) female post-pubertal volleyball players (16.3
±
1.1 yrs, 1.80
±
0.04 m, 68.8
±
6.8 kg), members of the respective youth national teams, participated in the
study. All participants were identified as adolescents (Stage V) according to the growth
assessment technique described by Tanner [
38
]. The inclusion criteria were that the partici-
pants had records of systematic participation in their training program, with no reported
injury for a period of six months prior the research. The tests were performed at least 24 h
after the last strenuous training session and were part of a wider physical conditioning
monitoring program of the national teams that were conducted in accordance with the
Declaration of Helsinki and the Research Ethics Code of the Aristotle University of Thes-
saloniki, after the procedure being approved from the Institutional Research Committee
(7233/091197).
2.2.2. Experimental Procedure
The measurement of ankle ROM was conducted with a video analysis method. The
coefficient of reliability for this method is reported to range from 0.942 to 0.975 [
15
,
28
].
The participants executed the ankle ROM test barefooted. Custom reflective markers with
a diameter of 0.01 m were placed on the greater trochanter, the lateral epicondyle of the
femur, the posterior aspect of the calcaneus, and the tuberosity of the 5th metatarsal. These
anatomical points were marked as they represent the hip, knee, ankle and metatarsal joints.
In addition, a marker was attached on the lateral malleolus (Figure 1).
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13
benefit more from the arm swing as the greater mobility of the ankle joint will possibly
attribute to an enhanced energy flow for the impulse. The SQJ rather than the counter-
movement vertical jump was selected to test the hypothesis, aiming to limit possible inter-
individual differences caused by altered mechanics due to self-selected downward veloc-
ity and lower limb joints flexion in the eccentric phase [36].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design of the Study
For the examination of the hypotheses of the study, the experimental procedure was
conducted in two steps at separate testing sessions. At first, the ankle ROM at knee exten-
sion angles of 90°, 140°, and 180° (180° = full extension) was measured for both legs (Ex-
periment 1). Afterwards, the participants that fulfilled previously recommended criteria
[37] were assigned to groups with good (“flexible”) and poor (“inflexible”) ankle dorsi-
flexion and executed SQJ with and without an arm swing on a force-plate (Experiment 2).
2.2. Experiment 1: Ankle Range of Motion
2.2.1. Participants
Thirty-five (n = 35) female post-pubertal volleyball players (16.3 ± 1.1 yrs, 1.80 ± 0.04
m, 68.8 ± 6.8 kg), members of the respective youth national teams, participated in the
study. All participants were identified as adolescents (Stage V) according to the growth
assessment technique described by Tanner [38]. The inclusion criteria were that the par-
ticipants had records of systematic participation in their training program, with no re-
ported injury for a period of six months prior the research. The tests were performed at
least 24 h after the last strenuous training session and were part of a wider physical con-
ditioning monitoring program of the national teams that were conducted in accordance
with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Research Ethics Code of the Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki, after the procedure being approved from the Institutional Research Com-
mittee (7233/091197).
2.2.2. Experimental Procedure
The measurement of ankle ROM was conducted with a video analysis method. The
coefficient of reliability for this method is reported to range from 0.942 to 0.975 [15,28].
The participants executed the ankle ROM test barefooted. Custom reflective markers with
a diameter of 0.01 m were placed on the greater trochanter, the lateral epicondyle of the
femur, the posterior aspect of the calcaneus, and the tuberosity of the 5 th metatarsal.
These anatomical points were marked as they represent the hip, knee, ankle and metatar-
sal joints. In addition, a marker was attached on the lateral malleolus (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The procedure for the ankle range of motion measurement.
Figure 1. The procedure for the ankle range of motion measurement.
After the placement of the markers, the participants sat, with their torso in an upright
position, on an examination bed. The knee joint was at the edge of the bed, allowing
the shank to swing freely. Then, the participants were fixed on the bed and were asked
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 4 of 13
to plantar flex at their maximum capability while slowly swinging their shank from the
vertical to the horizontal position, and vice versa. The same procedure was repeated with
a dorsiflexion. These assessments comprised the active flexibility measures (ACT). For
the assessment of the passive flexibility of the ankle joint (PAS), the same experienced
researcher applied force on the dorsal surface of the foot to cause a plantar flexion of the
ankle joint until the maximum ROM was achieved and a feeling of discomfort was reported
from the participant. Then, the same as above shank swing was executed. Afterwards, the
force was applied on the plantar surface of the foot and the shank motion was repeated.
The above described procedure was conducted in a randomized order for both legs in
an examination room with an ambient temperature (22–23
◦
C) and without the participants
to perform any kind of warm-up. For the measurement of the ankle ROM with the 2D-DLT
video analysis method [
39
], the plane where the movement was performed was calibrated
placing a 1.25 m
×
1.25 m calibration frame containing 10 reference markers prior the
measurement. The calibration procedure was conducted to establish that the axis of the
camera was vertical to the plane of movement and for the extraction of the position of the
markers in a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system.
2.2.3. Data Acquisition and Analysis
The experimental procedure was recorded with a Panasonic NV-MS4E (Matsushita
Electric Industrial Company, Osaka, Japan) from a distance of 4 m. The camera was fixed
on a tripod at a height of 1.2 m and was operating with a sampling frequency of 25 fps.
The captured motion was then projected field by field using a Citizen 30PC-1EA projector
(Japan CBM Corp., Tokyo, Japan) on a COMPLOT 7000 digitizer (Mayline Company Inc.,
Sheboygan, WI, USA) and the coordinates of the markers were stored online in a personal
computer. Thus, the knee and ankle joint angles were estimated using the extracted
coordinates and basic trigonometric equations as follows:
•
ankle angle (
θ
ank): the angle formed by the shank (i.e., the line defined by the lateral
epicondyle of the femur and the posterior surface of the calcaneus) and the foot (i.e.,
the line defined by the tuberosity of the 5th metatarsal and the lateral malleolus), where
θ
ank = 90
◦
meant that the shank was perpendicular to the foot. Ankle dorsiflexion
was noted when θank < 90◦and ankle plantar flexion when θank > 90◦;
•
knee angle (
θ
knee): the angle formed from the shank and the thigh (i.e., the line
defined by the lateral epicondyle of the femur and the greater trochanter).
Initially,
θ
knee was defined with an approximate error of
±
1.5
◦
, as revealed in a test-
retest comparison of 10% of the fields that were re-digitized for this evaluation procedure.
