An Evaluation of the Accuracy and Precision of Jump Height Measurements Using Different Technologies and Analytical Methods

Abstract

This study aims to comprehensively assess the accuracy and precision of five different devices and by incorporating a variety of analytical approaches for measuring countermovement jump height: Qualisys motion system; Force platform; Ergojump; an Accelerometer, and self-made Abalakow jump belt. Twenty-seven male and female physical education students (23.5 ± 3.8 years; height 170 ± 9.1 cm and body mass 69.1 ± 11.4 kg) performed three countermovement jumps simultaneously measured using five devices. The 3D measured displacement obtained through the Qualisys device was considered in this study as the reference value. The best accuracy (difference from 3D measured displacement) and precision (standard deviation of differences) for countermovement jump measurement was found using the Abalakow jump belt (0.8 ± 14.7 mm); followed by the Force platform when employing a double integration method (1.5 ± 13.9 mm) and a flight-time method employed using Qualisys motion system data (6.1 ± 17.1 mm). The least accuracy was obtained for the Ergojump (−72.9 mm) employing its analytical tools and then for the accelerometer and Force platform using flight time approximations (−52.8 mm and −45.3 mm, respectively). The worst precision (±122.7 mm) was obtained through double integration of accelerometer acceleration data. This study demonstrated that jump height measurement accuracy is both device and analytical-approach-dependent and that accuracy and precision in jump height measurement are achievable with simple, inexpensive equipment such as the Abalakow jump belt.

A Systematic Review of the Different Calculation Methods for Measuring Jump Height During the Countermovement and Drop Jump Tests

“…However, compared with the motion capture systems that require extensive equipment preparation and later data analysis, the double integration method using the vGRF data recorded by a portable FP is more practical for those working in the field [15]. Thus, in agreement with previous investigations [15,32,36], practitioners are encouraged to quantify the COM displacement between the COM height at the initial standing and apex of the jump (i.e. JH-1) using the double integration method (via the FP).…”

“…From the calculation method perspective, previous studies like Conceição et al [32], Wank and Coenning [36] (4)…”

“…Compared to the double integration method that requires the FP, estimating the JH-1 via the motion capture systems is not recommended, given that the system involves numerous errors during COM estimation and requires rather extensive set-up processes [3,5,15]. Interestingly, Conceição et al [32] pointed out that the FP needs a reaction time to let the measured vGRF decrease to 0 N. Thereby, in their study, the FT estimated from the velocity-time data via the FP (i.e. the period between the maximum and minimum velocity) showed lower values than the FT estimated from the motion capture systems (i.e.…”

“…the instant that the vertical COM displacement achieves zero) during CMJ or the touchdown velocity during DJ [ 18 , 27 , 31 ]. Among the aforementioned equipment, the FP and 3D motion capture systems are considered the gold standard given their accuracy for calculating JH and all associated kinetic and kinematics variables [ 21 , 30 , 32 ]. However, each piece of equipment has its strengths and weaknesses.…”

The validity and reliability of counter movement jump height measured with the Polar Vantage V2 sports watch

“…For obvious reasons the calculation of jump height by impulse is restricted to force plate measurements whereas flight time can be detected by simpler measurement techniques. Recently, sensor-technology developed rapidly and a variety of systems have been brought to market maturity and have also been validated scientifically (for review see ( 11 )). In principle two different categories of measurement methods can be distinguished.…”