See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/51246081

Which Measure of Drop Jump Performance Best Predicts Sprinting Speed?

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · July 2011

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e4f7ba · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
55 7,183

2 authors:

Matthew J. Barr Volker Nolte

Rugby Canada Western University
13 PUBLICATIONS 310 CITATIONS 34 PUBLICATIONS 407 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew J. Barr on 13 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WHICH MEASURE OF DROP JUMP PERFORMANCE
BEST PREDICTS SPRINTING SPEED?
MATT J. BARR1 AND VOLKER W. NOLTE2
1
Performance Preparation Department, Canadian Sport Center Pacific, Victoria, Canada; and 2Department of Kinesiology,
University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
ABSTRACT
Barr, MJ and Nolte, VW. Which measure of drop jump
performance best predicts sprinting speed?. J Strength Cond
Res 25(7): 1976–1982, 2011—The purpose of this study was
to evaluate which measure of a drop jump (DJ) has the highest
correlation with sprinting speed over 60 m. For use of
comparison, maximal leg strengths in a front squat, counter-
movement jump, and squat jump were also assessed. The
subjects in the study were all high-caliber female university
rugby players. Subjects did DJs from 0.12, 0.24, 0.36, 0.48,
0.60, 0.72, and 0.84 m. Jump height and reactive strength index
(RSI) were calculated at each drop height. Pearson correlations
were used to analyze the relationship between the strength and
jumping measures with sprinting speed. The DJ height from
0.84 m had the highest negative correlation with 0- to 10-m split
(r = 20.66), the 10- to 30-m split (r = 20.86) and 30- to 60-m
split (r = 20.86). The use of RSI is questioned as a
measurement of DJ performance. It is suggested that maximal
height achieved in a DJ is the most important DJ measure. If it is
desired to measure ground contact time, then it may be more
useful to use a second test where the jump height for the athlete
is set by having the athlete jump onto a box or touch a target
overhead set at a standard height and measure the ground
contact time with a switch mat or force plate.
KEY WORDS plyometrics, stretch shortening cycle, training
specificity, depth jump
INTRODUCTION
A
common element of success in many sports is the
ability to sprint at a high velocity. For athletes to
continuously increase their sprinting speed, it
becomes necessary to begin strength training (26).
A key factor in implementing strength training with the aim
of improving sprinting speed is selecting exercises that
transfer to sprinting (6). Identifying key exercises and
Address correspondence to Matt J. Barr, mbarr@cscpacific.ca.
25(7)/1976–1982
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1976 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
tracking improvement in them is a key element of sprint-
specific strength training.
A common form of strength training that is used to increase
sprinting speed is stretch shortening cycle training. Stretch
shortening cycle training or ‘‘plyometrics’’ are exercises
characterized by the use of jumping exercises that involve
a prestretch of muscles, a short transition period from
eccentric to concentric, and a powerful contraction of the
joints involved (12). Drop jumping is a popular method for
training the stretch shortening cycle (2). Drop jumps (DJs)
originated in the former Soviet Union from the research of
Yuri Verkhoshansky who developed this type of training and
referred to it as the ‘‘shock method’’ (20).
Drop jumps are also used as an assessment tool to analyze
the effectiveness of an athlete’s stretch shortening cycle.
There are 3 important parameters of DJs that must be taken
into consideration when using them during testing and
training (4,5,21). They are as follows: (a) Drop Height—box
height that the athlete is dropping from; (b) Ground Contact
Time—the time the athlete spends on the ground after landing
and before jumping; and (c) Jump Height—the height the
athletes raise their center of gravity.
A higher dropping height will result in a lower jump height in
untrained athletes, whereas skilled jumping athletes will
actually jump higher (12). A higher dropping height will lead
to a longer ground contact time (21) and greater forces acting
on the knee and ankle joints (4). When the athlete intentionally
attempts to shorten ground contact time, it leads to an increase
in peak force (3) but a decrease in jump height (21).
Several methods have been devised to assess DJ perfor-
mance. A simple method is measuring jump height (DJ H)
from several different standard drop heights and not
considering ground contact time (10). Another method
includes measuring jump height from several standard drop
heights and excluding any jumps that have a ground contact
time .0.25 seconds (18). Another popular method has been
to standardize the drop height but take the jump height and
divide it by the ground contact time. This gives a measure
called the reactive strength index (RSI) (23). This method has
become a very popular assessment tool among practitioners
when measuring DJs.
With all these different methods of assessing DJs, it becomes
necessary to ask which method is most relevant. If a DJ measure
 the TM

