The Ecological Validity of Countermovement Jump to On-Court Asymmetry in Basketball

Abstract

Jump-based asymmetry is often used as an indicator of sport performance and may be used to discern injury susceptibility. Due to task specificity, however, countermovement jump asymmetry may not be representative of on-court asymmetry. As such, we assessed the association between countermovement jump asymmetry and on-court impact asymmetry metrics (n=3, and n=4, respectively) using linear regressions (α=0.05). Fifteen female basketball athletes completed countermovement jump and on-court sessions across a competitive season. A significant negative association was found between peak landing force asymmetry and both overall and medium acceleration on-court asymmetry (b=–0.1, R2=0.08, p<0.001; b=–0.1, R2 =0.11, p<0.001, respectively), as well as between peak propulsive force asymmetry and on-court medium acceleration asymmetry (b=–0.24, R2=0.04, p=0.01). Alternatively, both peak landing and peak propulsive force asymmetry were significantly positively associated with on-court high acceleration asymmetry (b=0.17, R2 =0.08, p<0.001; b=0.35, R2=0.02, p=0.04, respectively). While some overlap may exist, countermovement jump and on-court impact asymmetry appear to be independent. Thus, sport-specific monitoring may be necessary to adequately monitor injury susceptibility using asymmetry.

Longitudinal Monitoring of Biomechanical and Psychological State in Collegiate Female Basketball Athletes Using Principal Component Analysis

“…This method of biomechanical assessment during vertical jump testing has been deemed valid when compared to the in-laboratory gold standard [ 65 , 66 ]. Moreover, the reliability and ecological validity of these CMJ metrics were assessed in work paralleled to this investigation by our laboratory and were found to be highly reliable (ICC ≥ 0.90) when assessed longitudinally, while the asymmetry metrics were relatively independent of one another which highlighted the need to concurrently collect traditional and sport-specific asymmetry measures [ 38 , 63 ]. Finally, weekly questionnaires were completed via Google Forms on the athletes own volition on Monday mornings using a questionnaire built by a multidisciplinary team of researchers in collaboration with the McMaster University Strength and Conditioning team.…”

“…First, four on-court impact acceleration asymmetry metrics (i.e., low- (1–5 g), moderate- (6−20 g), high- (21–200 + g), and total impact acceleration asymmetry [ 38 ]), impact load, step count, and average intensity (i.e., n = 7 on-court metrics) were assessed as weekly average values using peak resultant linear accelerations recorded with IMUs (iMeasureU, Vicon) placed bilaterally anterosuperior to the medial malleoli during on-court practices. Interlimb asymmetry metrics were chosen due to the previously identified implications to sport performance and risk of injury [ 16 , 17 ], while impact load, step count, and average intensity were included given that the most frequent mechanism of injury in basketball relates to improper landings from vertical jumping or during change-of-direction-related tasks [ 1 , 64 ], and these metrics may provide a surrogate measure for the volume of such on-court activities.…”

“…The CMJ testing and on-court session procedures have been previously outlined and can be found in other works conducted by Keogh and colleagues [ 38 , 63 ]. Briefly, CMJ testing was conducted on Monday mornings after the completion of a low-to-moderate-intensity dynamic warm-up to prepare the neuromuscular system.…”

Monitoring lower limb biomechanical asymmetry and psychological measures in athletic populations—A scoping review

“…Additionally, given that lower limb asymmetry has been demonstrated to be a task‐specific measure, and varies between muscle groups, motor task, and outcome measure of interest, 107,108 the seldom collection of sport‐specific biomechanics and asymmetry (i.e., on‐field or on‐court) which would be most telling of sport performance and risk of [re]injury is concerning. The majority of research focuses on biomechanical asymmetries present during musculoskeletal strength, ROM, and jumping assessments; however, due to task‐specificity, 107,108 these asymmetries may be vastly different than those seen in sport‐specific settings 109 . Moreover, while a 10%–15% threshold is often cited for meaningful within‐ and between‐limb differences, 11,110 there may be large between and within athlete variability 10,11,111–113 that can make these metrics challenging to interpret with any level of consistency and at the group level, especially without complementary information on the introspective psychological state of the athlete.…”

“…The majority of research focuses on biomechanical asymmetries present during musculoskeletal strength, ROM, and jumping assessments; however, due to task-specificity, 107,108 these asymmetries may be vastly different than those seen in sport-specific settings. 109 Moreover, while a 10%-15% threshold is often cited for meaningful within-and between-limb differences, 11,110 there may be large between and within athlete variability 10,11,[111][112][113] that can make these metrics challenging to interpret with any level of consistency and at the group level, especially without complementary information on the introspective psychological state of the athlete. Therefore, given the recent development and availability of wearable technology that permits clinicians, practitioners, and researchers to bridge the gap between traditional in-lab and real-world or sport-specific assessments, 6,109 it will be important to also gain context of movement patterns and asymmetries existing within their daily training and competition, and to contextualize changes in lower limb asymmetry with changes in psycho-social factors for preventive and prognostic purposes.…”