This article was downloaded by: [University of Ulster at Coleraine] On: 16 October 2012, At: 04:39 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England

and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

Evaluation of Four Vertical Jump Tests: Methodology, Reliability, Validity, and Accuracy
Luis F. Aragón Version of record first published: 18 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Luis F. Aragón (2000): Evaluation of Four Vertical Jump Tests: Methodology, Reliability, Validity, and Accuracy, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 4:4, 215-228 To link to this article:

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 .

even when different methods are used to analyze the same jump trial from the same subject. 4(4). JUMPAIR is considered a relatively simple and inexpensive method to obtain valid and reliable measures of vertical jump performance without an arm swing. Mayhew. Brown. & Humphries. 2 methods based on vertical takeoff velocity as calculated from the force platform. Murphy.97). Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 Evaluation of Four Vertical Jump Tests: Methodology. & Bryce. 1994. Lawrence Erlbaum .01). 1982. Newton.ucr. 1993.O. 1994. Box 686. Reliability. Using VJPT as the criterion. McGown. Inc. Aragón-Vargas Escuela de Educación Física Universidad de Costa Rica Vertical jump performance tests can give considerably different Bobbert & Van Soest. Papers are regularly published in exercise science publications. Miller. 1993). Clutch.95) but poor accuracy: The obtained vertical jump height scores were statistically different among all methods (p < . Wilton. Aragón-Vargas. Kinetic and kinematic data were used to analyze each trial using the 4 methods: a criterion test based on body center of mass displacement (VJPT). FACSM. & Boleach. 1999. E-mail: laragon@cariari. 52 physically active men each performed 5 maximal vertical jumps. provided the appropriate adjustments are made to the jump results. Key words: reliability. A key step in any jump training study is vertical jump measurement. Kraemer & Newton. validity. Validity. Cross. about training methods for vertical jump performance improvement (Adams. Vertical jump tests are also common Requests for reprints should be sent Luis F. 2350 San José. the other 3 methods showed excellent coefficients of validity (R > . vertical jump Vertical jumping is regarded as an important and attractive element of many sports such as basketball and volleyball. 1983. Kraemer.MEASUREMENT IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND EXERCISE SCIENCE. & Häkkinen. P. both lay and scientific. and Accuracy Luis F. To evaluate and compare 4 different methods commonly used to measure vertical jump performance. Newton. 1984. All 4 methods showed excellent reliability (R > . Costa Rica. Wilson. and 1 method based on time in the air (JUMPAIR). 1986. 215–228 Copyright © 2000.

Blattner & Noble. Many scientists. Luhtanen. Hatze. Bosco. even when different methods are used to analyze the same jump (H. or force platforms to be able to measure jump height during jumps without an arm swing or under more natural settings. Because the necessary equipment is often costly and difficult to use. personal communication. & Jones. Pandy & Zajac. cited in Johnson & Nelson. the ability of each test to predict “actual” vertical jump performance. according to the VJPT standard. Clutch et al. and given that some of the calculations involve assumptions that are not always acceptable. vertical jump performance scores may be considerably different depending on the test used. also known as the jump and reach test (e. 1997.. Bosco & Komi. have resorted to other methods using video systems.93 for this test. however. VJPT is usually considered the standard or criterion method to evaluate vertical jump performance (Bobbert & Van Soest. Furthermore. 1979. Genuario & Dolgener. This method is simple to use. 1992).216 ARAGÓN-VARGAS in physical education. 1994. because the equipment used may be precisely calibrated. Johnson and Nelson (1974) reported a reliability of . 1988. However. 1987.g. November 11. 1974. only Aragón-Vargas (1996) provided an objective estimate of reliability for VJPT. The method called Vertical Jump Performance Test (VJPT) involves calculating the exact position of the body center of mass (BCOM) over time. 1991). as well as the calculation of the actual test result differences among methods. the most commonly used method is Sargent’s test (1924. it deals with the following question: Given a particular performance (true or not). the vertical jump height value obtained) represent the true performance of an individual? Instead. as measured by different timing devices (Asmussen & Bonde-Petersen. it is important to know the differences among jump height scores obtained using each method. Davies. using cinematography or video techniques.” However. fitness. Pandy & Zajac. from the peak BCOM position during flight (Aragón-Vargas. Alternative methods include applying particle dynamics equations to calculate takeoff velocity (TOVEL) of the body and jump height from force plate data (Dowling & Vamos. 1978). how well do different methods assess that performance? The reliability of four different methods commonly used to measure vertical jump performance was under investigation. Traditionally. Because this method involves mechanically correct concepts. 1993). & van Ingen Schenau. This study does not deal with an issue relatively common in measurement: How well does the score (in this case. & Komi. Jump height is obtained by subtracting the position of BCOM when the participant is standing. 1991). landing mats. Bobbert. requiring only a wall or board and chalk powder to make marks with your fingers. Greenwood.. 1983. and because all the assumptions involved are generally accepted. 1979. Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 . Huijing. and sports programs as a means to assess lower limb “power. or using basic particle kinematics equations to calculate jump height from flight time. or as an attempt to obtain a higher accuracy or more credibility.93 and an objectivity of . Komi & Bosco. 1980). 1974). 1983.