θ
ank was calculated afterwards. The ACT and PAS ankle ROM was calculated using
the
θ
ank recorded for the dorsi- and plantar-flexion when
θ
knee was at 90
◦
, 140
◦
, and
180
◦
, where 180
◦
represents a fully extended knee joint. All the above measurements
were conducted using a custom made software (ANGLES software,
©
: Iraklis A. Kollias,
Biomechanics Laboratory, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece).
2.2.4. Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics for the examined parameters are presented as mean
±
standard
deviation. A 2 (leg; Left, Right)
×
2 (condition; ACT, PAS)
×
3 (
θ
knee; 90
◦
, 140
◦
, 180
◦
)
MANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor after Bonferroni adjustments was
conducted to test the effect of laterality, type of assessment, and knee angle on ankle ROM.
Significant differences were followed up with simple contrasts. Effect sizes were checked
using the partial eta-squared statistic (
ηp2
), with values of above 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14 being
considered as small, medium, and large, respectively [
40
]. All statistical analyses were
conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics v.25 software (International Business Machines
Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with the level of significance set at a= 0.05.
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 5 of 13
2.3. Experiment 2: Vertical Squat Jump Performance
2.3.1. Participants
After the completion of Experiment 1, the participants that fulfilled the criteria set in
previous studies [
37
] were assigned to the flexible (FLG) and inflexible (IFG) group. The
inclusion criterion for the FLG group was the PAS dorsiflexion
θ
ank to be less than 59.8
◦
when
θ
knee was 90
◦
. The respective criterion for IFG was that the PAS dorsiflexion
θ
ank
should be higher than 71.8
◦
. These criteria were adopted on the basis of past research
findings in a large cohort of female physical education students, where the frequency
distribution analysis identified the previously mentioned values to indicate individuals as
“flexible” (7.5th percentile) and “inflexible” (92.5th percentile), respectively [
37
]. Another
inclusion criterion was that the interlimb difference of PAS dorsiflexion
θ
ank should not
be more than 10.0
◦
. Thus, 10 players formed the FLG (16.6
±
1.2 yrs, 1.80
±
0.04 m,
67.8 ±6.8 kg
), whereas 8 players were considered in the IFG (15.7
±
0.7 yrs, 1.79
±
0.06 m,
70.4 ±8.0 kg).
2.3.2. Experimental Procedure
Participants performed a typical 20-min warm-up, consisting of 10 min cycling on
an 817E Monark Exercise Cycle (Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweden) at constant velocity of
5.5 m
·
s
−1
with 0 W load, followed by a 10 min dynamic stretching program with move-
ments that gradually engaged the joints to move in almost full range of motion. A section
of self-administered squatting exercises and sub-maximal vertical jumps for familiarization
was performed afterwards. Before the testing session, the participants were instructed
about the execution of the SQJ with (AS) and without the arm swing (NAS). At the starting
position for the execution of the SQJ-NAS, the arms were placed on the hips, the feet were
in full contact with the force-plate and
θ
knee was approximately 90
◦
. The arms were
placed on the hips throughout the jump, the flight and the landing. The validity of the
SQJ-NAS was checked as described in previous research [
41
]. For the SQJ-AS, the arms
were kept hanging vertically, parallel at the side of the body, and were then swung upwards
during the impulse. In total, three SQJ-AS and three SQJ-NAS were performed in a random
counterbalanced order.
All jumps were performed barefooted. A minimum of a 60 s resting period was
allowed between trials to avoid fatigue. The instruction given to the participants was to
“jump as high and as fast as possible without a downward movement”. The best attempt
of the three trials, using as criterion the maximum jump height achieved (Hjump), was
selected for further analysis.
2.3.3. Data Acquisition and Analysis
Ground reaction forces (GRF) were recorded with an AMTI OR6-5-1 force plate (AMTI,
Newton, MA, USA) connected on line with a Pentium II PC in which GRF recordings were
stored after being converted to digital using a PC-LabCard PCL-812PG (Advantech Co.,
Taipei, Taiwan) 12-bit analogue-to-digital converter. Data acquisition was set to a nominal
sampling frequency of 500 Hz. The signal was digitally smoothed using a 2nd order
low-pass Butterworth filter, with cut-off frequency set at 8 Hz.
Hjump was calculated based on the body center of mass (BCM) vertical take-off veloc-
ity (Vy) computed after the integration of the vertical GRF. The kinetic parameters of the
SQJ were extracted based on the force-time history and the mass of the participants. In de-
tail, besides the maximum vertical GRF (FZmax), the maximum rate of force development
(RFDmax) was extracted as the peak value of the first-time derivative of the vertical GRF,
the maximum power output (Pmax) was the peak value of the multiplication of the vertical
GRF with vertical BCM velocity. The integration of vertical BCM velocity revealed the
vertical BCM displacement from the initial starting position to the instant of take-off (Sto).
The mechanical work (Wmax) was defined as the peak value computed by multiplying
vertical GRF with the vertical BCM displacement. In addition, temporal parameters, such
as the total duration of the impulse (tC) and the time to achieve the peak vertical GRF
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 6 of 13
(tFz), were included in the analysis. Finally, the efficiency of AS in Hjump (AS
efficiency
) was
assessed as shown in Equation (1):
ASefficiency =
HjumpAS −HjumpNAS
HjumpNAS
×100. (1)
2.3.4. Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics for the examined parameters are presented as mean
±
standard
deviation. Normality of distribution and the equality of variance were assessed using the
Shapiro-Wilk test (p> 0.05) and the Levene’s test (p> 0.05), respectively. According to
the results of the Shapiro-Wilk test, an Independent Samples T-test was run to check the
difference concerning the efficiency of AS in Hjump between FLG and IFG. The effect size
was checked using the Hedges’ g, with values of <0.2, <0.5, <0.8, and
≥
0.8 being considered
as trivial, small, medium, and large, respectively [42]. A 2 (flexibility; FLG, IFG) ×2 (arm
swing: NAS, AS) repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni adjustment was carried out
to compare the main effects of flexibility and arm swing and the interaction effect between
flexibility and arm swing on the kinetic and temporal parameters of the SQJ. Significant
differences were followed up with pairwise comparisons. Effect sizes for this procedure
were checked using the partial eta-squared statistic (
ηp2
), with values of above 0.01, 0.06,
and 0.14 being considered as small, medium, and large, respectively [
40
]. All statistical
analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics v.25 software (International Business
Machines Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with the level of significance set at a= 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Experiment 1: Ankle Range of Motion
The results of the measurements of the ankle ROM are presented in Table 1. All ROM
measurements in the PAS condition were approximately 12 to 18
◦
higher compared to the
respective ACT condition, resulting in a significant type of flexibility assessment effect
(F1,130 = 296.359, p< 0.001, ηp2= 0.820; large effect).