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

speed over 60 m. These results were to be compared with

maximal squat strength relative to body weight, CMJ, and SJ.
The rationale of the experiment was to help identify key tests
for a testing battery in female rugby players. Specifically, the
study wanted to confirm the importance of using DJs as
a testing measure and determine what testing result was most
important for female rugby players. Sprint times, DJ measures,
and maximal front squat strength were assessed, and Pearson
product correlation coefficients were calculated between
selected variables.

Figure 1. Sample drop jump displacement (Top), velocity (Middle), and
force (Bottom) graphs. A = subject stands still on the box; B = subject
steps off the box; C = subject lands; D = subject reaches the apex of the
jump; E = subject lands again; F = subject stands motionless.
has a high correlation with sprinting speed, it would be assumed
that it is the most relevant measure of DJ performance.
Although correlation does not mean cause and effect, it does
suggest that a relationship may be important. The aim of this
study was thus to examine (a) which DJ measure most highly
correlates with sprinting speed and (b) compare the correlations
with other common tests such as squatting strength, counter-
movement jump (CMJ), and squat jump (SJ). It was
hypothesized that RSI would have the highest correlation of
all the different tests with sprinting speed.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was designed to identify which measure of a drop
jump, DJ H or RSI, has the highest relationship with sprinting
Subjects
The subjects involved in the study were 15 female university
rugby players (height = 1.71 6 0.5 m, body mass = 71.65 6
9.99 kg, strength training background = 2.67 6 1.11 years)
who would be considered high-level athletes in their sport
with 14 of the 15 subjects having been Canadian national
team members at the senior or junior level. All of the players
had a minimum of 3 months of resistance training
background. The subjects regularly undertook sprint and
strength training as part of their regular team training under
the supervision of a strength and conditioning coach and
would be considered competent at sprinting and basic
strength training exercises. Regular strength sessions involved
exercises such as power cleans, full squat cleans, backs squats,
front squats, bench press, military press, power jerk, and various
other exercises. Before any testing, all of the subjects signed
consent forms approved by the University of Western Ontario
Research Ethics Board in compliance with human testing.
Procedures
The subjects were tested for maximal front squat strength,
a 60-m sprint with 0- to 10-m, 10- to 30-m, and 30- to 60-m
splits, CMJs, SJs, and DJs from 0.12, 0.24, 0.36, 0.48, 0.60, 0.72,
and 0.84 m. One week before the testing, the subjects
underwent a familiarization session for the DJs. The athletes
were all familiarized to the other tests through their regular
team testing. The testing took place over 2 days with the
sprint testing followed by the maximal front squat test

TABLE 1. Intraclass correlations of measurements.*

Measurement ICC Measurement ICC Measurement ICC

0- to 10-m split 0.88 0.24-m DJ H 0.93 0.60-m DJ H 0.80

10- to 30-m split 0.97 0.24-m DJ RSI 0.90 0.60-m DJ RSI 0.92
30- to 60-m split 0.95 0.36-m DJ H 0.93 0.72-m DJ H 0.89
CMJ H 0.96 0.36-m DJ RSI 0.96 0.72-m DJ RSI 0.88
SJ JH 0.87 0.48-m DJ H 0.91 0.84-m DJ H 0.90
0.12-m DJ H 0.95 0.48-m DJ RSI 0.91 0.84-m DJ RSI 0.94
0.12-m DJ RSI 0.92
*DJ = drop jump; RSI = reactive strength index; H = height; ICC = intraclass correlation; CMJ = countermovement jump; SJ = squat jump.