) was used to collect and process kinematic data. rigid-body system comprising four segments linked by frictionless. but only the trial corresponding to the highest jump. malleolus height. on the glenohumeral joint (shoulder). Ground reaction forces and moments of force were collected with a Bertec force plate (Model 4060A). Thigh length. and Martorell (1988). and were required to wait for 1 min after each trial. Body mass and body height were measured according to Lohman. A video-based (60 Hz). and foot length were obtained according to Vaughan. Roche.COMPARISON OF FOUR VERTICAL JUMP TESTS 217 was also under investigation. They completed three practice jumps before data collection. Briefly. Five reflective markers were placed on the right side of the body. real-time. Participants performed the jumps barefooted. the human body was modeled as a planar. three-dimensional motion analysis system (Motion Analysis Corp. the greater trochanter (hip). with their hands on their hips (arms akimbo). Data Analysis The biomechanical model used and all analytic procedures have been described in detail elsewhere (Aragón-Vargas. These are useful quantitative tools for the exercise scientist who wants to compare studies that have used different methodologies. malleolus width. shank length. This is in agreement with the procedure used in sports competitions and performance testing involving several trials—the best trial is usually registered as the test or competition score. trainer. All participants gave their informed consent in accordance with the policy statement of the University of Michigan. Kinetic and kinematic data were used to obtain the four different measures of jump height. or for the coach. and O’Connor (1992). METHOD Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 Data Collection Physically active male college students (N = 52) each performed five maximal vertical jumps. the lateral malleolus (ankle). and the fifth metatarsal (toe). These data were used for the calculation of segmental centers of mass (see following). . Basic anthropometric data were obtained using standard sliding calipers. starting from the position of their choice. fourth-order Butterworth filter with an effective cutoff frequency of 8 Hz. All five trials of all the participants were used for calculating reliability. and were sampled at 300 Hz. tape measures. as assessed using Equation 1. calf circumference. or physical educator who needs to find out how much his or her test results are improved by using more costly and sophisticated methods. was used for the other comparisons. hinge joints (Figure 1). the lateral condyle of the femur (knee). 1997). Davis. and the force platform. midthigh circumference. Kinematic data were filtered with a low-pass. wearing only a swimsuit or pair of shorts. 1994.

from hip to knee. based on Clauser. TOVEL was obtained from the instantaneous vertical velocity versus time curve. which was calculated according to Aragón-Vargas (1994). Calculation of the BCOM position was performed using the method of summation of torques. Segments (i = 1 to 4) are defined by the following markers: Segment 1 (head. VJPT was obtained directly from the BCOM position data by subtracting the vertical position of BCOM while standing from the peak vertical position of BCOM during flight: VJPT = zBCOMpeak – zBCOMstanding (1) VJPT is used in this study as the criterion or standard for comparison. from knee to ankle.218 ARAGÓN-VARGAS Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 FIGURE 1 Biomechanical model. which in turn requires the calculation of the center of mass position of each segment over time. and trunk (HAT). McConville. arms. The VJPT requires a precise calculation of the BCOM position throughout the movement from video data. Segmental centers of mass were calculated according to the procedure of Vaughan et al. Segment 2 (thighs). Two alternate methods used in biomechanics for the calculation of jump height require calculating vertical TOVEL. and Segment 4 (feet). and Young (1969) and Hinrichs (1990). from ankle to toe. Segment 3 (shanks). from shoulder to hip. arms. which in turn was calculated integrating the propulsive force with respect to time and normalizing by body mass (mass) according to t to zBCOM = ∫F t0 zp dt (2) mass . and trunk). with the exception of head. (1992).

