Comparison of Three Different Measurement Systems to Assess the Vertical Jump Height

Abstract

Introduction: The numerous instruments used to measure jump height use different technologies and calculations that can provide variable results. Objective: This study compared the countermovement jump (CMJ) height assessed with a wearable 3D inertial measurement unit (IMU), using flight time and the numerical integration method with a force platform and photocells. Methods: Forty CMJs were analysed, starting from an upright standing position with the hands placed on the waist. Twenty healthy volunteers completed 2 CMJs, which were simultaneously assessed using an IMU placed on the subject's sacrum, a force platform (considered the gold standard method) and photocells. The maximum height of each CMJ was measured. Results: The results showed a significant overestimation (p<0.001) in jump height for the IMU using the numerical integration method when compared to the force platform (+7 cm). Excellent intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were obtained with the flight time equations for the different types of measurement equipment. Fair to good ICCs were obtained with the IMU using the numerical integration method and force platform. Conclusion: In conclusion, the jump height obtained with the IMU using the numerical integration method showed the poorest agreement compared to the force platform. Level of evidence III; Prospective comparative study.

Validity and reliability of inertial measurement units for jump height estimations: a systematic review

“…For the Myotest device, the Pearson values were between r = 0.66 and 0.93 [35,41,44], and limits of agreement values were between -13.4 and 53.4 cm [44,51,52]. For the FreePower device, a Pearson value of r = 0.87 [25] and an ICC value of 0.93 [34] were presented, while limits of agreement were between -0.07 and 0.06 m [34]. For the MinimaxX GPS, the Pearson values were between r = 0.722 and 0.969 [26,43], and limits of agreement values between -14.41 and 19.2 cm [26,43].…”

“…The characteristics of the included studies can be found in Table 3. From the 30 included articles, 28 tested IMU validity [11, 17-19, 25, 26, 31-52], while 16 tested [33] 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 High Heredia-Jimenez and Orantes-Gonzalez [34] 1…”

“…Three studies compared with Vertec [40,49,54]. Four studies compared with photoelectric systems [34,36,39,51].…”

“…Six studies tested the Myotest [35,41,44,51,52,55]. Two studies tested the FreePower [25,34]. Two studies tested the MinimaxX GPS [26,43].…”

Development of a system for monitoring performance in the strength and conditioning domain

“…Enterprise architectures, such as the CIMOSA, are useful for documenting the data, functionality, resources and organisational flow throughout the lifecycle of a system. 13 The CIMOSA framework was selected for this research because it enables support for learning, process development and execution. This methodology has been used primarily to support the modelling and deployment of enterprise and manufacturing systems, but it has also been successfully used in development of software tools for monitoring athletic performance.…”