Adequate ankle dorsiflexion range of motion is required for normal performance of functional activities such as walking, running, and climbing stairs. Limited ankle dorsiflexion is a common ankle movement disorder that affects squat and lunge-related functional activities and sports. Soft tissue, myofascial tension or muscle tension in the ankle and foot have been identified as the main etiologic factors causing limited ankle dorsiflexion in asymptomatic populations. Limited dorsiflexion range of motion has been associated with genu recurvatum, excessive subtalar joint pronation, ankle sprains, medial tibial stress syndrome, Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, anterior knee pain, gastrocnemius strains, and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Therefore, gaining ankle dorsiflexion range of motion seems to be an important goal in the treatment of lower extremity injuries. Manual therapy has been proposed as a possible treatment to improve mobility and restore arthrokinematics of joints. Movement mobilization is the concept of active joint mobilization. The aim is to render painful movement disorder painless and allow the patient to engage in normal functional activity in the progressive recovery process. Talocrural mobilization with the movement technique is an extension of traditional joint mobilizations and allows the patient to engage in therapy in an active, partial weight-bearing lunge position. There are variations of this technique that can be applied by the clinician or by the individual himself. There are studies showing the effect of clinician-applied motion mobilization on range of motion, static balance, gait, and plantar pressure in different populations. In a study conducted by Reid et al. in individuals with ankle sprains, they observed an increase in ankle dorsiflexion joint range of motion immediately after mobilization with motion for the talocrural joint. In their study, Vicenzino et al. demonstrated the curative effect of motion mobilization techniques on posterior talar shift and dorsiflexion range of motion in individuals with recurrent lateral ankle sprains. Based on this result, they stated that this technique should be considered in rehabilitation programs after lateral ankle sprain. Tomruk et al. showed that the application of the motion mobilization technique to the ankle joint significantly improved postural control in the anteroposterior direction compared to the sham group in healthy individuals. However, overall postural control and dorsiflexion range of motion were significantly increased in both groups compared with initial measurements. On the other hand, the stability limit reaction time was significantly shortened in the motion-only group. In their study, Marrón-Gómez et al. stated that the application of motion mobilization technique and manipulation of the talocrural joint significantly improved ankle dorsiflexion in participants with chronic ankle instability. No significant difference was found between these two techniques, but the results of the application of the motion mobilization technique before the application and the evaluation two days after the application showed larger in-group effect sizes than the high speed and low intensity talocrural joint manipulation. When both treatments were compared with the placebo group, both active interventions were more effective in improving dorsiflexion with larger effect sizes. Yoon et al. reported that passive ankle dorsiflexion improved range of motion, heel-rise time, and dynamic plantar loading during 5-minute walking with a modified motion mobilization technique using talus gliding taping in individuals with limited ankle dorsiflexion. An and Won found that motion ankle mobilization was more effective than simple weight bearing in improving walking speed in stroke patients with limited ankle motion. Gilbreath et al., in their study, showed that there was no significant change in weight-bearing dorsiflexion joint range of motion, in any aspect of the Star Excursion Balance Test, or in Foot and Ankle Ability Measurement-Activities of Daily Living scores after three sessions of motion mobilization technique in individuals with chronic ankle instability. . Although there was no significant change in these parameters, they found a significant improvement in Foot and Ankle Ability Measurement-Sports-Related Activities scores after intervention. Despite these studies investigating the effectiveness of movement mobilization applied by the clinician in different pathologies, there is only one study in the literature comparing the movement applied by the clinician and the individual and the mobilization technique. Stanek and Pieczynski, in their study in healthy individuals with dorsiflexion limitation, stated that both the clinician-applied mobilization and self-mobilization showed significant and sudden increases in the active weight-bearing dorsiflexion joint range of motion when compared to the control group, both while kneeling and standing. They found no significant difference between the groups to which the technique was applied. Based on the findings of this study, clinicians can prescribe self-administered mobilization technique to their patients and expect similar results to clinician-administered mobilization. However, only active dorsiflexion range of motion was evaluated in this study. Although there are studies showing the effect of the movement mobilization technique applied by the clinician on the active dorsiflexion range of motion, foot plantar pressure, jumping and balance, no study has been found in the literature comparing the movements applied by the clinician and the individual in terms of foot plantar pressure, jumping and dynamic balance. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the effects of these two techniques in terms of active dorsiflexion range of motion, plantar pressure, jump and dynamic balance in individuals with limited dorsiflexion range of motion.