1988). vertical jump height may be obtained from vertical TOVEL alone.81 m · s–2. and tto is the instant of takeoff. into three components (variance among subjects. using a one-way repeated measures model (also called a two-way analysis of variance by some authors).0 N. variance within subjects. requiring only force plate data: JUMP3 = (TOVEL)2 * (2g)–1 (4) Lastly. Equation 3 uses information from both the force platform and the video equipment. obtained from subtracting body weight from the vertical ground reaction force. Jump height is then obtained using the equation tair  JUMPAIR = g *    * 2 −1  2  2 (5) Statistical Analysis The first step in assessing the usefulness of a test is to determine its reliability. 9. although it is conceptually correct. and therefore is not very practical to use. Theoretically. the ability of the test to give consistent results.0 N and Fz > 3. Time in the air (tair) may be calculated as the difference between the instant of takeoff and the instant of landing. the height of a vertical jump is reflected on the time the body is in the air. Takeoff and landing times were obtained from the vertical ground reaction force (Fz) data. when Fz < 3. according to the equation JUMP 2 = ( TOVEL) 2 *( 2g) −1 + zBCOM to − zBCOM standing [ ] (3) Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 where g is the acceleration due to gravity. jump height depends on both vertical TOVEL and BCOM position at takeoff (Bobbert & van Ingen Schenau. a correlation coefficient for reliability (rtt) may be obtained by partitioning the variance obtained from m measurements applied to n subjects. that is. t0 is the beginning of data collection. The sums of squares are used to obtain the ratio rtt = MSS − MSE MSE =1− MSS MSS (6) . and variance due to error or residual variance). According to Kerlinger (1988). Ignoring BCOM elevation before takeoff. respectively.COMPARISON OF FOUR VERTICAL JUMP TESTS 219 where Fzp is propulsive force.

5.220 ARAGÓN-VARGAS where MSS is the Subjects Sum of Squares divided by (n – 1) and MSE is the Residual (Error) Sum of Squares divided by [(m – 1)(n – 1)]. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. This agreement between methods is called accuracy in this article. (See Kerlinger. 1988. regression coefficients. there was actually only one test. 1959). Best trial jump heights (VJPT) ranged from 372 mm to 663 mm (M = 520 mm) and had a . with VJPT as the dependent variable and each of the other methods as the independent variable. Therefore. The 95% family confidence intervals for the difference between VJPT and each of the other three methods were also calculated. the criterion test and the “new” test have different units of measurement and have been administered on separate occasions. Usually. but also whether all methods provide the same results. 1989). 1989) SEM = SD 1 − Rtt (7) Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 which is equal to MSE if calculated according to Kerlinger. and prediction errors were calculated using simple linear regression techniques. each individual’s best trial was used.3 kg) was slightly above the U. and all results are given in millimeters. at an acceptable significance level (p < .2 and Equation 26. a reasonable expectation given that they are all measures of the same performance of the same participants. Group average jump heights obtained using each of the four methods were compared using Student’s t test for paired samples. when such procedures are used. In this case. Table 26.79 m (71.8 kg. it is possible to evaluate not only the correlation of the measurements (concurrent validity) and the regression coefficients (predictive validity).S. Wood. Baumgartner. Validity coefficients. however. 1988. population average for a body height of 1. using Bonferroni’s adjustment for family confidence coefficients. To evaluate the accuracy. RESULTS The basic descriptive statistics for the participants may be found in Table 1. Average body weight (74. making Bonferroni’s adjustment for multiple comparisons. according to the general linear model y = β0 + βx + Ej (8) This evaluation of validity is in agreement with common procedures to assess criterion-related evidence of validity (Kerlinger.) The standard error of measurement (SEM) is then computed by using the group standard deviation (SD) and the reliability of the test (Rtt.01).

