TECHNICAL REPORT
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF OPTOJUMP
PHOTOELECTRIC CELLS FOR ESTIMATING VERTICAL
JUMP HEIGHT
JULIA F. GLATTHORN,1 SYLVAIN GOUGE,2 SILVIO NUSSBAUMER,1 SIMONE STAUFFACHER,1
FRANCO M. IMPELLIZZERI,1 AND NICOLA A. MAFFIULETTI1
1
Neuromuscular Research Laboratory, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland; and 2Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of
Burgundy, Dijon, France
ABSTRACT
Glatthorn, JF, Gouge, S, Nussbaumer, S, Stauffacher, S,
Impellizzeri, FM, and Maffiuletti, NA. Validity and reliability of
Optojump photoelectric cells for estimating vertical jump height.
J Strength Cond Res 25(2): 556–560, 2011—Vertical jump is
one of the most prevalent acts performed in several sport
activities. It is therefore important to ensure that the measure-
ments of vertical jump height made as a part of research or
athlete support work have adequate validity and reliability. The
aim of this study was to evaluate concurrent validity and reliability
of the Optojump photocell system (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy)
with force plate measurements for estimating vertical jump
height. Twenty subjects were asked to perform maximal squat
jumps and countermovement jumps, and flight time-derived
jump heights obtained by the force plate were compared with
those provided by Optojump, to examine its concurrent
(criterion-related) validity (study 1). Twenty other subjects
completed the same jump series on 2 different occasions
(separated by 1 week), and jump heights of session 1 were
compared with session 2, to investigate test-retest reliability of
the Optojump system (study 2). Intraclass correlation coef-
ficients (ICCs) for validity were very high (0.997–0.998), even if
a systematic difference was consistently observed between
force plate and Optojump (21.06 cm; p , 0.001). Test-retest
reliability of the Optojump system was excellent, with ICCs
ranging from 0.982 to 0.989, low coefficients of variation
(2.7%), and low random errors (62.81 cm). The Optojump
photocell system demonstrated strong concurrent validity and
excellent test-retest reliability for the estimation of vertical jump
height. We propose the following equation that allows force
plate and Optojump results to be used interchangeably: force
plate jump height (cm) = 1.02 3 Optojump jump height + 0.29.
Address correspondence to Julia F. Glatthorn, Julia.Glatthorn@kws.ch.
25(2)/556–560
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
556 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
In conclusion, the use of Optojump photoelectric cells is
legitimate for field-based assessments of vertical jump height.
KEY WORDS squat jump, countermovement jump, intraclass
correlation coefficient, force plate
INTRODUCTION
B
esides the valid and reliable isometric and iso-
kinetic assessments of lower limb muscle strength
and power (8), vertical jump performance—jump
height in particular—is viewed as an important
functional parameter for athletic populations, particularly in
team sports (13). It is therefore important to ensure that the
measurements of vertical jump height made as a part of
research or athlete support work have adequate validity
(i.e., the extent to which an instrument measures what is
intended to measure) and reliability (i.e., the consistency or
stability of measurements) (1).
The numerous instruments allowing jump height measure-
ment use different technologies and calculations that can
provide very variable results. Force plates are generally
considered as the ‘‘gold standard’’ for the assessment of
vertical jump performance (4). However, because force plates
are expensive (15–20 k$) and their use outside the laboratory is
quite impractical, yardsticks (10), linear position transducers (4),
and contact mats (7) are commonly adopted for field-based
assessments. However, these measurement tools present
some limitations. As an example, quantification of jump
height with yardsticks is necessarily influenced by shoulder
flexibility and elbow extension that could be hardly con-
trolled. In the same way, linear position transducers, which
measures body center of mass displacement, are not useful for
all jump modalities because of the upward intrabody dis-
placement of the center of mass with arm elevation. The
main disadvantage of portable contact mats (e.g., Bosco’s mat)
is that feet are not directly in contact with the specific sport
surface (i.e., athlete-surface interaction is altered), which
degrades the content validity of this measurement tool.
The Optojump photoelectric cells (Microgate, Bolzano,
Italy), which consist of 2 parallel bars (one receiver and one
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