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2011 | 1977

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Which Measure of Drop Jump Performance Best Predicts Sprinting Speed?

TABLE 2. Mean results.*

Measurement Mean 6 SD Measurement Mean 6 SD Measurement Mean 6 SD

Absolute front 67.9 6 8.8 0.24-m DJ H (m) 0.37 6 0.05 0.60-m DJ RSI (cm
s21) 112 6 23
squat (kg)
Relative front 0.97 6 0.21 0.24-m DJ RSI (cm
s21) 132 6 23 0.60-m DJ GCT (s) 0.32 6 0.07
squat (kg
kg21)
0- to 10-m split (s) 2.02 6 0.08 0.24-m DJ GCT (s) 0.29 6 0.06 0.72-m DJ H (m) 0.36 6 0.04
10- to 30-m split (s) 2.81 6 0.11 0.36-m DJ H (m) 0.37 6 0.05 0.72-m DJ RSI (cm
s21) 110 6 20
30- to 60-m split (s) 4.22 6 0.22 0.36-m DJ RSI (cm
s21) 129 6 22 0.72-m DJ GCT (s) 0.35 6 0.08
CMJ H (m) 0.38 6 0.04 0.36-m DJ GCT (s) 0.29 6 0.05 0.84-m DJ H (m) 0.36 6 0.05
SJ JH (m) 0.35 6 0.03 0.48-m DJ H (m) 0.37 6 0.05 0.84-m DJ RSI (cm
s21) 97 6 25
0.12-m DJ H (m) 0.38 6 0.07 0.48-m DJ RSI (cm
s21) 127 6 26 0.84-m DJ GCT (s) 0.39 6 0.09
0.12-m DJ RSI (cm
s21) 125 6 24 0.48-m DJ GCT (s) 0.30 6 0.07
0.12-m DJ GCT (s) 0.31 6 0.06 0.60-m DJ H (m) 0.35 6 0.05
*DJ = drop jump; DJI = drop jump index; H = height; CMJ = countermovement jump; SJ = squat jump; GCT = ground contact time.

happening on the first day. Two to three days after the sprint
and strength testing, the subjects were tested for all of the
jumping tests. In addition to the physical testing, the subjects
heights were also measured using a measuring tape, and their
mass was taken using a Kistler force plate (model 9287BA,
Winterthur, Switzerland). Height and mass were measured on
the day of the jump testing. All of the tests took place in the late
afternoon between 15:00 and 17:00 hours during regular team
training times. Hydration status was not measured; however,
hydration protocols were previously established with the team,
and athletes were reminded to follow them during the testing
sessions.
The subjects were at the end of a 3-week transition period
between the competitive season and their off season and were
not currently undertaking any heavy physical training. The
absence of any heavy physical training meant that the subjects
showed up completely fatigue-free to the testing sessions, but
detraining would be minimal. The testing sessions were also
part of the subjects’ regular team testing, so it could be assumed
that the subjects were highly motivated for the testing.
Sprint Testing
The subjects underwent a 15-minute dynamic warm-up
involving dynamic stretching, skipping, and bounding move-
ments. This type of warm-up has been shown to optimize
performance (22). In addition to the dynamic warm-up, the
subjects also did several sprints ranging from 10 to 60 m before
the sprint tests.
The sprint testing involved using an infrared timing system
(Equine Electronic, Peculiar, MO, USA) sampling at 1,000 Hz
with gates set at 0, 10, 30, and 60 m. Splitting the 60-m sprint into
3 sections allowed for different components the 60-m sprint to be
analyzed (7). The splits represented initial acceleration,
acceleration to maximal speed, and maintenance of maximal
speed. The gates consist of 2 infrared timing devices sitting on
the TM
1.03-m tripods facing each other perpendicular to the plane of
motion. When an object breaks the beams between the 2
devices, a signal is sent to a handheld receiver that is attached to
a stopwatch (Robic, Oxford, CT, USA). The subjects were
instructed to begin with their front foot beside a marker that was
placed 0.5 m in front of the first gate. Each subject was given 3
trials with a rest time of 5 minutes between each trial. The trial
that had the fastest 60-m time was kept for analysis.
Strength Testing
The strength testing involved the subjects doing a maximal
number of front squats with a mass that allowed them to do no
more than 5 repetitions. The Epley prediction equation
(1 repetition maximum [1RM] = ((0.033*# of Repetitions) 3
Mass Lifted) + Mass Lifted), which has been validated in women
before (9), was used to predict the 1RM of each subject.
Subjects were encouraged to choose a weight that they
thought they could lift twice. The amount of repetitions that
could be done was capped at 5 so that maximal set was done
with .85% of their 1RM and to reduce some of the error in the
prediction equation. The predicted 1RM squatting score was
kept as an absolute value and as a value expressed relative to
body weight for analysis (1RM/BW). Every subject could
comfortably hold the bar in the ‘‘clean catch’’ position and was
required to squat down to a thighs below parallel position
where there hamstrings would touch their calf muscles. All of
the participants regularly did front and back squats in their
training and were competent with front squats. The front squat
was chosen over the back squat because it was an easier method
of dropping a weight during a failed maximal attempt.
Jump Testing Data Collection
All DJs, CMJs, and SJs (10) were performed and collected on
a Kistler force plate (model 9287BA). The subjects were all
familiar with this method from their regular team fitness
testing. Before the jump testing, subjects underwent a