Table 1. Results for the ankle joint range of motion (ROM) measurements (n= 35).
θknee = 90◦θknee = 140◦θknee = 180◦
ROM Measurement Mean ±SD Mean ±SD Mean ±SD
Right leg
ACT (deg) 74.4 ±9.5 67.7 ±9.5 a62.9 ±9.7 a,b
PAS (deg) 87.1 ±9.5 * 79.8 ±7.9 *,a 75.7 ±7.8 *,a,b
Left leg
ACT (deg) 67.8 ±10.8 66.9 ±11.5 61.3 ±11.1 a,b
PAS (deg) 90.9 ±9.7 * 85.1 ±9.2 *,a 78.0 ±8.1 *,a,b
a
: significantly different compared to
θ
knee = 90
◦
(p< 0.05);
b
: significantly different compared to
θ
knee = 140
◦
(p< 0.05); *: significantly different compared to ACT (p< 0.05);
θ
knee: knee joint angle; ACT: active flexibility
range of motion test; PAS: passive flexibility range of motion test.
It was also observed that the ankle ROM was progressively decreased as
θ
knee
changed from 90
◦
flexion to full extension, presenting a significant knee joint angle effect
(F
2,130
= 184.984, p< 0.001,
ηp2
= 0.740; large effect). Finally, the interlimb differences ranged
from 0.8 to 6.6
◦
, and no significant lateral effect was observed (F
1,65
= 0.216, p= 0.644,
ηp2= 0.003).
3.2. Experiment 2: Vertical Squat Jump Performance
Based on the outcome of Experiment 1, ten players with
θ
ank less than 59.8
◦
formed FLG
(
θ
ank = 55.4
±
3.4
◦
), and eight players with
θ
ank over 71.8
◦
formed IFG (
θank = 74.3 ±4.7◦
).
The results for their SQJ tests are presented in Table 2. Compared to SQJ-NAS, Vy at SQJ-AS
take-off increased by 0.03
±
0.06 m/s in FLG and 0.06
±
0.09 m/s in IFG, respectively. A
non-significant between group difference (t
1,16
= 0.933, p= 0.365, g= 0.293) concerning the
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 7 of 13
efficiency of AS in Hjump was observed, as it was found to be 2.6
±
5.4% and 0.4
±
8.9%
for FLG and IFG, respectively.
Table 2.
Results of the examined parameters for the vertical squat jump (SQJ) with (AS) and without
(NAS) the use of an arm swing executed by the players of the flexible (FLG, n= 10) and inflexible
(IFG, n= 8) groups.
Parameter SQJ FLG (n= 10) IFG (n= 8) Flexibility Arm Swing Interaction
Mean ±SD Mean ±SD pηp2pηp2pηp2
Hjump NAS 22.3 ±3.6 19.3 ±2.1 0.006 f0.216 0.672 0.006 0.696 0.005
(cm) AS 23.2 ±4.5 19.4 ±2.4 *
FZmax NAS 1.8 ±0.4 2.0 ±0.2 0.202 0.05 0.001 s0.278 0.325 0.03
(N/kg) AS 2.2 ±0.2 #2.3 ±0.2
RFDmax NAS 6.0 ±1.8 6.4 ±2.9 0.682 0.005 0.011 s0.185 0.993 <0.001
(kN/sec) AS 8.8 ±3.8 9.2 ±3.4
Pmax NAS 21.3 ±2.8 18.9 ±2.0 0.018 f0.163 0.011 s0.184 0.787 0.002
(W/kg) AS 24.4 ±4.2 #21.5 ±3.0
Wmax NAS 2.3 ±0.6 1.9 ±0.4 0.017 f0.164 0.009 s0.193 0.967 <0.001
(J/kg) AS 1.9 ±0.5 1.5 ±0.4
Sto NAS 52.3 ±6.0 48.6 ±6.5 0.051 0.114 0.019 s0.161 0.851 0.001
(cm) AS 47.7 ±6.2 43.2 ±5.0
tC NAS 788 ±125 720 ±173 0.281 0.036 0.825 0.002 0.758 0.003
(ms) AS 762 ±139 724 ±144
tFz NAS 631 ±129 523 ±165 0.038 f0.128 0.469 0.017 0.747 0.003
(ms) AS 585 ±122 505 ±93
*: significantly different compared to FLG (p< 0.05);
#
: significantly different compared to NAS (p< 0.05);
f
: significant flexibility effect;
s
: significant arm swing effect; Hjump: jump height; FZmax: maximum vertical
ground reaction force; RFDmax: maximum rate of force development; Pmax: peak power output; Wmax: peak
mechanical work; Sto: vertical body center of mass displacement during the impulse; tC: total duration of the
impulse; tFz: time to achieve FZmax.
On average, FLG jumped 3.8 cm higher than IFG in the SQJ-AS (Table 2). This
represented a large effect size significant main flexibility effect (F
1,32
= 8.840, p= 0.006,
ηp2
= 0.216) on Hjump. Significant large effect size main flexibility effects were also
observed for Pmax (F
1,32
= 6.239, p= 0.018,
ηp2
= 0.163) and Wmax (F
1,32
= 6.292, p= 0.017,
ηp2
= 0.164). Finally, significant medium effect size main flexibility effect was evident for
tFz (F1,32 = 4.685, p= 0.038, ηp2= 0.128).
As for the effect of the arm swing, results revealed that, on average, FLG jumped 0.9 cm
higher in the SQJ-AS than in the SQJ-NAS. On the opposite, the increase in Hjump for IFG
was on average just 0.1 cm higher in the SQJ-AS compared to the SQJ-NAS. Thus, there was
no significant main arm swing effect on Hjump (F
1,32
= 0.182, p= 0.672,
ηp2
= 0.006). On
the contrary, significant large effect size main arm swing effects were observed for FZmax
(F
1,32
= 12.331, p= 0.001,
ηp2
= 0.278), RFDmax (F
1,32
= 7.277, p= 0.011,
ηp2
= 0.185), Pmax
(F
1,32
= 7.237, p= 0.011,
ηp2
= 0.184), Wmax (F
1,32
= 7.640, p= 0.009,
ηp2
= 0.193), and Sto
(F1,32 = 6.143, p= 0.019, ηp2= 0.161).