transmitter unit) that are positioned at the floor level, allow
athlete-surface interaction to be respected because they can
be placed directly on all sport surfaces (i.e., content validity),
except sand. Moreover, the Optojump system has the advan-
tages to be easy to transport, easy to handle, and relatively
cost effective (2.5 k$). Since its introduction in 1995, the
Optojump photocell system has been largely used for field-
based assessments and also for research purposes (e.g., (5,11)),
despite unknown concurrent validity and reliability.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate concurrent
(criterion-related) validity and test-retest reliability of the
Optojump photoelectric cell system with force plate measure-
ments for estimating squat jump (SJ) and countermovement
jump (CMJ) heights. If the Optojump system will result both
valid and reliable for jump height estimation, its use will be
legitimate for field-based assessments.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Two separate investigations were completed. In the first
investigation, 20 subjects were asked to perform SJ and CMJ,
and jump heights were simultaneously provided by a portable
force plate (criterion instrument) and by the Optojump
photocells were compared to evaluate concurrent validity of
this latter system. In the second investigation, 20 other subjects
completed SJ and CMJ on 2 identical test sessions (separated by
1 week), and jump heights of session 1 were compared with
session 2 to examine the test-retest reliability of the Optojump
system. The dependent variables were jump heights of SJ, CMJ
without arm swing (CMJ), and CMJ with arm swing (CMJ+),
which are 3 of the most used jump modalities in sport practice
and testing (12,13). The inde-
pendent variables were mea-
surement tool (Optojump vs.
force plate) for the first investi-
gation (validity), and testing
session (session 1 vs. session 2)
for the second investigation
(reliability).
per week (both endurance and strength training), but none of
them performed exercise on an elite level. The local ethics
committee approved the experimental protocol, and all
subjects provided written informed consent forms before
testing. All participants were asked to refrain from strenuous
exercise on the day preceding the assessments.
Procedures
The protocol for jump height assessment was strictly
identical for the 2 investigations. After a full explanation
of experimental procedures, subjects completed a standard-
ized warm-up consisting of treadmill running at 6–10
kilometers per hour (5 minutes), submaximal vertical
jumping for familiarization (5 minutes), and stretching of
lower extremity muscles. The following jump modalities
were considered: SJ, CMJ, and CMJ+ (11), with 3 repetitions
per modality. For SJ, subjects started from the upright
standing position with their hands on their hips, they were
then instructed to flex their knees and hold a predetermined
knee position (approximately 90°), and the experimenter
then counted out for 3 seconds. On the count of 3, the
subject was instructed to jump as high as possible without
performing any countermovement before the execution of
the jump. For CMJ, subjects started from the upright
standing position with their hands on their hips (i.e.,
without arm swing); they were then instructed to flex their
knees (approximately 90°) as quick as possible and then
jump as high as possible in the ensuing concentric phase.
For CMJ+, subjects were instructed to perform a CMJ with
arm swing during the execution of the jump (i.e., hands were
free to move). With all jumps, it was recommended that at
takeoff the subjects leave the floor with the knees and ankles

Subjects
Twenty healthy volunteers
(18 men) participated in the first
investigation (age: 22 6 2 years;
mass: 75 6 10 kg; height: 180 6
9 cm) and 20 others (10 men) in
the second investigation (age:
30 6 5 years; mass: 68 6 14 kg;
height: 175 6 10 cm). The
participants were physical edu-
cation students, physiothera-
pists, and colleagues. All of
them were physically active as Figure 1. Experimental setup showing the 2 measuring tools with the related computers and the position of the feet
they performed more than on the recording area.
2 (range: 2–6) exercise sessions

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2011 | 557

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Vertical Jump Assessment

TABLE 1. Concurrent validity of force plate and Optojump cells for jump height estimation.*†

SJ CMJ CMJ+

Force plate (95% CI), cm 38.9 6 7.1 (35.6–42.2) 42.0 6 7.1 (38.7–45.3) 48.1 6 8.4 (44.2–52.1)
Optojump (95% CI), cm 38.0 6 6.9 (34.7–41.2)‡ 41.0 6 7.0 (37.7–44.3)‡ 46.9 6 8.3 (43.0–50.8)‡
Systematic bias, cm 20.9 21.0 21.3
Random error, cm 61.1 60.9 61.1
ICC (95% CI) 0.997 (0.993–0.999) 0.998 (0.995–0.999) 0.998 (0.995–0.999)
*CI = confidence interval; CMJ = countermovement jump; CMJ+= countermovement jump with arm swing; ICC = intraclass
correlation coefficient; SJ = squat jump.
†Mean values 6 SD.
‡Optojump lower than force plate (p, 0.001).