987 12.4%.3 1.970 .994 . i = 5) VJPT Rtt (Rtt)2 SEM (mm) .986 .2 221 Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 Note. outside 1 SD of the average VJPT.987 12. respectively. The highest values were obtained for the standard method. Coefficients of correlation (R) represent the validity of each method.8 JUMP3 .0 JUMPAIR . Reliability data are presented in Table 2. 159. i = number of trials per subject.7 JUMP2 . Figure 2 presents the 95% confidence intervals for each difference between VJPT and one of the other three methods. Vertical jump performance test (VJPT) statistics include all five trials.7 mm. Rtt = reliability correlation coefficient. and 118 mm lower than VJPT. The other three methods (JUMP2. all the differences between any two methods were statistically significant. Descriptive statistics for the jump height scores according to each of the four methods used may be found in Table 3. furthermore. All methods were able to explain more than 90% of the vertical jump height variability (see column for R2).1 8.1 Note. The estimated prediction error . Coefficient of variation (CV) = 100 (SD/M).994 . The simple regression analysis results are shown in Table 4. JUMP3.942 27. (Rtt)2 = reliability coefficient of determination.6 0.79 506 SD 2. VJPT. and JUMPAIR) resulted in jump height averages that were 15. These three differences were statistically significant (p < . This figure shows the underestimation of jump height normally obtained from using each of those methods. TABLE 2 Reliability Calculations for Four Jump Tests.06 70 CV (%) 10.6 03. coefficient of variation of 13. The group was heterogeneous: There were 16 participants. The standard or criterion method (VJPT) shows a correlation coefficient of .972 18.COMPARISON OF FOUR VERTICAL JUMP TESTS TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics (N = 52) Variable (units) Age (years) Weight (kg) Height (m) VJPT (mm) M 20.2 74. Three subjects had less than five valid trials and were not included in these calculations. using VJPT as the criterion or previously validated test. (N = 49. VJPT = vertical jump performance test.994 for a standard error of measurement of 12.01). or 31% of the sample.4 14.4 11.

1996. it must be pointed out that the β coefficients for Models 2 and 3 are very close to 1.222 ARAGÓN-VARGAS TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics for Each Jump Height Method (N = 52) VJPT JUMP2 505a 365 667 77 15. it is necessary to have a good standard or criterion. Aragón-Vargas. N = 52).” by L.3 JUMPAIR 402a 263 550 67 16. Copyright 1996 by the Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. and therefore the β0 constant is similar to the jump height average differences indicated earlier.4 Note. In this particular case. Lastly. aAll mean differences are statistically significant.” by L. p < . 20(1).0. 20(1). VJPT had been chosen as the standard based on theoretical arguments. Revista Educación. Copyright 1996 by the Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. 1996. p. Reprinted with permission. p. (square root of MSE) of all three methods is close to 20 mm.6 Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 Average (mm) Minimum (mm) Maximum (mm) SD (mm) CV (%) 520a 372 663 70 13. From “Comparación de cuatro métodos para la medición del salto vertical [Comparison of four methods for measurement of the vertical jump].F.3 JUMP3 361a 240 503 66 18. The trial corresponding to the best vertical jump performance test (VJPT) trial from each participant was used in the calculations. DISCUSSION Reliability Before making any meaningful comparisons among jump test methods.F. Revista Educación. From “Comparación de cuatro métodos para la medición del salto vertical. 37. Dark bars show the actual confidence intervals. Reprinted with permission. Aragón-Vargas. 37.01. The results show that this . FIGURE 2 The 95% confidence intervals for the difference between the standard method and each one of the other methods (best trial only.