Finally, there was no significant interaction among the two vertical jump tests and
the two groups for the examined parameters. As presented in Figure 2, a similar pattern
between FLG and IFG was identified for vertical GRF and especially for the power output.
A detailed examination of the representative individual curves for a selected FLG and IFG
player reveals that the vertical GRF was higher in the SQJ-AS compared to the SQJ-NAS
(Figure 2a). Despite the fact that power had an almost identical peak value for both SQJ-
NAS and SQJ-AS, the slope of the power output curve was steeper in the FLG compared to
the IFG player (Figure 2b).
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 8 of 13
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13
NAS and SQJ-AS, the slope of the power output curve was steeper in the FLG compared
to the IFG player (Figure 2b).
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Representative individual time history curves for (a) vertical ground reaction forces (tC = 0 indicates the instant
of take-off); (b) power output. Dashed lines present the squat jump test without an arm swing (SQJ-NAS) and solid lines
the squat jump test with an arm swing (SQJ-AS). Black lines depict a flexible player (FLG) and gray lines an inflexible
player (IFG).
4. Discussion
Results of the ankle joint range of motion revealed significant type of flexibility and
knee joint angle effects, with no differences concerning the interlimb comparison. It was
found that passive range of motion was significantly larger than the active condition. In
addition, significantly larger ankle range of motion was recorded when the knee joint was
progressively flexed from its full extension. As for the squat jump tests, significant flexi-
bility and arm swing effects were observed, but the hypotheses of the study were partly
confirmed. The flexible players did perform better in the squat jump with an arm swing
compared to the inflexible players, but the effectiveness of using the arm swing, although
larger in the flexible players, was not significant different between the examined groups.
The passive ankle range of motion when the knee joint was at 40° knee flexion was
on average about 82°. This value is larger compared to previous findings for female hand-
ball players [43] and professional male soccer players [28]. Previous research [44] found
that the active ankle range of motion, when the knee joint is 90° flexed, is approximately
70°, which is also confirmed in the present study. Nevertheless, the trend that the ankle
range of motion decreases when the knee joint extends is in agreement with past research
[45]. In addition, the present findings regarding the differences between active and pas-
sive assessment of the ankle joint range of motion are also in agreement with the literature
[43,46]. The distinct reduction of the passive ankle ROM when the knee was fully extended
compared to the other flexed knee joint positions can be attributed to the previous finding
that the largest changes of the architecture of the gastrocnemius muscle are evident in the
range of approximately 35° knee flexion to its full extension [47]. This eventually leads to
differentiations of the musculotendinous junction [48,49]. In specific, the relative length
of the musculotendinous unit and its moment of inertia increase when the knee joint is
extended [50]. In addition, the ankle dorsiflexion is affected in a greater magnitude during
knee extension rather than knee flexion, as this extension is influenced by the bi-articular-
ity of the gastrocnemius muscle [51]. Furthermore, when the knee is extended, the gas-
trocnemius muscle is stretched and thus to a reduction of the ankle dorsiflexion when the
joint is not loaded. Thus, during knee flexion, the gastrocnemius muscle is relaxed due to
its attachment on the femur and thus it is not that resistant to the non-weight bearing
Figure 2.
Representative individual time history curves for (
a
) vertical ground reaction forces (tC = 0 indicates the instant
of take-off); (
b
) power output. Dashed lines present the squat jump test without an arm swing (SQJ-NAS) and solid lines
the squat jump test with an arm swing (SQJ-AS). Black lines depict a flexible player (FLG) and gray lines an inflexible
player (IFG).
4. Discussion
Results of the ankle joint range of motion revealed significant type of flexibility and
knee joint angle effects, with no differences concerning the interlimb comparison. It was
found that passive range of motion was significantly larger than the active condition.
In addition, significantly larger ankle range of motion was recorded when the knee joint
was progressively flexed from its full extension. As for the squat jump tests, significant
flexibility and arm swing effects were observed, but the hypotheses of the study were partly
confirmed. The flexible players did perform better in the squat jump with an arm swing
compared to the inflexible players, but the effectiveness of using the arm swing, although
larger in the flexible players, was not significant different between the examined groups.
The passive ankle range of motion when the knee joint was at 40
◦
knee flexion was on
average about 82
◦
. This value is larger compared to previous findings for female handball
players [
43
] and professional male soccer players [
28
]. Previous research [
44
] found that the
active ankle range of motion, when the knee joint is 90
◦
flexed, is approximately 70
◦
, which
is also confirmed in the present study. Nevertheless, the trend that the ankle range of motion
decreases when the knee joint extends is in agreement with past research [
45
]. In addition,
the present findings regarding the differences between active and passive assessment
of the ankle joint range of motion are also in agreement with the literature [
43
,
46
]. The
distinct reduction of the passive ankle ROM when the knee was fully extended compared
to the other flexed knee joint positions can be attributed to the previous finding that
the largest changes of the architecture of the gastrocnemius muscle are evident in the
range of approximately 35◦knee flexion to its full extension [47]. This eventually leads to
differentiations of the musculotendinous junction [
48
,
49
]. In specific, the relative length
of the musculotendinous unit and its moment of inertia increase when the knee joint
is extended [
50
]. In addition, the ankle dorsiflexion is affected in a greater magnitude
during knee extension rather than knee flexion, as this extension is influenced by the bi-
articularity of the gastrocnemius muscle [
51
]. Furthermore, when the knee is extended, the
gastrocnemius muscle is stretched and thus to a reduction of the ankle dorsiflexion when the
joint is not loaded. Thus, during knee flexion, the gastrocnemius muscle is relaxed due to
its attachment on the femur and thus it is not that resistant to the non-weight bearing ankle
dorsiflexion [
51
]. The absence of significant lateral differences concerning the ankle ROM
confirms previous observations in various sports [
28
,
43
,
52
]. However, the non-significant
trend noted for larger values of passive ROM for the left ankle, along with lower active
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 9 of 13
ankle ROM compared to the right leg, can be attributed to the sport specific demands of the
volleyball jumps that are different for each lower limb. For example, during the execution
of the preparation steps in the spike jump, female players differentiate the planting and the
movement pattern of the lower extremities [
6
]. This interlimb differentiation in loading
may resulted in the observed trend in ankle ROM. This finding adds to the current bias in
the literature concerning the fact that different lower-limb tests produce different results
concerning inter-limb asymmetry indexes [53,54].
