Comparison and analysis of three different methods to evaluate vertical jump height

Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2015 May;35(3):203-9. doi: 10.1111/cpf.12148. Epub 2014 Apr 1.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare three methods to assess vertical jump height, to determine their limitations and to propose solutions to mitigate their effects. The chosen methods were the contact mat, the optical system and the Sargent jump. The testing environment was designed such that all three systems simultaneously measured the vertical jump height. A total of 41 kinesiology students (18 women, 23 men, mean age 23·2 ± 4·5 years) participated in this study. Data show that the contact mat and the optical system essentially provide similar results (P = 0·912) and that the correlation coefficient between the two systems was 0·972 (r(2) = 0·944). However, it was found that the Sargent jump has a tendency to overestimate the height, providing a measurement that is significantly different from the other two methods as the jumps are higher than 30·64 cm (P = 0·044). Through the design of the experiment, several sources of errors were identified and mathematically modelled. These sources include optical sensor placement, flat-footed landing and hip/knee bend. Whenever possible, the errors were quantified and solutions were proposed.

Keywords: Sargent jump; contact mat; lower limb power; optical sensor; reliability.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Biomechanical Phenomena
  • Equipment Design
  • Exercise Test / instrumentation*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Models, Biological
  • Muscle Contraction
  • Muscle Strength
  • Muscle, Skeletal / physiology*
  • Optics and Photonics / instrumentation*
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Transducers, Pressure*
  • Young Adult