1978 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

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

10–30 m 20.62‡ 20.68‡ 20.79‡ 20.61† 20.21 20.62† 20.09 20.68‡ 20.27 20.60† 20.51 20.70‡ 20.33 20.76‡ 20.56† 20.86‡ 20.57†
0.12-m 0.12-m 0.24-m 0.24-m 0.36-m 0.36-m 0.48-m 0.48-m 0.60-m 0.60-m 0.72-m 0.72-m 0.84-m 0.84-m
DJ H DJ RSI DJ H DJ RSI DJ H DJ RSI DJ H DJ RSI DJ H DJ RSI DJ H DJ RSI DJ H DJ RSI

*CMJ = countermovement jump; SJ = squat jump; DJ = drop jump; H = height; RSI = reactive strength index; GCT = ground contact time; 1RM/BW = 1RM front squat relative to
0–10 m 20.43 20.56† 20.53† 20.56† 20.06 20.57† 0.13 20.65‡ 20.01 20.64† 20.20 20.56† 20.14 20.59† 20.30 20.66‡ 20.25

30–60 m 20.53† 20.67‡ 20.74‡ 20.64† 20.02 20.61† 0.18 20.66‡ 0.01 20.57† 20.33 20.65‡ 20.15 20.77‡ 20.42 20.86‡ 20.42

Figure 2. Relationship between drop jump height from a dropping height

of 0.84 m and the 0- to 10-m split of a
60-m sprint.

15-minute dynamic warm-up involving dynamic stretching,

skipping, and bounding movements. The subjects were given 3
trials for both SJ and CMJ with 30 seconds between each jump.
Two Kistler forces plates (models 9287BA and 9287B) were
used to collect the DJ data using the method suggested by
Baca (1). Wooden boxes at the designated heights were
TABLE 3. Correlation between maximum strength, jump parameters, and sprinting speed.*

placed on 1 of the force plates (Kistler 9287BA). Subjects

would begin the DJ by stepping off the wooden box without
lifting their center of gravity and landing on the other force
plate (Kistler 9287B). The subjects were encouraged to ‘‘jump
as high as they can while trying to minimize ground contact
time.’’ Each force plate was sampling at 1,000 Hz.
The subjects were given 3 trials at each dropping height.
The subjects were given 45 seconds in between each DJ at
each height, which has been shown to be adequate rest
between DJs (14). The subjects were given 3 minutes in
‡Correlation is significant at the p , 0.001 level.
†Correlation is significant at the p , 0.05 level.
JH
SJ
CMJ
JH 1RM/BW

bodyweight.