extended and land in a similarly extended position. A rest
interval of 30 seconds was interspersed between jump
repetitions, while 2 minutes was allowed between jump series.
The portable (92 3 92 3 12.5 cm) force plate (Quattro
Jump; Kistler, Winterthur, Switzerland) was firmly positioned
on the ground to measure vertical reaction forces during
jumping (range 0–10 kN; sampling rate 0.5 kHz). The plate
was connected to a personal computer, and the proprietary
software (QJ software, version 1.0.9.2) allowed jump height
quantification. Jump flight time was calculated as the time
interval when vertical force was equal to zero (from toe-off to
landing), and jump height was further estimated as 9.81 3
flight time2/8 (3).
The Optojump photoelectric cells, which consist of two
parallel bars (one receiver and one transmitter unit, each
measuring 100 3 4 3 3 cm), were placed approximately 1 m
apart and parallel to each other. The transmitter contains
32 light emitting diodes, which are positioned 0.3 cm from
ground level at 3.125-cm intervals. For the validity investigation,
we attempted to position Optojump diodes at the same height
as the force plate surface plane (approximately 12.2 cm from the
ground), so as to record simultaneously flight time with the 2
systems (Figure 1). Optojump bars were connected to
a personal computer, and the proprietary software (Optojump
software, version 3.01.0001) allowed jump height quantifica-
tion. The Optojump system measured the flight time of vertical
jumps with an accuracy of
1/1000 seconds (1 kHz). Jump
height was then estimated as
9.81 3 flight time2/8 (3).

Statistical Analyses
Paired Student’s t-tests were
used to detect any systematic
difference (also referred to as
bias) between tools (validity)
and test sessions (reliability).
Concurrent (criterion-related)
validity of the Optojump sys-
tem was examined using intra-
class correlation coefficients
(ICCs) (2,1) with 95% confi-
dence intervals (CI), and Bland-
Altman systematic bias 6 ran-
dom error (2). Statistical power
and effect sizes were calculated
using G*Power 3 (6). Relative
Figure 2. Correlation between force plate and Optojump jump heights. The dotted line represents the line of reliability was investigated us-
identity (force plate = Optojump). The solid line shows the linear regression fit of the 2 systems, with the associated
regression equation. Data points represent individual jump height values for squat jump (SJ), countermovement ing ICC (2,1) with 95% CI.
jump (CMJ), and countermovement jump with arm swing (CMJ+). Absolute reliability was studied
using Bland-Altman systematic
the TM

