Reliability of ADR Jumping Photocell: Comparison of Beam Cut at Forefoot and Midfoot

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 May 24;20(11):5935. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20115935.

Abstract

The ability to detect small changes in a vertical jump is crucial when data are used by sports science specialists to monitor their athletes. This study aimed to analyze the intrasession reliability of the ADR jumping photocell and the reliability relative to the position of the transmitter when it is located facing the phalanges of the foot (forefoot) or the metatarsal area (midfoot). A total of 12 female volleyball players performed 240 countermovement jumps (CMJ), alternating both methods. The intersession reliability was higher for the forefoot method (ICC = 0.96; CCC = 0.95; SEM = 1.15 cm; CV = 4.11%) than for the midfoot method (ICC = 0.85; CCC = 0.81; SEM = 3.68 cm; CV = 8.75%). Similarly, the sensitivity values were better for the forefoot method (SWC = 0.32) than for the midfoot method (SWC = 1.04). Significant differences were found between the methods (13.5 cm, p < 0.05, ES = 2.1) with low agreement (rs = 0.57; ICC = 0.49; CCC = 0.15; SEM = 4.7 cm) and heteroscedasticity was observed (r2 > 0.1). In conclusion, the ADR jumping photocell is shown to be a reliable tool for measuring CMJs. However, the reliability of the instrument can be influenced depending on the placement of the device. Comparing the two methods, the midfoot placement was less reliable as indicated by higher values of SEM and systematic error, and thus its use is not recommended.

Keywords: accuracy; between-methods; consistency; countermovement jump; error; sensibility.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Athletes
  • Female
  • Foot
  • Hand
  • Humans
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Volleyball*

Grants and funding

This work was supported by Generalitat Valenciana (grant number GV/2021/098).