Figure 3. Relationship between reactive strength index from a dropping

height of 0.84 m and the 0- to 10-m split of a 60-m sprint.

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2011 | 1979

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Which Measure of Drop Jump Performance Best Predicts Sprinting Speed?
Figure 4. Relationship between drop jump height from a dropping height
of 0.84 m and the 10- to 30-m split of a 60-m sprint.
between dropping heights. The tests began at the lowest
(0.12 m) dropping height and progressively grew higher until
they reached the highest (0.84 m) dropping height.
Jump Testing Data Analysis
Force data were amplified, converted from analog to digital
data and transferred to Bioware (Winterthur, Switzerland)
software on the attached computer. The data were then
exported into Microsoft Excel (Seattle, WA, USA) for further
analysis. Using a forward dynamics approach, the force data
were integrated to calculate velocity and displacement. The
suggestions of Street et al. (19) were used, which have been
shown to allow for the most valid calculation of jump height.
The highest displacement of the center of gravity obtained
during CMJs and SJs was kept as the jump height (CMJ H and
SJ H). For the DJs, the highest point the subject jumped after
landing from the box was kept as the jump height (DJ H) (see
Figure 1 for sample displacement curve). The RSI (21) was
Figure 5. Relationship between reactive strength index from a dropping
height of 0.84 m and the 10- to 30-m split of a 60-m sprint.
the TM
1980 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 6. Relationship between drop jump height from a dropping height
of 0.84 m and the 30- to 60-m split of a 60-m sprint.
taken as the maximal height the subject reached during the DJ
divided by the ground contact time.
Statistical Analyses
The jumping trial with the highest result for the examined
variable (jump height and RSI) was kept for analysis. The
Pearson product–moment correlation was calculated to
determine the relationship between each of the performance.
The level of significance was set at p # 0.05. All statistical
analyses were conducted using Statistical Practice for Social
Sciences Version 15 (Chicago, IL, USA). The reliability, as
estimated with intraclass correlations coefficients, of the
measurements are presented in Table 1 and were all high
(0.80–0.97).
RESULTS
Mean performance scores are given in Table 2. Statistically
significant relationships were found between 0- and 10-m
Figure 7. Relationship between reactive strength index from a dropping
height of 0.84 m and the 30- to 60-m split of a 60-m sprint.

split times and DJ heights from all dropping heights, CMJ JH
and SJ JH (Table 3). Statistically significantrelationships were
found between 10- and 30-m split times and DJ JH from all
dropping heights, RSI from 0.72- and 0.84-m dropping
heights, CMJ height, and SJ height (Table 3). Statistically
significant relationships were found between 30- and 60-m
split times and DJ heights from all dropping heights, RSI
from 0.72- and 0.84-m dropping heights, CMJ H and SJ H
(Table 3). The CMJ H, SJ H, and 0.84-m DJ H all had stronger
relationships with each sprinting phase than the 1RM/BM
did. The DJ H had a stronger relationship with the sprinting
times than the RSI at all of the dropping heights. Both of these
measures had their strongest correlations with sprinting times
from the 0.84-m dropping height (Figures 2–7).
DISCUSSION
This investigation found that DJ H had a significant
correlation with sprinting ability in female rugby athletes
from every dropping height. A similar relationship was
previously found by Mero (16) with track and field sprinters
(r = 0.72). This study did not find that RSI had as strong
a relationship, as previously hypothesized, with sprinting
speed as DJ H. The RSI had moderate correlations only with
the 10- to 30-m split and only at 0.72- and 0.84-m dropping
heights. Hennessy and Kilty (11) found a relationship
between sprinting speed and RSI (r = 0.75). That particular
study did not, however, examine the relationship between DJ
H and sprinting speed. Young et al. (25) found that RSI was
unrelated to early acceleration or maximal velocity in a group
of sprinters. Cronin and Hansen also did not find a relation-
ship between RSI and sprinting speed (8). It is of interest to
note that the higher dropping heights (0.72 and 0.84 m) had the
highest correlation with sprinting speed. This may suggest that
the ability to store elastic energy from high dropping heights
loads the lower body in a fashion similar to the large eccentric
forces during high-velocity sprinting.
It is interesting to note that this study found that DJ H had
a higher correlation with sprinting speed than RSI. It is
worthwhile to note the influence that ground contact time has
on RSI, and this may explain why RSI had lower correlations
than DJ H did. In the Young et al. (24) study, the authors
examined the effects of changing the instruction for the
execution of the DJs. There are some interesting comparisons
with this study during DJs where the subject was told to
maximize jump height from a 0.45-m dropping height. The
closest dropping height in this study was 0.48 m, so it is used
as a base of comparison. The average maximal jump height in
the male subjects was slightly higher than the results of this
study (0.40 vs. 0.38 m), but the RSI was lower than that in this
study (101 vs. 127 cm
s21) because of a higher ground contact
time (0.41 vs. 0.30 seconds). They saw changes in jump
height and ground contact time when the subjects were given
instructions to maximize RSI. Average jump height dipped
below what was recorded in this study (0.32 vs. 0.37 m), but
RSI was higher (188 vs. 127 cm
s21) via a decrease in ground
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
contact time (0.18 vs. 0.30 seconds). In this study, the subjects
were given the instructions to jump as high as they could but
to do so in the minimal amount of time. They were not given
feedback after every trial to manipulate their jumping
parameters to maximize RSI.
It is the contention of Yuri Verkhoshansky (personal
communication, January 2008) that the ground contact time
is an important parameter of drop jumping, but it is secondary
to jump height. Verkhoshansky bases this opinion on the
extensive research he did with national team track athletes in
the former Soviet Union. Although it is intellectually
appealing to use RSI as a way of monitoring stretch
shortening cycle function, it has to be questioned for a couple
of reasons. Drop jump height has been shown to have a strong
relationship with sprinting speed, whereas RSI has been
equivocal. The RSI is also heavily dependent on ground
contact time, which can distort the results. A better approach
while monitoring athletes over a training period may be their
ability to increase DJ H and then secondarily their ability to
concurrently decrease ground contact time. For example,
athletes could do a DJ where they had touched a preset target
with their hand or land on another box and then measure the
ground contact time with a switch mat or force plate.
The other area that was being examined was how DJs
compared against other commons tests as a predictor of
sprinting speed. The 1RM/BM showed a significant re-
lationship with the 10- to 30-m split but not the 0- to 10-m and
30- to 60-m split. Strong relationships between 1RM/BM and
sprinting speed have been previously identified (2,15). The
results of this study support those studies. The CMJ H and SJ
H both showed strong relationships with sprinting speed,
which has also been previously reported (8,13,16). The
reason why the DJ H had a stronger correlation than
1RM/BM, CMJ H, and SJ H with sprinting speed may be
because of neuromuscular specificity. It is possible that DJs
more closely simulate the joint angles, contraction velocities,
and the specific stretch shortening cycle function of sprinting.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this study would suggest that there may be
a relationship between drop jumping and sprinting speed. It
would appear that the height achieved in a DJ may be a more
beneficial measure than the RSI. It would be recommended
that coaches and practitioners use 2 different tests while
assessing stretch shortening cycle function rather than RSI.
The maximal height during a DJ can first be assessed to
monitor progress. If a coach also desires to specifically
monitor ground contact time, it may be useful to set the jump
height for the athlete by having the athlete jump onto a box or
touch a target overhead set at a standard height and measure
the ground contact time with a switch mat or force plate. The
athlete’s ability to shorten the ground contact time while still
jumping to the target can be monitored to see if progress is
being made in training. Although correlation does not mean
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2011 | 1981
 Which Measure of Drop Jump Performance Best Predicts Sprinting Speed?
cause and effect, the results could suggest that including DJs in
a training program may help improve sprinting speed.
REFERENCES
1. Baca, A. A comparison of methods for analyzing drop jump
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31: 437–442, 1999.
2. Baker, D and Nance, S. The relation between running speed and
measures of strength and power in professional rugby league players.
J Strength Cond Res 13: 230–235, 1999.
3. Bobbert, MF. Drop jumping as a training method for jumping ability.
Sports Med 9: 7–22, 1990.
4. Bobbert, MF, Huijing, PA, and van Ingen Schenau, GJ. Drop
jumping. I. The influence of jumping technique on the biomechanics
of jumping. Med Sci Sports Exerc 9: 332–338, 1987.
5. Bobbert, MF, Huijing, PA, and van Ingen Schenau, GJ. Drop
jumping. II. The influence of dropping height on the biomechanics
of drop jumping. Med Sci Sports Exerc 19: 339–346, 1987.
6. Bondarchuck, A. Transfer of Training in Sports. Muskegon, Michigan:
Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 2007.
7. Brown, T, Vescovi, J, and Van Heest, JL. Assessment of linear
sprinting performance: A theoretical paradigm. J Sport Sci Med 3:
203–210, 2004.
8. Cronin, J and Hansen, K. Strength and power predictors of sports
speed. J Strength Cond Res 19: 349–357, 2005.
9. Cummings, B and Finn, J. Estimation of 1 repetition maximum
bench press for women. J Strength Cond Res 12: 262–265, 1998.
10. Häkkinen, K and Komi, P. Alterations of mechanical characteristics
of human skeletal muscle during strength training. Eur J Appl Phys
Occup Phys 50: 167–172, 1983.
11. Hennessy, L and Kilty, J. Relationship of the stretch-shortening cycle
to sprint performance in trained female athletes. J Strength Cond Res
15: 326–331, 2001.
12. Komi, P. Stretch-shortening cycle. In: Strength and Power in Sport. P.
Komi, ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell, 2003. pp. 184–202.
the TM
1982 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
13. Komi, P and Bosco, C. Utilization of stored elastic energy in leg
extensor muscles by men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 10:
261–265, 1978.
14. Laffaye, G, Bardy, B, and Taiar, R. Upper-limb motion and drop jump:
The effect of expertise. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 46: 238–247, 2005.
15. McBride, J, Blow, D, Kirby, T, Haines, T, Dayne, A, and Triplett, NT.
Relationships between maximal squat strength and five, ten, and
forty yard sprints. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1633–1636, 2009.
16. Mero, A. Relationship between the muscle fibre characteristics,
sprinting and jumping of sprinters. Scand J Sports Sci 3: 16–22, 1985.
17. Read, M and Cisar, C. The influence of varied rest interval lengths on
depth jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 15: 279–283, 2001.
18. Schmidtbleicher, D. Training for power events. In: Strength and
Power in Sport. Komi, PV, ed. Boston, MA: Blackwell Scientific, 1992.
pp. 381–395.
19. Street, GM, Mcmillan, S, Board, W, Rasmussen, M, and Heneghan, JM.
Sources of error in determining countermovement jump height with
the impulse method. J Appl Biomech 17: 43–54, 2001.
20. Verkhoshansky, Y. Special Strength Training: A Practical Manual for
Coaches. Muskegon, Michigan: Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 2006.
21. Walsh, M, Arampatzis, A, Schade, F, and Bruggeman, G.The effect of
drop jump starting height and contact time on power, work performed,
and moment of force. J Strength Cond Res 18:561–566, 2004.
22. Winchester, J, Nelson, AG, Landin, D, Young, MA, and Schex-
nayder, IC. Static stretching impairs sprint performance in collegiate
track and field athletes. J Strength Cond Res 22: 13–19, 2008.
23. Young, W. Laboratory strength assessment of athletes. New Stud Athl
10: 89–96, 1995.
24. Young, W, Pryor, JF, and Wilson, G. Effect of instructions on
characteristics of countermovement and drop jump performance.
J Strength Cond Res 9: 232–236, 1995.
25. Young, W, Pryor, JF, and Wilson, G. Relationship between strength
qualities and sprinting performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 35:
13–19, 1995.
26. Zatsiorsky, V and Kraemer, W. Science and Practice of Strength
Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2006.