The data of the present study showed that the height achieved in the SQJ without an
arm swing, despite being on average 3 cm higher in the flexible group, was not significant
different between groups, a fact that was also observed in the past for female physical
education students [
37
]. Lower squat jump height was reported when the ankle range of
motion is restricted during a squat jump [
55
]. In the case of inflexible or reduced ankle
mobility, the possible reduced contribution of the energy transfer through the biarticular
gastrocnemius muscle is counterbalanced with adaptations, such as enhanced mechanical
output at the knee [
55
] or a larger mobility of the hip joint and the torso [
56
]. On the
opposite end, significant differences were revealed for the SQJ with an arm swing, as
the efficiency of the arm swing was just 0.4% for the inflexible players. Nevertheless,
previous research revealed low efficiency of the use of the arm swing in females compared
to males, possibly due to the greater upper body strength of men [
7
]. Non-significant
larger maximum vertical ground reaction forces and rate of force development values
were observed for the inflexible group. This is suggested to lead to greater peak angular
accelerations that eventually result in an enhancement in vertical body center of mass
velocity [
57
]. However, in the present study, this did not contribute to larger take-off
velocity in the inflexible group, perhaps due to smaller range of motion caused by the
reduced ankle joint dorsiflexion [56,58].
A significant flexibility and arm swing effect concerning the power and mechanical
work output was noted in the tested volleyball players. This is in agreement with previ-
ous findings regarding the factors that differentiate SQJ performance among groups of
young female athletes, which are the whole body peak mechanical power output and the
force/time structure of the jump [
41
]. This fact is important in volleyball, as the force/time
structure of the biomechanical parameters that optimize the jump must meet the combined
demand for the restrictions of time and constrains in space for a maximization of the
propulsive impulse [
10
,
59
]. The present results also support previous findings that the use
of the arm swing increases performance in the SQJ as the jump height in the arm swing
squat jump is suggested to be related with increased force application, power production,
and work output compared to no arm swing vertical jumps [
7
–
10
,
60
]. As presented in past
research [
57
], the time to achieve maximum vertical ground reaction force was less in the
arm swing squat jump than the no arm swing test, but it was evident only in the flexible
group. The opposite was observed for the inflexible group. Concluding, it is suggested
that the enhancement of jumping performance is achieved by maximizing the capabilities
of the lower limb neuromuscular system concerning its power output and by optimizing
its force-velocity mechanical profile [61].
The active and/or passive stretching of the gastrocnemius muscle is the main factor to
control the ankle dorsi flexion [
62
], which, in turn, is suggested to be the determining factor
for the optimization of the vertical squat jump performance [
56
]. The present findings
can be interpreted under the perspective that the alteration of the angular position of the
examined joints result in changes in the length of the gastrocnemius muscle and eventually
to the function of its musculotendinous unit [
47
,
50
,
63
,
64
] and the neuromechanical function
of the ankle joint flexors and extensors [
65
–
70
]. It is suggested that these modifications
due to the different ankle angle cause alterations in the force application capabilities of the
shank muscles, as well as in the transfer of the power [
62
,
71
–
77
]. If constrains exist when
executing a vertical squat jump, either in the form of ankle mobility reduction [
55
] or the
demand for a full feet contact [
78
], then several adaptations occur as the muscle activation
patterns are adjusted for the maximization of the jump height from the altered initial
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 10 of 13
posture [
79
]. Despite the fact that different initial postures were found not to affect vertical
jumping performance [
80
], inflexible athletes achieve better vertical jump performance
when the jump is executed with a large forward lean of the body [
56
,
78
]. However, this
body posture is suggested to cause, besides the execution of the jump with less balance
during the propulsive phase, additional loading at the Achilles tendon and the spine [
37
,
78
].
In addition, enhanced output at the knee joint is evident [
55
]. In the case of the squat
jump with an arm swing, simulation studies have shown that larger amount of work is
produced by the gastrocnemius muscle compared to the no arm swing squat jump [
8
].
These facts combined contribute to findings that the reduced ankle dorsiflexion range
might increase the risk of patellar tendon injury among volleyball players [
81
]. Thus,
the importance of gastrocnemius stretching is emphasized concerning the prevention of
ankle sprain in volleyball players, and it is recommended to be involved in the preventive
training programs in volleyball players [82].
The body posture, combined with joint kinematics, joint torque, and muscle activation
patterns, could possibly add content to the interpretation of the present findings. Another
possible limitation is the lack to measure the strength of the upper arm and shoulder area
muscles and to examine their possible effect on the reported results. Finally, the study
focused on the effect of the muscular element involved in the ankle joint mobility and
not on constrains imposed by the skeletal system, specifically examining the effect of the
bone structure and deformities of the ankle joint and the feet. Nevertheless, the results of
the study demonstrated that individuals with larger ankle dorsiflexion angle can utilize
more efficiently the additional work provided by the arm swing in the vertical squat jump
compared to individuals with less flexible ankle joint.
5. Conclusions
The vertical squat jump kinetic parameters are differentiated when an arm swing
is used. The arm swing is effectively used by adolescent female volleyball players with
large ankle dorsiflexion, as a larger gain in performance was presented. On the opposite
end, adolescent female volleyball players with limited ankle dorsiflexion were not able
to increase their vertical squat jump height compared to the no arm condition. In addi-
tion, significantly larger ankle range of motion was recorded when the knee joint was
progressively flexed from its full extension. The modifications concerning the mobility of
the ankle joint caused by different knee joint angles should be considered by coaches and
practitioners with regard the demands to execute technique elements where a combined
knee and ankle joint movement is essential. Alterations in the relative position of the
ankle and knee joints can lead to differences in tissue loading that could cause, besides
the incident of an injury, adaptations in a different manner than those that the training
program is aiming to develop. Thus, flexibility tests should be implemented in a regular
basis. In addition, the training programs should aim to improve the ankle range of motion,
especially the ankle dorsiflexion, for the enhancement of the effectiveness of the use of the
arm swing in vertical jumping that is essential in volleyball. Regarding the interlimb effect
in the range of motion measurements, future research should also take into consideration
the interlimb comparison in terms of dominant versus non-dominant leg or with respect to
the contralateral and ipsilateral leg referred to the preferred arm to execute the spike jump.