558 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 2. Test-retest reliability of Optojump cells for jump height estimation.*†
SJ
Session 1 (95% CI), cm 28.8 6 7.4 (25.3–32.2)
Session 2 (95% CI), cm 29.1 6 7.2 (25.7–32.5)
Systematic bias, cm 20.32
Random error, cm 62.68
ICC (95% CI) 0.982 (0.956–0.993)
CV, % 3.1
*CI = confidence interval; CMJ = countermovement jump; CMJ+= countermovement jump with arm swing; CV = coefficient of
variation; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; SJ = squat jump.
†Mean values 6 SD.
bias 6 random error (2) and coefficients of variation (CVs),
which describe the intrasubject variation between jumps.
Statistical significance was set at p # 0.05.
RESULTS
Despite ICCs for validity very close to 1 (Table 1), a significant
systematic bias was observed between force plate and
Optojump results (p , 0.001), the latter providing lower
jump heights for all jump modalities (mean: 21.06 cm). The
difference between the 2 measurement tools increased with
increasing jumping height (Figure 2), as also predicted by the
following linear regression equation: force plate jump height
(cm) = 1.02 3 Optojump jump height + 0.29. Random errors
were quite low and similar for the 3 jump modalities (mean:
6 1.03 cm). Statistical power was 1 for all jump modalities
(with a sample size of 20 subjects and a Pearson correlation
coefficient of 0.99), and effect sizes were very large (range:
1.6–2.2).
Test-retest reliability of Optojump assessments was excel-
lent, with low CVs (mean: 2.7%) and high ICCs (mean: 0.985)
for the 3 jump modalities (Table 2). Systematic biases were
nonsignificant and very close to 0, and random errors
averaged 62.81 cm.
DISCUSSION
The major findings of this study were that Optojump
photoelectric cells demonstrated strong concurrent validity
compared with force plate and excellent test-retest reliability
for the estimation of vertical jump height. A systematic
difference (bias) was nevertheless observed between the
2 systems, with Optojump measuring lower jump heights
compared with force plate.
The observed difference between the 2 measuring tools
(approximately 1.06 cm or 2.5% on average), which is directly
proportional to the absolute jump height (Figure 2), can be
attributed to several factors all inherent to the devices.
The lower jump heights observed for the former system
could be attributed to differences between tools in their
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
CMJ CMJ+
31.4 6 8.4 (27.5–35.3) 35.2 6 10.0 (30.5–39.8)
31.5 6 8.4 (27.6–35.4) 34.8 6 8.8 (30.7–38.9)
20.11 0.36
62.43 63.31
0.989 (0.973–0.996) 0.984 (0.960–0.994)
2.2 2.8
position or detection threshold, or both. For example, (a) the
misalignment of the photoelectric ‘‘sector’’ with the force
plate surface plane; (b) a nonhorizontal direction of the
Optojump rays; (c) an emitting-receiving angle that leads to
measuring longer pushing times (i.e., shorter flight times)
during ankle extension, when the feet are not anymore in
contact with the force plate but still in the field of the
photoelectric cells; and (d) the different sensitivity of light
(Optojump) vs. vertical reaction force (force plate) signals
could all contribute to the observed differences. The different
sampling rate between Optojump (1 kHz) and force plate (0.5
kHz) systems did not play a role in the recorded differences,
as this small error (approximately 0.4% for the range of jumps
recorded in this study) would have favored the opposite
trend (i.e., higher jump heights for Optojump compared with
force plate).
Test-retest reliability (i.e., consistency or stability of
measurements) of vertical jump performance is critically
important to ensure that observed differences in jump height
between testing sessions are not due to systematic bias, such
as learning effect or fatigue, or random error due to possible
biological or mechanical variations (1). The test-retest CVs of
SJ and CMJ height obtained in the present study using the
Optojump cells (range: 2.2–3.1%) are in the lower range of
those reported in the meta-analytic review by Hopkins et al. (9)
(range: 3.1–8.6%), where jump height and power were
measured using yardsticks, contact mats, and force plates.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The Optojump photocell system is a valid and reliable tool for
the assessment of vertical jump height on the field and/or in the
laboratory. Thus, it can be used with confidence to detect
within-group changes in longitudinal assessments (e.g., to
verify the effectiveness of a specific training program (11) and
to quantify possible alterations during the competitive season)
and between-group differences in cross-sectional comparisons
(e.g., to detect talents and to explore differences between
athletes of different levels (5) or playing positions). Compared
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2011 | 559
 Vertical Jump Assessment
with the heavy and voluminous force plates, which require
permanent or semi-permanent installations, the Optojump
system is less expensive (2.5 k$ vs. 15–20 k$ for a portable force
plate), easier to handle, and more suited for portable appli-
cations. Compared with contact mats, Optojump bars can be
directly positioned on all sport surfaces such as rubber, maple,
or artificial turf, which increases the content validity of vertical
jump height assessment. Optojump and force plate results can
be used interchangeably only if vertical jump height data are
corrected according to the following equation: force plate
jump height (cm) = 1.02 3 Optojump jump height + 0.29.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose, and
mention of the Optojump photoelectric cells in this
manuscript does not constitute endorsement by the National
Strength and Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Atkinson, G and Nevill, AM. Statistical methods for assessing
measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports
medicine. Sports Med 26: 217–238, 1998.
2. Bland, JM and Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing
agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet
1: 307–310, 1986.
3. Bosco, C, Luhtanen, P, and Komi, PV. A simple method for
measurement of mechanical power in jumping. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol 50: 273–282, 1983.
the TM
560 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
4. Cronin, JB, Hing, RD, and McNair, PJ. Reliability and validity of
a linear position transducer for measuring jump performance.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 590–593, 2004.
5. Di Cagno, A, Baldari, C, Battaglia, C, Monteiro, MD, Pappalardo, A,
Piazza, M, and Guidetti, L. Factors influencing performance of
competitive and amateur rhythmic gymnastics-gender differences.
J Sci Med Sport 12: 411–416, 2009.
6. Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Lang, AG, and Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39: 175–191, 2007.
7. Garcia-Lopez, J, Peleteiro, J, Rodgriguez-Marroyo, JA, Morante, JC,
Herrero, JA, and Villa, JG. The validation of a new method that
measures contact and flight times during vertical jump. Int J Sports
Med 26: 294–302, 2005.
8. Gore, CJ. Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2000.
9. Hopkins, WG, Schabort, EJ, and Hawley, JA. Reliability of power
in physical performance tests. Sports Med 31: 211–234, 2001.
10. Leard, JS, Cirillo, MA, Katsnelson, E, Kimiatek, DA, Miller, TW,
Trebincevic, K, and Garbalosa, JC. Validity of two alternative
systems for measuring vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res
21: 1296–1299, 2007.
11. Maffiuletti, NA, Dugnani, S, Folz, M, Di Pierno, E, and Mauro, F.
Effect of combined electrostimulation and plyometric training
on vertical jump height. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 1638–1644,
2002.
12. Slinde, F, Suber, C, Suber, L, Edwen, CE, and Svantesson, U. Test-
retest reliability of three different countermovement jumping tests.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 640–644, 2008.
13. Ziv, G and Lidor, R.Vertical jump in female and male basketball
players—A review of observational and experimental studies. J Sci
Med Sport 2009.