One way to check ankle movement uses a lunge stance where one foot leads forward. Weight stays on the ground, making it easier to see what the ankle can do, especially during dorsiflexion. The heel never leaves the floor in this setup, giving an honest look at natural motion. Standing or moving positions help reflect daily function more than static measures. Looking at Chisholm et al. (2012), the approach gives insight into how the ankle moves in real tasks – like stepping or running – rather than just under still conditions.
Measuring ankle range matters a lot when patients recover from injury. This joint happens to control both balance and how we move. If motion here becomes too small, trouble follows – like twists or pulls – during everyday motion. That kind of limitation shows up more when pushing through workouts. Seeing how freely someone moves their ankle matters when avoiding harm and doing better at tasks. Back in 2014, Dill and team noted that checking ankle motion might shape recovery work, making returns to full function smoother following harm.
A benefit of the lunge test? It adjusts well to different groups. For example, it helps athletes boost results while still useful for someone getting back to fitness after a sprained ankle. You might do it in a doctor’s office, a fitness center, or just outdoors near a game area – places matter less here. People are using the lunge test more, says Cejudo and team in 2014 – it matters whether someone runs marathons or just walks to school.
Looking closer, the lunge test lets professionals check more than just ankle motion. Movement across joints links together, so watching one part reveals links to others. Because muscles work in chains, spotting problems in one area can expose wider issues. When therapy now emphasizes real-life function, tools like this fit naturally into those methods.
Looking at it, the lunge test works well to check ankle movement when standing. Because people can move naturally, it shows how freely they can bend their ankle during steps. Seeing this kind of motion helps avoid strains while improving fitness levels. Since versions exist for almost every group, more people in therapy settings now trust the results too. Grasping these details matters when doctors and patients want better ankle performance and smoother motion overall. The lunge test stands out because it’s simple to perform. It works well during exams where joint movement needs checking. Its clarity helps reduce mistakes often tied to complex methods. Doing this evaluation does not require advanced tools or costly gear. A straightforward setup often involves just a flat spot and either a tape measure or drawing lines on a wall to record length. Because it’s so basic, staff can carry out the test wherever needed – clinics, fitness centers, or even private homes.
One key benefit of the lunge test lies in its capacity to reveal movement as it unfolds. While fixed assessments provide still snapshots, this method captures motion in motion. Because people actually move while performing duties, seeing how form shifts during effort matters. Observation here mirrors everyday situations – not stiff poses but flowing actions. That shift makes assessment feel closer to life outside lab walls. According to Howe and team in 2020, how someone performs during a lunge test can show their real-world movement skills – particularly for tasks like walking or sprinting.
One thing we know is the lunge test works well when checking ankle movement. Take Howe and team from 2020 – they found it gives steady results inside a single testing session. What stands out most is how clearly it shows differences between legs. So you get steady outcomes each time, within one run, helping track shifts in how someone moves. Because Hall and Docherty looked at it back in 2017, they compared it to other standard tests. Their results show this option holds up well when older, heavier setups fall short – often needing extra gear or expertise.
Beyond just measuring how far a joint can move, the lunge test adds value when compared to still pictures of ankle motion. Measuring only the end point of movement ignores real-world movement patterns. During everyday actions, joint behavior shifts under load. This shift is where the lunge test gains relevance. Its ability to reflect active control makes it useful regardless of initial range limits. One study from Krause and team in 2011 showed the lunge test closely matches real-life physical skills in people. Because of this, doctors and therapists can use it well when planning treatment – seeing exactly what someone needs becomes easier.
Still, what happens when doctors use the lunge test matters. Clinicians can spot exact problems in how ankles move – problems tied to normal every day tasks or sports skills. Because these issues show up clearly, treatment plans grow more precise, built around boosting movement, power, and stability in the ankle. One key benefit lies in how treatments fit each person – matching care to individual needs means routines respect personal mobility levels.
When it comes to checking ankle movement, the lunge test is often picked because it’s straightforward, works well, and shows how the leg moves during action – which helps shape better recovery routines for people with different motion levels. Although it has its fans for watching joint motion, doing the test might not always give clear results since skills of those running it could shift results, plus how engaged the person feels may nudge results too. According to Carvalhais Mesquita and team in 2025, poor testing skills – or lack of consistency – might twist what the outcome shows about ankle movement. What drives someone to try harder during assessment? That inner push shapes how they do in the test. When someone cares about doing well, they might move their ankle more than expected during testing. On the flip side, if a person seems uninterested, their effort could skew the results. Because of these differences, using the lunge test alone to judge ankle recovery after injury becomes uncertain at best.