Along with the interlimb effect, the differences in the examined parameters concerning the
player position could also be of interest to investigate.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, G.P. and I.A.K.; data curation, V.P., G.P., and I.A.K.;
formal analysis, V.P. and I.A.K.; investigation, V.P., and G.P.; methodology, G.P. and I.A.K.; project
administration, I.A.K.; software, I.A.K.; supervision, I.A.K.; visualization, V.P., M.C.K., and I.A.K.;
writing—original draft preparation, V.P. and M.C.K.; writing—review and editing, V.P., M.C.K., G.P.,
and I.A.K.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was partly supported by the National General Sport Secretariat.
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 11 of 13
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of
the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Committee of Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki (protocol code 7233/09.11.97).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Ziv, G.; Lidor, R. Vertical jump in female and male volleyball players: A review of observational and experimental studies. Scand.
J. Med. Sci. Sports 2010,20, 556–567. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Ben Ayed, K.; Ben Saad, H.; Ali Hammami, M.; Latiri, I. Relationships of the 5-jump test (5JT) performance of youth players with
volleyball specific laboratory tests for explosive power. Am. J. Mens. Health 2020,14, 1557988320977686. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Sattler, T.; Sekulic, D.; Hadzic, V.; Uljevic, O.; Dervisevic, E. Vertical jumping tests in volleyball: Reliability, validity, and
playing-position specifics. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012,26, 1532–1538. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Sheppard, J.M.; Newton, R.U. Long-term training adaptations in elite male volleyball players. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2012
,26,
2180–2184. [CrossRef]
5.
Berriel, G.P.; Schons, P.; Costa, R.R.; Oses, V.H.S.; Fischer, G.; Pantoja, P.D.; Kruel, L.F.M.; Peyre-Tartaruga, L.A. Correlations
between jump performance in block and attack and the performance in official games, squat jumps, and countermovement jumps
of professional volleyball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012. [CrossRef]
6.
Fuchs, P.X.; Fusco, A.; Bell, J.W.; von Duvillard, S.P.; Cortis, C.; Wagner, H. Movement characteristics of volleyball spike jump
performance in females. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2019,22, 833–837. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Walsh, M.S.; Bohm, H.; Butterfield, M.M.; Santhosam, J. Gender bias in the effects of arms and countermovement on jumping
performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007,21, 362–366. [PubMed]
8.
Blache, Y.; Monteil, K. Effect of arm swing on effective energy during vertical jumping: Experimental and simulation study. Scand.
J. Med. Sci. Sports 2013,23, e121–e129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Hara, M.; Shibayama, A.; Takeshita, D.; Fukashiro, S. The effect of arm swing on lower extremities in vertical jumping. J. Biomech.
2006,39, 2503–2511. [CrossRef]
10.
Harman, E.A.; Rosenstein, M.T.; Frykman, P.N.; Rosenstein, R.M. The effects of arms and countermovement on vertical jumping.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1990,22, 825–833. [CrossRef]
11.
Prilutsky, B.I.; Zatsiorsky, V.M. Tendon action of two-joint muscles: Transfer of mechanical energy between joints during jumping,
landing, and running. J. Biomech. 1994,27, 25–34. [CrossRef]
12. Luhtanen, P.; Komi, P.V. Segmental contribution to forces in vertical jump. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 1978,38, 181–188. [CrossRef]
13.
Hubley, C.L.; Wells, R.P. A work energy approach to determine individual joint contributions to vertical jump performance. Eur.
J. Appl. Physiol. 1983,50, 247–254. [CrossRef]
14.
Bobbert, M.F.; van Zandwijk, J.P. Sensitivity of vertical jumping performance to changes in muscle stimulation onset times: A
simulation study. Biol. Cybern. 1999,81, 101–108. [CrossRef]
15.
Papaiakovou, G. Kinematic and kinetic differences in the execution of vertical jumps between people with good and poor ankle
joint dorsiflexion. J. Sports Sci. 2013,31, 1789–1796. [CrossRef]
16.
Yun, S.J.; Kim, M.H.; Weon, J.H.; Kim, Y.; Jung, S.H.; Kwon, O.Y. Correlation between toe flexor strength and ankle dorsiflexion
ROM during the countermovement jump. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2016,28, 2241–2244. [CrossRef]
17.
Guillén-Rogel, P.; San Emeterio, C.; Marín, P.J. Associations between ankle dorsiflexion range of motion and foot and ankle
strength in young adults. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2017,29, 1363–1367. [CrossRef]
18.
Kilic, O.; Maas, M.; Verhagen, E.; Zwerver, J.; Gouttebarge, V. Incidence, aetiology and prevention of musculoskeletal injuries in
volleyball: A systematic review of the literature. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2017,17, 765–793. [CrossRef]
19.
McGuine, T.A.; Post, E.; Biese, K.; Kliethermes, S.; Bell, D.; Watson, A.; Brooks, A.; Lang, P. The incidence and risk factors for
injuries in girls volleyball: A prospective study of 2072 players. J. Athl. Train. 2020. [CrossRef]
20.
Cejudo, A.; Sainz de Baranda, P.; Ayala, F.; De Ste Croix, M.; Santonja-Medina, F. Assessment of the range of movement of the
lower limb in sport: Advantages of the ROM-SPORT I Battery. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 7606. [CrossRef]
21. McNeal, J.R.; Sands, W.A. Stretching for performance enhancement. Cur. Sports Med. Rep. 2006,5, 141–146. [CrossRef]
22.
Roberts, J.M.; Wilson, K. Effect of stretching duration on active and passive range of motion in the lower extremity. Br. J. Sports
Med. 1999,33, 259–263. [CrossRef]
23.
Bohannon, R.W.; Tiberio, D.; Zito, M. Selected measures of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion: Differences and intercorrelations.
Foot Ankle Int. 1989,10, 99–103. [CrossRef]
24.
Bradley, P.; Portas, M. The relationship between preseason range of motion and muscle strain injury in elite soccer players. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 2007,21, 1155–1159.
25.
Bozic, P.; Pazin, N.; Berjan, B.; Planic, N.; Cux, I. Evaluation of the field tests of flexibility of the lower extremity: Reliability and
the concurrent and factorial validity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010,24, 2523–2531. [CrossRef]
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 12 of 13
26.
Fourchet, F.; Materne, O.; Horobeanu, C.; Hudacek, T.; Buchheit, M. Reliability of a novel procedure to monitor the flexibility of
lower limb muscle groups in highly-trained adolescent athletes. Phys. Ther. Sport 2013,14, 28–34. [CrossRef]
27.
