Reliability and Validity of the Polar V800 Sports Watch for Estimating Vertical Jump Height

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the Polar V800 to measure vertical jump height. Twenty-two physically active healthy men (age: 22.89 ± 4.23 years; body mass: 70.74 ± 8.04 kg; height: 1.74 ± 0.76 m) were recruited for the study. The reliability was evaluated by comparing measurements acquired by the Polar V800 in two identical testing sessions one week apart. Validity was assessed by comparing measurements simultaneously obtained using a force platform (gold standard), high-speed camera and the Polar V800 during squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests. In the test-retest reliability, high intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were observed (mean: 0.90, SJ and CMJ) in the Polar V800. There was no significant systematic bias ± random errors (p > 0.05) between test-retest. Low coefficients of variation (<5%) were detected in both jumps in the Polar V800. In the validity assessment, similar jump height was detected among devices (p > 0.05). There was almost perfect agreement between the Polar V800 compared to a force platform for the SJ and CMJ tests (Mean ICCs = 0.95; no systematic bias ± random errors in SJ mean: -0.38 ± 2.10 cm, p > 0.05). Mean ICC between the Polar V800 versus high-speed camera was 0.91 for the SJ and CMJ tests, however, a significant systematic bias ± random error (0.97 ± 2.60 cm; p = 0.01) was detected in CMJ test. The Polar V800 offers valid, compared to force platform, and reliable information about vertical jump height performance in physically active healthy young men.

Can IMU Provide an Accurate Vertical Jump Height Estimate?

“…The presented results show a somewhat better agreement when compared to the ones by [17] who determined a Bland-Altman mean bias of 0.59 cm with the 95% LOA of −0.35; 1.53 cm between an IMU and an FP when examining drop jumps from three different heights using an IMU placed on the athletes' ankle. A more recent study by [26] used a Polar V800 and a stride sensor to determine the JH for CMJ and SQJ tasks and compare validate them versus an FP. The results of [26] show a bias ± random error of −0.30 ± 2.36 and −0.45 ± 1.85 cm for the SQJ and CMJ modalities, respectively.…”

“…The IMU was placed on the upper distal area of the metatarsal part of the foot of the participant, more precisely, at the level of 2nd to 3rd metatarsal bone as shown in Figure 3-right. The placement of the sensor close to the endpoint of the kinetic chain simplifies the detection of takeoff and landing instances and was previously used by [17,26].…”

“…The proposed solution simplifies the detection of take-off and landing instances, due to the placement of the sensor close to the endpoint of the kinetic chain. A similar approach was adopted by [17,26] yielding good results. The present paper builds upon the finding of the aforementioned studies in terms of using a new, custom-made sensor device and a sample of specifically trained, elite female athletes.…”

“…The majority of the equipment used for in-field VJ height assessment, such as photoelectric cells and jump mats employs the flight time (FT) calculation method for JH calculation [22]. In fact, the FT method has been shown to be valid and reliable [13,[23][24][25] and is considered to be the most common way to estimate VJ height [26]. A study by [17] has shown that the same approach can be used for the measurement of JH using IMU.…”

The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit® Athletes: An Agreement Study

“…Jumping variables were registered by a Polar ® V800 with Running Bluetooth ® Smart. This sensor has been shown to be valid and reliable to determine jumping variables [42]. PP, XP, MP and FI were determined.…”