Still, the lunge test might not give reliable answers for some groups, especially people dealing with long-term issues like poor vein function. Research by Smith and team in 2019 shows these conditions change movement patterns, possibly distorting what the test shows. When testing people like this, normal movement rules might not hold true. That means results could twist what we think about how well their ankles move or work. So doctors need to pause before putting trust in lunge test outcomes for those at higher risk.
Looking ahead, more work must be done to improve how reliable the lunge test is. According to de Paula and team (2025), tweaking the method or exploring outcomes among varied populations might lead to sharper assessment methods. Looking into the lunge test’s role within larger recovery plans might reveal useful insights. It matters because using it alone could miss its full potential – better results likely come from blending it into a well-rounded method for healing ankles.
When working in rehab, it helps to know what the lunge test can’t do well. Even though it works okay for checking ankle movement, seeing its limits makes a difference. How hard someone tries, how consistent the person testing is – these things shape outcomes. For people dealing with long-term health issues, using this test means paying attention to exactly what it shows. This way, programs adjust to what every person requires, helping them heal without wasted steps.
Citations:
Chisholm, M.D., Birmingham, T.B., Brown, J., MacDermid, J. and Chesworth, B.M., 2012. Reliability and validity of a weight-bearing measure of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. Physiotherapy Canada, 64(4), pp.347-355. https://utppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3138/ptc.2011-41
Howe, L.P., Bampouras, T.M., North, J.S. and Waldron, M., 2020. Within-session reliability for inter-limb asymmetries in ankle dorsiflexion range of motion measured during the weight-bearing lunge test. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 15(1), p.64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7015029/
Hall, E.A. and Docherty, C.L., 2017. Validity of clinical outcome measures to evaluate ankle range of motion during the weight-bearing lunge test. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 20(7), pp.618-621. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1440244016302365
Krause, D.A., Cloud, B.A., Forster, L.A., Schrank, J.A. and Hollman, J.H., 2011. Measurement of ankle dorsiflexion: a comparison of active and passive techniques in multiple positions. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 20(3), pp.333-344. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsr/20/3/article-p333.xml
Smith, M.D., Lee, D., Russell, T., Matthews, M., MacDonald, D. and Vicenzino, B., 2019. How much does the talocrural joint contribute to ankle dorsiflexion range of motion during the weight-bearing lunge test? A cross-sectional radiographic validity study. Journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy, 49(12), pp.934-941. https://www.jospt.org/doi/abs/10.2519/jospt.2019.8697
Tourillon, R., M’Baye, M. and Smith, M., 2025. Restoring ankle dorsiflexion range of motion in athletes: an individualized clinical decision-making system. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7, p.1677383. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2025.1677383/full
Dill, K.E., Begalle, R.L., Frank, B.S., Zinder, S.M. and Padua, D.A., 2014. Altered knee and ankle kinematics during squatting in those with limited weight-bearing–lunge ankle-dorsiflexion range of motion. Journal of athletic training, 49(6), pp.723-732. https://meridian.allenpress.com/jat/article-abstract/49/6/723/112376
Cejudo, A., de Baranda, P.S., Ayala, F. and Santonja, F., 2014. A simplified version of the weight-bearing ankle lunge test: Description and test–retest reliability. Manual therapy, 19(4), pp.355-359. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1356689X14000423
Carvalhais Mesquita, I.R., Eliziário, Y.F., Fernandes de Oliveira, S.F., Chaves, V.C., Maciel, G.R., Lemos de Souza, D.S., Reis, M.S., Ávila, M.R., Fernandes de Oliveira, L.F., Silva, W.T. and Souza Silva, K.L., 2025. Is the weight-bearing lunge test a better tool for assessing ankle mobility in chronic venous insufficiency? A reliability and validity study. Phlebology, p.02683555251377308. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/02683555251377308
de Paula, A.L., de Castro Moreira, B., Baião, I.C.M., da Costa Souza, H., Corrêa, C.P.S., Felício, D.C. and Fonseca, D.S., 2025. Effect of Manual Therapy Techniques on Ankle Dorsiflexion Range of Motion: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Grade Recommendations. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 48(1-5), pp.577-586. https://jmpt.kglmeridian.com/view/journals/ymmt/48/1-5/article-p577.xml
University lecturer, runner, cynic, researcher, skeptic, forum admin, woo basher, clinician, rabble-rouser, blogger, dad.