Evaluation of Four Vertical Jump Tests: Methodology, Reliability, Validity, and Accuracy

Abstract

Vertical jump performance tests can give considerably different results, even when different methods are used to analyze a single jump trial. To evaluate and compare four different methods commonly used to measure vertical jump performance, 52 physically active males each performed five maximal vertical jumps. Kinetic and kinematic data were used to analyze each trial using the four methods: a criterion test based on body center of mass displacement (VJPT); two methods based on vertical takeoff velocity as calculated form the force platform (JUMP2 and JUMP3); and one method based on time in the air (JUMPAIR). All four methods showed excellent reliability (R>0.97). Using VJPT as the criterion, the other three methods showed excellent coefficients of validity (R>0.95) but poor accuracy: the vertical jump results were statistically different among all methods (p<0.01). From the discussion, JUMPAIR is considered a relatively simple and inexpensive method to obtain valid and reliable measures of vertical jump performance without an arm swing, provided the appropriate adjustments are made to the jump results.

Accuracy of Jump-Mat Systems for Measuring Jump Height

“…These differences are similar to those of previous studies, such as Aragon, 22 where mean jump heights measured with a jump mat and motion capture were 40 cm and 52 cm.…”

“…Although these differences were unclear both for countermovement jump and squat jump, the finding is consistent with the difference in jump height between the two systems being due entirely to the length of the foot. Linear regression equations have been proposed for predicting the countermovement jump from jump mats with various reference methods, such as 2D 18 and 3D video systems, 22 jump-and-reach tests, 8,23 or force plates, 3,4,[24][25][26] but in the only study using a comparable video system, Dias et al 18 found a standard error of estimate of 1.2 cm. Even though our prediction error is somewhat greater (1.9 cm), the advantage of using an equation that adjusts for foot length is that the equation may be independent of the jumping ability of the subjects, whereas a regression equation that links only the jump heights may be specific to the population from which the sample was drawn and may not apply with the same accuracy to other populations.…”

Accuracy of PARTwear Inertial Sensor and Optojump Optical Measurement System for Measuring Ground Contact Time During Running

“…From these previous investigations, video techniques and force plates were recommended as the gold standard to measure GCT or flight time (e.g. to determine vertical jump height; 1,10,22,29,33). Of these two systems, video has the advantage of high spatio-temporal resolution to clearly determine and visualize the phase of contact without the need to pre-process (e.g.…”

Differences and Trial-to-Trial Reliability of Vertical Jump Heights Assessed by Ultrasonic System, Force-Plate, and High-Speed Video Analyses

“…In contrast, the jump height in the US and FT_DI methods was defined as the vertical distance between the highest point during the jump and standing. Two studies have revealed the displacement of the centre of mass prior to take-off of 11.9 ± 2.1 and 14.4 ± 0.7 cm, respectively (20,21). Using the vertical displacement of the left lateral malleolus between the standing and take-off positions in the calibrated videos, the authors have quantified a distance of 10.8 ± 1.0 cm (95% CI 10.6 to 11.1).…”