which is still very good (unpublished data).926 MSE . Aragón-Vargas. and JUMPAIR all in millimeters. and is equal to the square root of MSE.0194 . The only method with similar reliability and a lower SEM was JUMPAIR. Sargent’s test involves an arm swing during the propulsion phase. 1996. MSE is calculated as the residual sum of squares divided by the degrees of freedom. VJPT.0 (p > . 38.01). p.464E-03 . JUMP2. in millimeters. All statistical models are significant (p < . however. Because CV takes into consideration the group average jump height score. but not with the one most commonly used. method has an excellent reliability and a small SEM (see Table 2). Reprinted with permission.857a JUMP2 VJPT = 154 + 1. and it is then possible to use VJPT as the standard to compare both the absolute (SD) and relative (CV) variability (see Table 3) introduced by the other methods. Copyright 1996 by the Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. bThese coefficients are not significantly different from 1. JUMP3. two methods with similar SD could have very different CV.0192 223 Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 Note.369E-03 Error . and this additional variable precludes any meaningful comparisons from being made. Therefore.952 .961 .0215 . These facts support the choice of VJPT as the criterion test. The four variables presented in Tables 2 and 3 are measures of the same vertical jump performance. Revista Educación.0001). the latter is a measure of variability relative to average jump height score.962 R2 .1 Table 3 presents two measures of variability–SD. 1A . Under normal testing circumstances. variability in the results comes from two major sources: “true” variability (showing differences in performance both between and within subjects) and the error introduced by the measuring method. “true” variability (in this case only from differences between participants.906 . VJPT was compared with three other methods for testing vertical jump height. in this case.924 .COMPARISON OF FOUR VERTICAL JUMP TESTS TABLE 4 Simple Regression Analysis (N = 52) Model VJPT = 87 + 0. From “Comparación de cuatro métodos para la medición del salto vertical.” by L. and CV. The former is a measure of absolute variability. This value can be expressed as a separate study using the Sargent jump test with 56 participants performing five jumps each showed a reliability correlation coefficient of .014b JUMP3 VJPT = 117 + 1. Sargent’s jump-and-reach test. aThis coefficient is significantly different from 1. as only the trial corresponding to the best VJPT trial was used for the analysis) must be the same for all methods. VJPT = vertical jump performance test. but JUMPAIR is an “incomplete” measurement of vertical jump performance because it does not take into consideration the displacement of the BCOM prior to takeoff.9859.0 (p < . Error is the prediction error.F.376E-03 . 20(1). Only the best trial was used in the analysis.01).002b JUMPAIR R .

An instrument or method may show less variability because it is less sensitive and does not discriminate so clearly among different performances. whereas JUMP3 and JUMPAIR show smaller values than VJPT (∆SD = –4 mm and –3 mm. Whether JUMPAIR is a less sensitive test remains an open question. or because it really has a smaller error of measurement.0 mm. consistent measure of the actual vertical jump score. Additional absolute variability is only introduced by JUMP2 (∆SD = 7 mm). Both validity and accuracy must be considered when evaluating a new test. JUMPAIR is the most stable. the accuracy problem may be solved by applying the regression equations from Table 4 to obtain “actual” vertical jump performance from any of the alternative tests. where SD or CV for VJPT is subtracted from the respective value of each other method. Using this information together with the reliability coefficients and SEM values (Table 2). On the other hand. it is clear that among these three methods.7 ms (one frame at a sampling rate of 60 Hz) would result in underor overestimating the relative position of takeoff (and therefore jump height) by 44 mm (Aragón-Vargas. and 4. A synchronization error will cause the test administrator to use a takeoff position (obtained from video data) that does not correspond to the same instant of the TOVEL (obtained from the force platform). the three alternative methods are not accurate. why do all methods give different results? JUMP2 is theoretically correct. however. whereas the relative takeoff height is very similar from one participant to another (Aragón-Vargas. according to Equations 1. The calculation of JUMP3 involves only force-plate data. An error of only 16. 1994). respectively).3 mm. The 95% confidence interval for relative takeoff height in this study was 144 ± 7. that is. 3. An important question is. it does not take into account the relative takeoff height of the participant. but it requires a perfect synchronization between the force plate and video signals. Validity and Accuracy All four vertical jump test methods give different results. 1997).95). and therefore has no signal synchronization problems. should agree with the difference between JUMP3 and VJPT. because previous researchers have found that the major contribution to vertical jump height differences among participants comes from TOVEL. In this study. showing a discrepancy of about 15 mm. Relative variability is higher for all three methods compared to VJPT.224 ARAGÓN-VARGAS Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 difference (∆). . The 95% confidence interval for the difference was 159 ± 7. because the validity coefficients and prediction errors obtained are excellent. whereas JUMP2 is the least consistent. which. despite having excellent validity coefficients (R > . This should not pose any problem.