Lyrtzis, C.; Papadopoulos, C.; Natsis, K.; Noussios, G. The effect of diclofenac sodium and paracetamol on active and passive
range of ankle motion after sprains. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2011,6, 40–48. [CrossRef]
28.
Papaiakovou, G.; Tyros, G.; Natsis, K.; Panoutsakopoulos, V.; Kollias, I. Male soccer players’ ankle joint range of motion in
different knee joint angles. Iatriki 2005,87, 61–66.
29.
Selfe, J. Validity and reliability of measurements taken by the Peak 5 motion analysis system. J. Med. Eng. Technol.
1998
,22,
220–225. [CrossRef]
30.
Wagner, H.; Tilp, M.; Von Duvillard, S.P.; Muller, E. Kinematic analysis of volleyball spike jump. Int. J. Sports Med.
2009
,30,
760–765. [CrossRef]
31.
Forthomme, B.; Croisier, J.L.; Ciccarone, G.; Crielaard, J.M.; Cloes, M. Factors correlated with volleyball spike velocity. Am. J.
Sports Med. 2005,33, 1513–1519. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32.
Lee, E.J.; Etnyre, B.R.; Poindexter, H.B.; Sokol, D.L.; Toon, T.J. Flexibility characteristics of elite female and male volleyball players.
J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 1989,29, 49–51.
33.
Greco, G.; Patti, A.; Cataldi, S.; Iovane, A.; Messina, G.; Fischetti, F. Changes in physical fitness in young female volleyball players
after an 8-week in-season pilates training program. Acta Med. Mediterr. 2019,35, 3375–3381.
34.
Manshouri, M.; Rahnama, N.; Khorzoghi, M.B. Effects of pilates exercises on flexibility and volleyball serve skill in female college
students. Sport Sci. Pract. Asp. 2014,11, 19–25.
35.
Lidor, R.; Ziv, G. Physical and physiological attributes of female volleyball players: A review. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2010
,24,
1963–1973. [CrossRef]
36.
Pérez-Castilla, A.; Rojas, F.J.; Gómez-Martínez, F.; García-Ramos, A. Vertical jump performance is affected by the velocity and
depth of the countermovement. Sports Biomech. 2019. [CrossRef]
37.
Papaiakovou, G.; Katsikas, F.; Nikodelis, T.; Panoutsakopoulos, V.; Kollias, I. Influence of the ankle joint dorsiflexion on the
execution of vertical jumps. In Proceedings of the XXIV International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports, Salzburg, Austria,
14–18 July 2006; Schwameder, H., Strutzenberger, G., Fastenbauer, V., Lindinger, S., Muller, E., Eds.; University of Salzburg:
Salzburg, Austria, 2006; Volume 1, pp. 448–451.
38. Tanner, J.M. Normal growth and techniques of growth assessment. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 1986,15, 411–451. [CrossRef]
39.
Kollias, I. Sources of error and their elimination in the use of DLT with the basic recording tools for the analysis of human body in
motion. Exerc. Soc. 2002,18, 9–26.
40.
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Hillsdale, NJ,
USA, 1988.
41.
Panoutsakopoulos, V.; Papachatzis, N.; Kollias, I.A. Sport specificity background affects the principal component structure of
vertical squat jump performance of young adult female athletes. J. Sport Health Sci. 2014,3, 239–247. [CrossRef]
42.
Tomczak, M.; Tomczak, E. The need to report effect size estimates revisited: An overview of some recommended measures of
effect size. Trends. Sport Sci. 2014,21, 19–25.
43.
Kotzamanidou, M.C.; Panoutsakopoulos, V.; Manavis, K. Ankle joint range of motion of female handball players in different knee
joint flexion angles. Gynaika Athlisi 2013,9, 15–21.
44. Boone, D.C.; Azen, S.P. Normal range of motion of joints in male subjects. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1979,61, 756–759. [CrossRef]
45.
Mitchell, B.; Bressel, E.; McNair, P.J.; Bressel, M.E. Effect of pelvic, hip, and knee position on ankle joint range of motion. Phys.
Ther. Sport 2008,9, 202–208. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46.
Baggett, B.D.; Young, G. Ankle joint dorsiflexion. Establishment of a normal range. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.
1993
,83, 251–254.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
De Monte, G.; Arampatzis, A.; Stogiannari, C.; Karamanidis, K.
In vivo
motion transmission in the inactive gastrocnemius
medialis muscle–tendon unit during ankle and knee joint rotation. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.
2006
,16, 413–422. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
48.
Wakahara, T.; Kanehisa, H.; Kawakami, Y.; Fukunaga, T. Effects of knee joint angle on the fascicle behavior of the gastrocnemius
muscle during eccentric plantar flexions. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2009,19, 980–987. [CrossRef]
49.
Wakahara, T.; Kanehisa, H.; Kawakami, Y.; Fukunaga, T. Fascicle behavior of medial gastrocnemius muscle in extended and
flexed knee positions. J. Biomech. 2007,40, 2291–2298. [CrossRef]
50.
Visser, J.J.; Hoogkamer, J.E.; Bobbert, M.F.; Huijing, P.A. Length and moment arm of human leg muscles as a function of knee and
hip-joint angles. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 1990,61, 453–460. [CrossRef]
51. Kapandji, I.A. The Physiology of the Joints. Volume 2: The Lower Limb; Churchill Livingstone: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
52.
Dominguez-Diez, M.; Castillo, D.; Raya-Gonzalez, J.; Sanchez-Diaz, S.; Soto-Celix, M.; Rendo-Urteaga, T.; Lago-Rondriguez, A.
Comparison of multidirectional jump performance and lower limb passive range of motion profile between soccer and basketball
young players. PLoS ONE 2021,16, e0245277. [CrossRef]
53.
Kozinc, Z.; Sarabon, N. Inter-limb asymmetries in volleyball players: Differences between testing approaches and association
with performance. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2020,19, 745–752.
54.
Vizard, L.J.; Peden, G.; Wdowsk, M.M. Do lower-limb kinematic and kinetic asymmetries transfer across sprint running and
countermovement jumps in university rugby union players? Int. J. Athl. Ther. Train. 2020,25, 258–262. [CrossRef]
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021,6, 14 13 of 13
55.
Arakawa, H.; Nagano, A.; Hay, D.C.; Kanehisa, H. The effects of ankle restriction on the multijoint coordination of vertical
jumping. J. Appl. Biomech. 2013,29, 468–473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56.
Papaiakovou, G.; Kollias, I.; Siatras, T.; Panoutsakopoulos, V. The ankle joint and its influence upon dynamic and kinematic
characteristics in a standing vertical jump. Exerc. Soc. 2002,32, 30–40.
57.
Bobbert, M.F.; van Soest, A.J. Why do people jump the way they do? Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev.
2001
,29, 95–102. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58.
Godinho, I.; Pinheiro, B.N.; Junior, L.D.S.; Lucas, G.C.; Cavalcante, J.F.; Monteiro, G.M.; Uchoa, P.A.G. Effect of reduced ankle
mobility on jumping performance in young athletes. Motricidade 2019,15, 46–51.
59.
Knudson, D.V. Correcting the use of the term “power” in the strength and conditioning literature. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2009
,23,
1902–1908. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60.
Shetty, A.B.; Etnyre, B.R. Contribution of arm movement to the force components of a maximum vertical jump. J. Orthop. Sports
Phys. Ther. 1989,11, 198–201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61.
Samozino, P.; Rejc, E.; Di Prampero, P.E.; Belli, A.; Morin, J.B. Optimal force-velocity profile in ballistic movements-altius: Citius
of fortius. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012,44, 313–322. [CrossRef]
62.
Hornsby, T.M.; Nicholson, G.G.; Gossman, M.R.; Culpepper, M. Effect of inherent muscle length on isometric plantar flexion
torque in healthy women. Phys. Ther. 1987,67, 1191–1197. [CrossRef]
63.
Huijing, P.A.; Yaman, A.; Ozturk, C.; Yucesoy, C.A. Effects of knee joint angle on global and local strains within human triceps
surae muscle: MRI analysis indicating
in vivo
myofascial force transmission between synergistic muscles. Surg. Radiol. Anat.
2011,33, 869–879. [CrossRef]
64.
Wakahara, T.; Ushiyama, J.; Kanehisa, H.; Kawakami, Y.; Fukunaga, T. Effects of passive ankle and knee joint motions on the
length of fascicle and tendon of the medial gastrocnemius muscle. Int. J. Sport Health Sci. 2005,3, 75–82. [CrossRef]
65.
Arampatzis, A.; Karamanidis, K.; Stafilidis, S.; Morey-Klapsing, G.; De Monte, G.; Bruggemann, G.P. Effect of different ankle and
knee joint positions on gastrocnemius medialis fascicle length and EMG-activity during isometric plantar flexion. J. Biomech.
2006,39, 1891–1902. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Cresswell, A.G.; Loscher, W.N.; Thorstensson, A. Influence of gastrocnemius muscle length on triceps surae torque development
and electromyographic activity in man. Exp. Brain. Res. 1995,105, 283–290. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67.
Guissard, N.; Duchateau, J.; Hainaut, K. EMG and mechanical changes during sprint starts at different front block obliquities.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1992,24, 1257–1263. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68.
Marsh, E.; Sale, D.; McComas, A.J.; Quinlan, J. Influence of joint position on ankle dorsiflexion in humans. J. Appl. Physiol.
1981
,
51, 160–167. [CrossRef]
69.
Matthijsse, P.C.; Hendrich, K.M.M.; Rijnsburger, W.H.; Woittiez, R.D.; Huijing, P.A. Ankle angle effects on endurance time, median
frequency and mean power of gastrocnemius EMG power spectrum: A comparison between individual and group analysis.
Ergonomics 1987,30, 1149–1159. [CrossRef]
70.
Vander Linden, D.W.; Kukulka, C.G.; Soderberg, G.L. The effect of muscle length on motor unit discharge characteristics in
human tibialis anterior muscle. Exp. Brain. Res. 1991,84, 210–218. [CrossRef]
71.
Bobbert, M.F.; van Ingen Schenau, G.J. Isokinetic plantar flexion: Experimental results and model calculations. J. Biomech.
1990
,
23, 105–109. [CrossRef]
72.
Dalton, B.H.; Power, G.A.; Allen, M.D.; Vandervoort, A.A.; Rice, C.L. The genu effect on plantar flexor power. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
2013,113, 1431–1439. [CrossRef]
73.
Hunter, D.G.; Spriggs, J. Investigation into the relationship between the passive flexibility and active stiffness of the ankle
plantar-flexor muscles. Clin. Biomech. 2000,15, 600–606. [CrossRef]
74.
Kagaya, H.; Sharma, M.; Kobetic, R.; Marsolais, E.B. Ankle, knee, and hip moments during standing with and without joint
contractures: Simulation study for functional electrical stimulation. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1998,77, 49–54. [CrossRef]
75. Kitaivand, T.A.; Sale, D.G. Specificity of joint angle in isometric training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 1989,58, 744–748.
76.
Orishimo, K.F.; Burstein, G.; Mullaney, M.J.; Kremenic, I.J.; Nesse, M.; McHugh, M.P.; Lee, S.J. Effect of knee flexion angle on
achilles tendon force and ankle joint plantarflexion moment during passive dorsiflexion. J. Foot Ankle Surg.
2008
,47, 34–39.
[CrossRef]
77.
Simoneau, E.; Martin, A.; Van Hoecke, J. Effects of joint angle and age on ankle dorsi- and plantar-flexor strength. J. Electromyogr.
Kinesiol. 2007,17, 307–316. [CrossRef]
78.
Papaiakovou, G.; Nikodelis, T.; Panoutsakopoulos, V.; Kollias, I. Effects of initial posture upon vertical squat jump dynamic and
kinematic characteristics of subjects with limited ankle joint dorsi flexion. J. Hum. Mov. Stud. 2003,44, 311–322.
79.
Bobbert, M.F.; Casius, L.J.; Sijpkens, I.W.; Jaspers, R.T. Humans adjust control to initial squat depth in vertical squat jumping. J.
Appl. Physiol. 2008,105, 1428–1440. [CrossRef]
80.
Selbie, W.S.; Caldwell, G.E. A simulation study of vertical jumping from different starting postures. J. Biomech.
1996
,29, 1137–1146.
[CrossRef]
81.
Malliaras, P.; Cook, J.L.; Kent, P. Reduced ankle dorsiflexion range may increase the risk of patellar tendon injury among volleyball
players. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2006,9, 304–309. [CrossRef]
82.
Hadzic, V.; Sattler, T.; Topole, E.; Jarnovic, Z.; Burger, H.; Dervisevic, E. Risk factors for ankle sprain in volleyball players: A
preliminary analysis. Isokinet. Exerc. Sci. 2009,17, 155–160. [CrossRef]