and the prediction error is smaller. . a method that does not consider relative takeoff height either (see Table 3). the time that BCOM travels upward should be equal to the time it travels downward.2 This results in an overestimation of the distance from takeoff to peak. the estimation error will vary with the level of the results. p < . an essential first step. 1993. For this type of comparison. and provided the method used shows good reliability and validity coefficients.0001). All three methods have excellent reliability.COMPARISON OF FOUR VERTICAL JUMP TESTS 225 Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 Lastly. In this study. November 11.016 sec.0. as may be seen comparing JUMPAIR with JUMP3. however. Validity coefficients are also excellent for all three tests. 3. is lower than VJPT. because any changes introduced by the shoes should be consistent from takeoff to landing. The results reported here for JUMPAIR should not be different if shoes were worn by the participants. and overestimating it for others. the calculation of jump height using the method JUMPAIR has been criticized in the literature because some of the assumptions involved are not correct (Dowling & Vamos. which is only true if the participant takes off and lands with the body in the same position. but the differences are more stable. because displacement of BCOM from standing to takeoff is not taken into account. 1992). Usually. independent of the level of the results. Hatze. Practical Recommendations Results from Tables 2.and posttests. H. the time down was significantly longer than time up (average difference = . and 4 and Figure 2 provide the necessary information for choosing from the three alternative methods for predicting actual jump height. provided the same method is used for the pre. as is the case for all 2Apparently. Furthermore. as measured by VJPT. JUMP3 and JUMPAIR show larger average differences with the criterion test. JUMP2 gives the smallest average difference in jump height. it is not really important if different methods give different results. but regression analysis (see Table 4) shows that the estimation error is larger for this method. The actual value.956. which may be partially accounted for by the variation in the position of the arms at takeoff and landing (unpublished data). this situation is worsened when using an arm swing. underestimating actual jump height for some participants. In other words. suggesting the participants landed with their bodies partially crouched. One clear limitation is that Equation 5 assumes that the time the center of mass of the body is falling is equal to one-half of the time in the air. to . A separate study (mentioned in Footnote 1) has shown the reliability of JUMPAIR to decrease under these circumstances. because its slope (β coefficient) is significantly different from 1. personal communication. vertical jump performance researchers are interested in comparing jump height before and after a particular treatment (a training program).

2316–A. The University of Michigan. and the results may be used to calculate actual jump height with confidence. Track and Field Quarterly Review. and taking into account the equipment necessary for testing according to each method. T. 3This practical application assumes that the reliability obtained in this study when trials are separated by only a few minutes can be extrapolated to a study when trials are separated by several weeks or months. very little reliability and validity is compromised. (1984). T. F. M. Aragón-Vargas. I appreciate the valuable support from our School Director. 385–392. According to the data presented in this article. IL: Human Kinetics. L. 84. Baumgartner. Asmussen. L. using a good landing mat and a timer. it is clear that comparisons will be meaningless unless the differences inherent to each method are taken into account by using the regression equations from Table 4. Dissertation Abstracts International. Data collection was possible thanks to Melissa Gross.3 If the investigator or coach is more interested in being able to compare results obtained with different methods. (1989). Kinesiological limits of vertical jump performance. School of Physical Education. Special thanks to Walter Salazar for his input to the article. Comparación de cuatro métodos para la medición del salto vertical [Comparison of four methods for measurement of the vertical jump]. 33–40. Storage of elastic energy in skeletal muscles in man. F. Kinesiological factors in vertical jump performance: Differences among individuals. An investigation of selected plyometric training exercises on muscular leg strength and power. Champaign. 45–71). Revista Educación. F.. 36–40. J. 13. the most simple and least expensive method is the one that calculates jump height from time in the air. Safrit & T. Human Movement Research Center. 24–44. (1994). E. 55(8). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research project was made possible by a Rackham Dissertation Grant and a Rackham Predoctoral Fellowship from the University of Michigan. L. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica. (1974). (1996). Wilfridio Mathieu. Time in the air may also be obtained from force-plate data. In M. (University Microfilms No. and Grant VI– 245–95–276.). . 20. Measurement concepts in physical education and exercise science (pp. Division of Kinesiology. F. (1997). University of Costa Rica. REFERENCES Adams.226 ARAGÓN-VARGAS Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 three methods evaluated in this study. Norm-referenced measurement: Reliability. Aragón-Vargas. 91. as in this study. Wood (Eds. Considering all the aforementioned criteria. & Bonde-Petersen. DA9500881) Aragón-Vargas. and the assistance of Cinthya Campos during the completion of the project. A. Journal of Applied Biomechanics.

Journal of Biomechanics. G. Journal of Biomechanics. Mayhew. (1969). R.. Newton. Dowling. F. MN: Burgess. (1994). Brown. G. G. L. Champaign. C. & O’Connor. Coordination in vertical jumping... Kerlinger. J. Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 . (1999). D. W. Kraemer. & Van Soest. V. Davis. 332–338. Anthropometric standardization reference manual... Sports Science Exchange. European Journal of Applied Physiology. Johnson. (1988). 21. Cross. M. 1012–1020. A simple method for measurement of mechanical power in jumping. J. 41. Ohio. Greenwood. J. Bosco. U. (1980).. & Vamos. McGown. J. R. 19. Actuarial tables. K. J. and center of mass of segments of the human body. Utilization of stored elastic energy in leg extensor muscles by men and women. Hinrichs. J. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.. The effects of plyometric training on the vertical jump performance of adult female subjects. Dynamics of human gait.. F. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. Gender difference in the relationship of performance in the handgrip and standing long jump tests to lean limb volume in young adults. R.. Komi. P.: McGraw-Hill.. & Bryce. E. Clauser. 9. 323–330. & Komi. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. (1978). Bobbert. Miller. Rationale and coaching points for Olympic style lifting to enhance volleyball performance. K. S.). (1991). Journal of Biomechanics. 315–320. B. McConville. R.. A. Kraemer. S. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. T. 58. M.. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Wilton. P. T. J.. 31. 1–4. Bosco.. S. E. Investigación del comportamiento [Foundations of behavioral research] (2nd ed. B. Bobbert. Champaign. 5–10. V. P. 15. N. 59–61.. (1988). N. (1979). 54. F. (1993). Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 51. Weight. E. P. L. 16.. 50. 26. (1988). J... J.. M. Genuario. 1–10. The effect of depth jumps and weight training on leg strength and vertical jump.. 273–282. (1959). Relative effects of isokinetic and plyometric training on vertical jumping performance. & Komi. 249–262. Research Quarterly.. (1983). C. Effect of plyometric training on vertical jump performance in high school basketball players. G. V. J. AMRL Technical Report 69–70. & Dolgener. 95–110. 583–588. (1974)..). 23. National Strength and Conditioning Association. (1986). IL: Human Kinetics. 113. R. F. (1990). 261–265. R. 7(6). F. (1982). Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Vaughan. & Bosco. & van Ingen Schenau. 275–284... (1969). Effects of muscle strengthening on vertical jump height: A simulation study. T. C. 1–6. J. 949–951. & Jones. European Journal of Applied Physiology. The influence of jumping technique on the biomechanics of jumping. J. P. W. Bobbert. Huijing. IL: Human Kinetics. M.. C. B. & Noble. M. Adjustments to the segment center of mass proportions of Clauser et al. C. volume. 24. C. L. Mexico D. W. C. 10. (1992). A. N. The relationship of isokinetic torque at two speeds to the vertical jump. L. Optimal muscular coordination strategies for jumping. 26. Mechanical characteristics and fiber composition of human leg extensor muscles. L. L. P.COMPARISON OF FOUR VERTICAL JUMP TESTS 227 Blattner. & Young. New York: Author. E. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. (1993). Medicine and Science in Sports. (NTIS# AD–710–622) Clutch. Training for improved vertical jump. & Newton. F. Practical measurements for evaluation in physical education (2nd ed. F. (1987). Drop jumping I. & Häkkinen. W. British Journal of Sports Medicine. (1994). E. Minneapolis. F. Luhtanen. M. 593–598. B. 50. U. & van Ingen Schenau. Pandy. A. & Boleach. & Zajac. J. & Nelson... European Journal of Applied Physiology. (1988). Identification of kinetic and temporal factors related to vertical jump performance. Davies. & Martorell.. L. Lohman. (1983). G. Roche A. Effects of ballistic training on preseason preparation of elite volleyball players. (1979).

). U.. Wood (Eds. J.. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. IL: Human Kinetics. A. Wood. J. Newton.. T. 25.228 ARAGÓN-VARGAS Wilson. B. & T. Champaign. In M. 1279–1286. The changing nature of norm-referenced validity. M. R. The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Measurement concepts in physical education and exercise science (pp. (1993). G. M. J. 23– 44). J. & Humphries. Downloaded by [University of Ulster at Coleraine] at 04:39 16 October 2012 . Murphy. Safrit. (1989).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful