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

net/publication/281343145

Comparison of the Capacity of Different Jump

and Sprint Field Tests to Detect Neuromuscular
Fatigue

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · September 2015

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000912 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

4 366

4 authors, including:

Rob Gathercole Benjamin Sporer

lululemon athletica University of British Columbia - Vancouver
5 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 320 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Trent Stellingwerff
Canadian Sports Institute
93 PUBLICATIONS 1,282 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Rob Gathercole
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 05 August 2016
 COMPARISON OF THE CAPACITY OF DIFFERENT
JUMP AND SPRINT FIELD TESTS TO DETECT
NEUROMUSCULAR FATIGUE
ROB J. GATHERCOLE, BEN C. SPORER, TRENT STELLINGWERFF,
School of Exercise Science, Physical and Health Education, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ABSTRACT
Gathercole, RJ, Sporer, BC, Stellingwerff, T, and Sleivert,
GG. Comparison of the capacity of different jump and sprint
field tests to detect neuromuscular fatigue. J Strength Cond
Res 29(9): 2522–2531, 2015—Different jump and sprint
tests have been used to assess neuromuscular fatigue, but
the test with optimal validity remains to be established. The
current investigation examined the suitability of vertical jump
(countermovement jump [CMJ], squat jump [SJ], drop jump
[DJ]) and 20-m sprint (SPRINT) testing for neuromuscular
fatigue detection. On 6 separate occasions, 11 male team-
sport athletes performed 6 CMJ, SJ, DJ, and 3 SPRINT trials.
Repeatability was determined on the first 3 visits, with sub-
sequent 3 visits (0-, 24-, and 72-hour postexercise)
following a fatiguing Yo-Yo running protocol. SPRINT per-
formance was most repeatable (mean coefficient of variation
#2%), whereas DJ testing (4.8%) was significantly less
repeatable than CMJ (3.0%) and SJ (3.5%). Each test dis-
played large decreases at 0-hour (33 of 49 total variables;
mean effect size = 1.82), with fewer and smaller decreases
at 24-hour postexercise (13 variables; 0.75), and 72-hour
postexercise (19 variables; 0.78). SPRINT displayed the
largest decreases at 0-hour (3.65) but was subsequently
unchanged, whereas SJ performance recovered by
72-hour postexercise. In contrast, CMJ and DJ performance
displayed moderate (12 variables; 1.18) and small (6 varia-
bles; 0.53) reductions at 72-hour postexercise, respectively.
Consequently, the high repeatability and immediate and pro-
longed fatigue-induced changes indicated CMJ testing as
most suitable for neuromuscular fatigue monitoring.
KEY WORDS reliability, fatigue sensitivity, athlete monitoring
Address correspondence to Rob Gathercole, gatherco@uvic.ca.
29(9)/2522–2531
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
2522
the
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND GORD G. SLEIVERT
INTRODUCTION
A
lthough performance in the activity itself has been
suggested to be the most specific indicator of an
athletes’ sport specific neuromuscular perfor-
mance readiness (9), its longitudinal assessment
can be impractical, may impede adaptation, induce undue
fatigue, and may not reflect all aspects of an athlete’s phys-
iological and neuromuscular state. Alternatively, field tests of
neuromuscular function have been suggested as suitable
means of neuromuscular assessment available to practi-
tioners (2). Effective monitoring requires valid, reliable, and
sufficiently sensitive tests to discern the functional changes
that will impact performance (37). Test validity is influenced
by the specificity of movement pattern and contraction type
in accordance with the demands of athletes’ sport (25). Iso-
inertial testing, defined as the movement of a constant grav-
itational load (31), is therefore considered one of the more
valid forms of neuromuscular testing (28) owing to its sim-
ilarities with movements involved in athletic performance.
Sprint (20-m sprint test; SPRINT) and vertical jump
testing, such as the countermovement jump (CMJ), squat
jump (SJ), and drop jump (DJ), are popular isoinertial field-
tests of neuromuscular function (40). The usefulness of jump
tests also seems enhanced by the convenient and detailed
analysis of kinetic and kinematic variables provided by force
plate and position transducer systems, which may permit
greater insight into the neuromuscular responses associated
with neuromuscular fatigue.
The sensitivity of these tests to neuromuscular fatigue
remains unclear, with previous investigations reporting con-
flicting findings. For example, a muscle-damaging exercise
protocol elicited the greatest reductions in SJ performance
compared with both CMJ and DJ (13). Conversely, decreases
were more marked in CMJ and DJ performance after a test-
simulating soccer performance, whereas sprint performance
was unchanged (35). Extrapolation of these results is also
limited by the assessment of immediate (,24 hours)
fatigue-induced changes only (35), unrepresentative exercise
protocols (e.g., 100 barbell squats) (13), and the analysis of
jump performance through jump height (13) and force-related
variables (35) only. Similarly, although decreased sprint per-
formance has been reported immediately postexercise
TM
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

(4,20,30), it may recover rapidly (i.e., ,5 hours) (4) and so
may be of limited value when monitoring neuromuscular
fatigue beyond acute postexercise assessment.
The purpose of the investigation was to examine the
validity of the CMJ, SJ, DJ, and SPRINT tests for the
detection of neuromuscular fatigue after a fatiguing exer-
cise bout representative of team-sport performance.
Assessment of neuromuscular variables associated with
each test was performed 0-, 24-, and 72-hour postexercise
to provide a clearer representation of the sensitivity of
each test for neuromuscular fatigue detection. We hypoth-
esized that the CMJ test would exhibit the greatest
sensitivity to neuromuscular fatigue, owing to the com-
prehensive neuromuscular assessment it permits and its
high ecological validity.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A two-part experimental design was implemented to examine
the suitability of the 4 tests for the detection of fatigue-
induced declines in neuromuscular function. In part 1, we
examined the intraday and interday repeatability (days 1–5),
whereas in part 2, we looked at the sensitivity to fatigue-
induced changes in neuromuscular function (days 6–9;
Figure 1). Participants visited the testing facility at the same
time of day (61.5 hours) on 7 total occasions, featuring
a familiarization, 3 separate repeatability testing days, a fatigue
protocol and immediate postexercise assessment, and then 2
subsequent days of postfatigue monitoring (Figure 1). Partic-
ipants did not perform any additional exercise beyond the
requirements of this investigation throughout the course of
testing. As fully described below, participants performed, in
order, SPRINT (3 trials), then CMJ, SJ, and DJ (6 trials each)
testing during each session.
Subjects
Eleven male collegiate level team-sport athletes (mean 6
SD: 23.8 6 3.9 yrs, 182 6 6 cm, and 80.3 6 6.6 kg) partic-
ipated in the study. Eight participants (23.0 6 3.7 yrs, 184 6
6 cm, and 80.6 6 6.2 kg) completed both repeatability and
fatigue sensitivity portions of the study, whereas 3 completed
the repeatability section only. Ethical approval was obtained
from the University of Victoria Human Ethics Review Board,
with participants providing written informed consent, com-
pleting a “Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire” and
a familiarization session at least 7 days before study com-
mencement. Participants adopted a high carbohydrate diet
throughout testing, consuming the same meal, at the same
time, before every testing session. Familiarization consisted
of a warm-up and then practice of the 4 tests, with subject
comfort and consistency of performance emphasized with
each test. A participant was deemed sufficiently familiarized
when consistency was demonstrated in the tests performed.
For the jumping tests, in addition to visual inspection, con-
sistency was determined as peak and minimum displacement
and peak power values within 10% for 4 repeated jump trials.
This standardized threshold was used to ensure that all par-
ticipants displayed relatively similar degrees of movement
consistency at the start of the investigation in the most non-
biased way possible.
Testing Sessions
Participants performed a standardized, and repeated, 20-
minute dynamic warm-up consisting of light jogging
(;10 minutes), dynamic stretching, 10-m and 20-m sprints
(5 each) of progressive speed
completed within 5 minutes.
Between warm-up and
SPRINT testing, and between
all other tests, participants
actively rested for 5 minutes.
In the first 2 minutes (of 5 mi-
nutes total) before jump testing,
participants performed 10 sub-
maximal practice trials of
increasing intensity.

SPRINT Test. SPRINT testing

was performed outside on
a marked standardized con-
crete track. Sprint time was
measured using timing gates
(Brower ID XS Training Sys-
tem; Brower Timing Systems,
Draper, UT, USA) placed at 0,
Figure 1. A) Schematic representation of the study timeline including familiarization, repeatability 10, and 20 m, allowing mea-
(i.e., “Reliability”), and fatigue sensitivity portions; (B) the fatigue protocol. CMJ = countermovement jump. surement of 0–10 m, 10–20 m,
and 0–20 m time. Participants

VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2015 | 2523

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Jump and sprint testing to detect neuromuscular fatigue

TABLE 1. Description of (A) typical (CMJ-TYP) and (B) alternative (CMJ-ALT) CMJ variables, and (C) SJ-specific
variables and associated abbreviations.*

Abbreviations Description

A Peak power PP Greatest power achieved during the jump

Mean power
Maximum rate of power
development
Time to peak power
Peak force
Mean force
Maximum rate of force
development
Time to peak force
Total impulse
Peak velocity
Minimum velocity
Velocity at peak power
Flight time
Flight time:contraction time
Jump height
B Force at zero velocity
Area under the force velocity
trace
Eccentric duration
Concentric duration
Total duration
Mean eccentric and
concentric power over
time
C Peak displacement
Minimum displacement
MP Mean power (concentric phase only)
MaxRPD Greatest rate of power increase during a 30-millisecond epoch
TTPP Time from jump initiation to peak power
PF Greatest force achieved during the jump
MF Mean force (concentric phase only)
MaxRFD Greatest rate of force increase during a 30-millisecond epoch
TTPF Time from jump initiation to peak force
TI Total force exerted multiplied by time taken (concentric phase only)
PV Greatest velocity achieved during the jump
MinV Peak eccentric velocity
V@PP Velocity recorded at peak power
FT Time spent in the air from jump take-off to landing
FT:CT Ratio of flight-to-contraction time. Contraction time is the duration
from jump initiation to take-off
JH Maximum jump height (calculated using peak velocity)
F@0V Force exerted at concentric phase onset (i.e., velocity is at zero)
FV-AUC Area under the eccentric phase of the force-velocity trace
EccDur Duration of the eccentric CMJ phase
ConDur Duration of the concentric CMJ phase
TotDur Duration of the entire CMJ
EccConMP Mean power (during both eccentric and concentric phases; eccentric
power converted to absolute values) divided by the total duration (in
milliseconds) of the jump
PD Greatest displacement recorded during the jump
MinD Lowest displacement recorded during the jump

*CMJ = countermovement jump.

began in a standing position with their forward foot 0.5 m
behind the 0-m timing gates. Participants performed 3
SPRINT trials and recovered between each sprint by walk-
ing back to the start-line with a total of 1.5 minutes
between each trial.
Vertical Jump Tests. After SPRINT testing, participants
performed 6 trials of each CMJ, SJ, and DJ, with
1.5 minutes rest between each trial and 5 minutes between
each test. Trials were sampled at 200 Hz using the Ballistic
Measurement System software (BMS; Fitness Technology,
Adelaide, Australia; version 2012.3.7), consisting of a force
plate (400 series, Fitness Technology, Adelaide, Australia)
and position transducer (Celesco, PT5A-0150-V62-UP-
1K-M6, Chatsworth, CA, USA). Excluding DJ testing
(consisting of force plate only), CMJ and SJ testing used
a ceiling-mounted position transducer suspended directly
above the force plate and attached to the center of
a wooden dowel placed on participants back similar to
a back squat. Participants were instructed to limit dowel
movement, with the position transducer zeroed to
participant height before every jump. Data were col-
lected immediately after zeroing until the jump was
completed. For CMJ testing, participants were directed
to perform the CMJ “as they normally would” with
a quick countermovement to a comfortable depth
emphasized. Squat jump testing began with the partici-
pant in a squat position at a self-selected depth of ;908,
holding this position for a researchers’ count of 3, before
jumping. If a dipping movement was evident in the BMS
velocity trace (i.e., ,20.05 m$s 21 change), then the trial
was repeated. For the DJ, participants began by standing
on a platform 35 cm above the force plate, with hands
placed on hips. Participants then stepped off the plat-
form, landing on the force plate before jumping as high
as possible while keeping hands on hips. Participants
were directed to “step, not jump,” off the platform, and
to “jump as high and as quickly as possible.” Before each
jump test, participants performed 10 practice trials of
increasing intensity.

2524
the TM

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.com

Figure 2. Mean percentage and 90% confidence intervals for the intrasession (white markers) and intersession (black markers) CV for CMJ (squares), SJ
(triangles), and DJ (circles) testing. Significant between-test differences (above in black; #p # 0.05 vs. CMJ; *p # 0.05 vs. SJ) and the magnitude of effect (ES)
between tests (below in gray; ^ indicates $moderate ES vs. CMJ; $ indicates $moderate ES vs. SJ) are shown. CV = coefficient of variation; CMJ =
countermovement jump; SJ = squat jump; DJ = drop jump; ES = effect size.

Fatiguing Protocol
A 3-stage Yo-Yo fatiguing protocol (Figure 1) was performed
on an outdoor concrete track to elicit a neuromuscular load
similar to team-sport activities (Yo-Yo intermittent recovery
level 2 [Yo-Yo IR 2] and Yo-Yo intermittent endurance level 2
[Yo-Yo IE 2] tests (7)). Briefly, the Yo-Yo IR 2 was performed
twice consecutively and involved repeated 20-m shuttle runs
performed at increasing velocities (10-second recoveries). Yo-
Yo IE 2, performed once, involved 20-m shuttle runs at slower
velocities (5-second recoveries). As the purpose of the fatiguing
protocol was to elicit fatigue and not to infer physiological
capacity, in the final stages, participants were encouraged to
continue performing each Yo-Yo test regardless of whether
shuttle runs were made within the allotted time. Therefore,
participants volitionally terminating exercise only once they
had determined themselves unable to carry on. Between Yo-
Yo tests, participants performed 5 minutes of active recovery,
walking around and avoiding sitting down, with water pro-
vided ad libitum. Following the fatigue protocol, participants
performed 5 minutes of active recovery, before beginning the
test session (i.e., SPRINT, CMJ, SJ, and DJ testing).
Vertical Jump Test Variables
Ballistic Measurement System software was used to deter-
mine all SJ, DJ, and “typically-derived” CMJ variables (CMJ-
TYP). Countermovement jump “alternative” (CMJ-ALT)
variables were calculated using previous methods (18,19).
Force and power (mean and peak) values were converted
to values relative to body mass. Description of all variables
can be found in (Table 1).
Statistical Analyses
For all vertical jump tests, the 4 most consistent trials from
the 6 collected were used in further analysis, as has been
used previously (18,19). Countermovement jump trial

VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2015 | 2525

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Jump and sprint testing to detect neuromuscular fatigue

Figure 3. Fatigue sensitivity 90% CIs of the ES for the group changes in CMJ, DJ, SJ, and 20-m sprint test variables at 0-, 24-, and 72-hour postexercise. Bold
CI’s signify a substantial change (i.e., that mean ES was greater than 60.9 (moderate ES; indicated by asterisks), or the ES CI does not extend across both trivial
ES boundaries (60.3; indicated by hash). Black and gray CI’s illustrate changes indicative of diminished or improved neuromuscular function, respectively. CI =
confidence interval; ES = effect size; CMJ = countermovement jump; DJ = drop jump; SJ = squat jump.

selection was based on the variable EccConMP (Table 1), 4 most consistent jumps were identified by subtracting these
whereas SJ and DJ trials were both determined by calculat- values by the mean of all 6 trials and determining the 4 trials
ing the peak power divided by the duration of the jump. The with the smallest difference.

2526
the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated using raw
data collected during prefatigue testing days only. The mean
of each within-day CV was used to calculate intrasession CV,
whereas intersession CV was determined using results (mean
and SD) from each testing day. Between-test differences and
differences in intrasession and intersession repeatability were
examined using CVs for the same neuromuscular variables
derived from each vertical jump test. Significant differences
were examined through linear mixed modeling (IBM SPSS
Statistics, version 20, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA),
whereas effect sizes (ES) based on between-subject SD, with
appropriate inferences (21), were calculated to examine the
magnitude of difference. An ES of moderate or greater (i.e.,
60.6) was used to indicate a substantial change.
To examine fatigue sensitivity, data were log-transformed,
and then ES (mean and 90% confidence intervals [CIs]) were
calculated for postfatigue changes (i.e., 0-, 24-, and 72-hour
postexercise). Effect sizes were based on typical within-
individual variability (i.e., mean interday CV), with CV
multiplied by 0.3, 0.9, and 1.6 for small, moderate, and large
effects, respectively (40). For the fatigue analyses and pre-
exercise time point, the results of day 3 were used and
referred to as “baseline.” A substantial change was deter-
mined as either an ES of moderate or greater (i.e., 60.9)
or a small mean ES with CIs that did not extend across both
trivial boundaries (i.e., 60.3).
RESULTS
Test Repeatability
No significant or substantial differences were evident
between intrasession and intersession CV of the same
variables (i.e., intrasession CMJ peak power CV vs. interses-
sion CMJ peak power CV; Figure 2). SPRINT performance
was most repeatable, with CVs of 2% or less. SPRINT per-
formance intrasession CVs (mean 6 SD) for 0–10 m, 10–20
m, and 0–20 m time were 1.3 6 0.1, 2.0 6 0.6, and 0.9 6 0.1,
whereas intersession CVs were 1.0 6 0.7, 1.3 6 0.9, and
0.8 6 0.4, respectively. For vertical jump test comparisons
(Figure 2), the same trends were apparent in both intrases-
sion and intersession repeatability, with DJ testing associated
with the largest CVs (mean 6 SD: 4.8 6 1.7), whereas the
CV in CMJ (3.0 6 1.1) and SJ (3.5 6 1.6) testing were
generally very similar. Drop jump testing CVs were substan-
tially larger (.CV) in all but 1 intrasession comparison and 7
of 18 intersession comparisons.
Fatigue Sensitivity
Distance covered during the fatigue protocol was 8613 6
1249 m. Postexercise test results are shown in Figure 3.
Although 3 variables displayed small (mean ES, described
without direction; 0.66) improvements in function, wide-
spread decreases were evident at 0-hour with 33 variables
(of 49 in total) displaying large decreases (1.82). By 24-hour,
13 variables remained substantially decreased to a small extent
(0.75). Nineteen variables were substantially diminished at
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
72-hour again to a small extent (0.78), whereas 6 variables
exhibited moderate improvement (1.11).
Moderate decreases (1.17) were evident in most CMJ
variables at 0-hour (13 of 21). By 24-hour, 6 CMJ variables
(MP, TTPP, MaxRFD, V@PP, FT, and EccConMP) dis-
played small decreases in function (0.89), whereas TI
displayed small improvement (0.43). At 72-hour, 3 CMJ
variables (TI, MinV, and FV-AUC) exhibited moderately
improved function (1.41), whereas 12 variables, reflecting
time, force, and eccentric function, displayed moderately
diminished function (1.18).
Three SJ variables (PF, TTPP, and TTPF) displayed
small improvements (0.66) immediately postexercise,
whereas 8 variables (of 16), representing power, velocity,
displacement, and flight time, were moderately diminished
(1.18). At 24-hour, 5 SJ variables (PP, PV, PD, FT, and JH)
exhibited small decreases (0.75), whereas only FT was
reduced at 72-hour (0.64).
All DJ variables (9 in total), excluding TI, were at least
moderately diminished at 0-hour (1.28). At 24-hour, only FT
and FT:CT displayed small reductions (0.63), whereas TI
was increased to a small extent (0.48). Like CMJ results, 6 DJ
variables, relating to power, velocity and flight time, again
displayed small decreases (0.53) at 72-hour.
SPRINT variables displayed the most substantial imme-
diate decreases (mean ES = 3.65). By 24-hour, no differences
were evident, with moderate improvements (1.08) in 2 var-
iables at 72-hour.
DISCUSSION
Although this is not the first investigation to compare
fatigue-induced changes in vertical jump and SPRINT test
performance (13,35), this study extends the knowledge gen-
erated in previous investigations by (a) the between-test
comparison of intraday and interday repeatability, (b) a com-
prehensive analysis of neuromuscular variables from each
test, and (c) a longer 72-hour postfatigue assessment for
comparison of neuromuscular function both immediately
and during the secondary recovery phase. Results indicate
that the repeatability of the same neuromuscular constructs
(i.e., power, force, velocity) differs between tests, with CMJ
and SJ performance more repeatable than DJ testing.
SPRINT performance displayed the greatest repeatability
overall, with large immediate postexercise decreases also
evident (Figure 3). However, by 72-hour, only CMJ and DJ
test performance remained diminished, suggesting that these
tests offer superior prolonged sensitivity to altered neuro-
muscular function and, conceivably, neuromuscular fatigue.
Previous neuromuscular repeatability investigations have
considered a ,10% CV as indicative of a repeatable test
(15,39). Performance in each test examined here can thus
be considered sufficiently repeatable. We used standardized
jump trial selection criteria (selecting the 4 most consistent
jumps of 6, with no researcher interpretation) to enhance the
repeatability of the jump tests, which would theoretically
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2015 | 2527
 Jump and sprint testing to detect neuromuscular fatigue
result in lower CV’s in the current study. As with all CV
calculations, our results are unique to the specifics of the
investigation (e.g., participants or population examined, pro-
cedures used); however, the repeatability of jump perfor-
mance determined here could thus be considered
artificially high. Moreover, a test with very low measurement
of CV might also theoretically lack sensitivity to detect
changes in neuromuscular function, whereas these methods
may obscure differences in the variability of jump perfor-
mance, which may be an important feature of neuromuscu-
lar function. Consequently, despite the seemingly enhanced
consistency of jump performance data, it is recommended
that the use of these procedures be further scrutinized to
determine their efficacy.
SPRINT test performance was most repeatable overall (CV
,2%), with values closely corresponding to the results of pre-
vious investigations (1.2% (12); 2.0% (29)). Within vertical
jump test comparisons, the lowest intrasession and interses-
sion CVs were associated with CMJ- (mean CV = 3.0%) and
SJ-derived (3.5%) variables, with DJ (4.8%) variables typically
less repeatable (Figure 2). These results are again in general
agreement with the CV values reported previously for CMJ
(15,24,38,39), SJ (16,23,24), and DJ tests (16).
To our knowledge, only Cronin et al. (16) have reported
CMJ, SJ, and DJ test repeatability in the same group of sub-
jects observing similarly that DJ performance was the least
repeatable (mean CV: DJ, 6.7%; SJ, 5.8%; CMJ, 3.6%). Here,
the technical complexity of a DJ, coupled with inexperienced
subjects, may have contributed to this larger variability. Drop
jump performance is markedly influenced by the technique
adopted, with a number of DJ variants recognized (e.g.,
countermovement drop jump, bounce drop jump) (10).
Moreover, participants were team-sport athletes and so
likely less familiar with the DJ than the CMJ, which is an
important feature of team-sport performance (32). In con-
trast to CMJ and SJ, our DJ test configuration used a force
platform only, and so required participants to stand next to
the force plate before the DJ, rather than on it. The decision
to omit position transducer data from DJ test analysis was
made after the observation during pilot testing that horizon-
tal displacement could skew obtained position transducer
data. Drop jump performance was thus inferred through
reverse data integration, whereas displacement was indi-
rectly measured; and so, further measurement error may
have been introduced through additional calculations (25).
Fatiguing protocol of this investigation was developed to
induce a similar form and degree of fatigue as elicited by
typical team-sport activities (8,22). Fatigue effects associated
with both soccer and rugby league matches have been attrib-
uted to muscle damage, muscle glycogen depletion, and
increased perception of effort (32,40). Although indicative
of both central and peripheral fatigue mechanisms, these
descriptors provide little insight into how such changes
may influence neuromuscular function, both immediately
and during the subsequent recovery phase.
2528
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Large widespread decreases in neuromuscular function
were apparent immediately postexercise (Figure 3). These
changes appear unlikely related to limitations in energy sup-
ply, as substrate depletion is not typically considered to con-
strain Yo-Yo test performance (22), whereas recovery duration
(e.g., 6 minutes after repeated sprints (26)) and test demands
(i.e., test duration ,3 seconds; maximal phosphocreatine
[PCr] breakdown rates: ;11% per second (9)) also unlikely
impacted PCr stores. Other intramuscular perturbations may
nevertheless have contributed (e.g., muscle pH (26), reactive
oxygen species (36)). These disruptions typically require
;60 minutes for restoration (3) and so may have impaired
neuromuscular propagation and excitation-contraction (E-C)
coupling (1). Alternatively, structural (i.e., muscle damage and
E-C coupling failure (14)), and neural (e.g., group III/IV affer-
ent activation and modified musculotendinous stiffness (5))
changes are thought to contribute to neuromuscular fatigue
resulting from stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) exercise (“SSC
fatigue”) (33). Supraspinal changes (e.g., decreased central
drive) are another possible contributory factor decreasing vol-
untary drive to the muscle (1).
Decreased sprint ability following fatiguing running-based
protocols is a common observation (4,20,30). Here, SPRINT
performance exhibited the most pronounced immediate
postexercise changes (mean ES = 3.7) but was restored by
24-hour (Figure 3). A quicker restoration of sprint capacity
(5-hour) compared with jump performance (.69 hours) has
been reported previously (4). Recovery of sprint ability
therefore appears relatively quick; in which case, other fac-
tors may limit athlete performance in a fatigued state (e.g.,
technique, desire for maximal exertion).
In contrast to the majority of other neuromuscular
variables, SJ peak force and time to peak force and power
were substantially increased at 0-hour (Figure 3). Previous
investigations have observed an unchanged SJ peak force
(35) or significant decreases in SJ jump height (13) immedi-
ately after simulated-soccer and muscle damaging exercise,
respectively. Our disparate findings appear to relate
to biomechanical SJ modifications. Participants were in-
structed to squat deeply and consistently; however, the
decreased minimum displacement at this time point suggests
that participants adopted a higher jump start position. This
modification appears therefore to have enabled peak force
and power to be attained sooner, whereas the altered move-
ment may also have affected how jump power was produced
(i.e., increased force production at the expense of movement
velocity; indicated in the decreased PV and PP; Figure 3).
Smaller effect sizes were displayed by most test variables
at 24-hour (Figure 3), possibly reflecting restoration of tran-
sient fatiguing factors (e.g., intracellular milieu, central drive).
SPRINT and SJ performance seemingly recovered com-
pletely after this time point, whereas CMJ and DJ appeared
to exhibit secondary decreases at 72-hour. These different
trends could relate to the importance of eccentric function
and the SSC in each movement. The SSC is key to both

CMJ and DJ performance; however, the SJ does not use an
SSC, whereas at shorter sprint durations (i.e., 20-m), accel-
eration predominates which is largely determined by con-
centric function (27). Consequently, assessment of eccentric
function, or a neuromuscular function test comprising of
a considerable eccentric component, may be important for
neuromuscular fatigue detection during the latter stages of
postexercise recovery (i.e., ;72-hour).
Countermovement jump and DJ performance displayed
similar fatigue time courses throughout postfatigue testing;
widespread and pronounced decreases at 0-hour, a general
return to baseline at 24-hour, followed by a secondary
decrease at 72-hour. These responses mirror the biphasic
recovery profile of SSC fatigue, as previously demonstrated
(17,33). The causes of this biphasic trend are speculated to
relate to neural and mechanical responses resulting from
muscle damage and corresponding inflammatory and struc-
tural remodeling processes (17). These processes are
thought to activate group III/IV muscle afferents, resulting
in altered stretch reflex responses (i.e., neural activation) and
decreased muscle stiffness (6,34). Anecdotally, the adoption
of “back-to-back” high-intensity/speed based training
sessions (e.g., high neuromuscular load) followed by
multiple-day recovery may exploit such transient changes,
maximizing training performance while minimizing the
impact on subsequent recovery.
Neuromuscular fatigue responses may manifest as altered
neuromuscular strategies serving to limit performance dete-
rioration (17,33). Our CMJ analysis included a number of
variables that reflect how the jump was performed (e.g.,
time- and rate-based variables). The changes at 72-hour
appear to describe a modification of movement strategy with
the CMJ taking longer to perform (e.g., eccentric, concentric,
and total duration, time to peak force/power, FT:CT) and
a reduced eccentric component (e.g., F@0V) (Figure 3), as
we have discussed more thoroughly previously (18). Thus, in
addition to examining movement outcomes (e.g., jump
height) and output (e.g., peak power/force), neuromuscular
fatigue detection may be enhanced through additional con-
sideration of how the movement is performed.
Despite reduced CMJ and DJ performance, it is interesting
that SPRINT performance was improved at 72-hour
(Figure 3). Although this may illustrate the absence of neu-
romuscular fatigue, it could also relate to the predominantly
concentric demands of sprint acceleration (27), or the lower
sprinting demands during each push-off phase compared
with jumping (e.g., sprint push-off force: 608 N per leg (20)
vs. CMJ peak force: 2061 N, in this investigation), with these
demands possibly insufficient to reveal neuromuscular defi-
cits. Disagreement between vertical jump and sprint perfor-
mance is not uncommon. Decreased CMJ, SJ, and DJ
performance was observed following a soccer-simulation
protocol despite the maintenance of sprint performance
(35), whereas sprint capacity has been found to require much
less time for restoration compared with CMJ performance
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
(5 vs. . 69 hours) (4). Corresponding with our observations
of modified CMJ mechanics, altered sprint mechanics (i.e.,
decreased stride rate and increased stride length) are consid-
ered a neuromuscular fatigue response, which may not nec-
essarily elicit corresponding performance decreases (i.e.,
sprint time) (20). Consequently, assessment of sprint capacity
using time-based variables alone may lack the requisite sen-
sitivity to determine neuromuscular fatigue status during later
phases of postexercise recovery (i.e., .0-hour).
Neuromuscular fatigue is highly task dependent, with
contributory mechanisms determined by numerous factors
such as the athlete age, genetics, and training status (11).
Therefore, the specifics of this study (e.g., the fatiguing pro-
tocol used, athlete training status) likely contributed to the
observed results. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that
SSC-inclusive jump tests (e.g., CMJ and DJ) are most sensi-
tive to neuromuscular fatigue, particularly during the later
recovery phase (i.e., .0-hour, after initial postexercise
fatigue). These observations are in contrast to previous re-
ports suggesting that non-SSC jumps (i.e., SJ) were better for
neuromuscular fatigue detection at similar postexercise time
points (13). These investigations indicated that modifications
of eccentric function limited the extent of concentric perfor-
mance deterioration. Although attempts to maintain con-
centric performance may occur at the expense of eccentric
function, our results highlight that measurement of eccentric
capacity and movement strategy can also reveal fatigue-
induced neuromuscular manipulations. Our findings under-
line the value in performing a comprehensive assessment of
neuromuscular function, which may in turn limit the value of
time-focussed sprint measurement for neuromuscular fatigue
analysis.
The specificity of a test to the task performed is
fundamental to the capacity of test to detect neuromuscular
fatigue (33), thus the seemingly greater fatigue sensitivity of
SSC-inclusive jumps may relate to the high eccentric load of
the fatiguing protocol used (e.g., prolonged running). Like-
wise, the value of SJ testing for neuromuscular fatigue assess-
ment may be limited by the absence of an SSC. Finally,
although CMJ and DJ tests appear to provide similar neuro-
muscular fatigue sensitivity, the lower repeatability associ-
ated with DJ performance, as well as the greater ecological
validity of the CMJ, indicates that CMJ test is likely the most
suitable tool for the monitoring of fatigue-induced neuro-
muscular changes.
In summary, the high repeatability and fatigue sensitivity
of the CMJ test indicated it to be the most valid test for
neuromuscular fatigue detection in this investigation. In
comparison with both SPRINT and SJ testing, it appeared
to offer enhanced capacity to detect neuromuscular
changes occurring in the later phases of postexercise
recovery (e.g., .24 hours) while also providing sufficient
sensitivity in the early postexercise phase. Moreover, com-
pared with DJ testing, CMJ performance was associated
with superior repeatability.
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2015 | 2529
 Jump and sprint testing to detect neuromuscular fatigue
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Neuromuscular function tests are an important aspect of
athlete fatigue monitoring; however, the most suitable test
for neuromuscular fatigue measurement for different sports
and athletes remains unclear. Results of this investigation
underline that different neuromuscular function tests vary in
their capacity to detect postexercise neuromuscular changes.
Practitioners should therefore determine the usefulness
(validity and sensitivity) of a neuromuscular test in the
specific circumstances in which it is to be used (e.g., athlete
fitness status, training status, the sport-specific fatiguing
activity). Although each test offered acceptable repeatability
and displayed marked immediate postexercise decreases,
large differences between tests were evident in the capacity
to detect neuromuscular decrements during prolonged
recovery (i.e., from 0- to 72-hour postexercise). The impor-
tance of the SSC inherent to each neuromuscular test
appeared to contribute to these temporal differences, with
performance in tests relying more so on the SSC (i.e., CMJ,
DJ) demonstrating greater sensitivity subsequent to 0-hour
postexercise than those relying less so (i.e., SJ, SPRINT).
Neuromuscular tests that incorporate a considerable eccen-
tric component may therefore provide superior sensitivity to
neuromuscular fatigue after fatiguing lower-body SSC-based
exercise. Accordingly, to accurately discern athlete fatigue
status and subsequent performance, practitioners should
select their neuromuscular test with knowledge as to what
stage during the training-recovery-adaptation cycle that
a test will be used and the nature of fatigue experienced.
REFERENCES
1. Abbiss, CR and Laursen, PB. Models to explain fatigue during
prolonged endurance cycling. Sports Med 35: 865–898, 2005.
2. Abernethy, P, Wilson, G, and Logan, P. Strength and power
assessment. Issues, controversies and challenges. Sports Med 19: 401–
417, 1995.
3. Allen, DG, Lamb, GD, and Westerblad, H. Skeletal muscle fatigue:
Cellular mechanisms. Physiol Rev 88: 287–332, 2008.
4. Andersson, H, Raastad, T, Nilsson, J, Paulsen, G, Garthe, I, and
Kadi, IF. Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in elite female
soccer: Effects of active recovery. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 372–380,
2008.
5. Avela, J and Komi, PV. Interaction between muscle stiffness and
stretch reflex sensitivity after long-term stretch-shortening cycle
exercise. Muscle Nerve 21: 1224–1227, 1998.
6. Avela, J, Kyrolainen, H, Komi, PV, and Rama, D. Reduced reflex
sensitivity persists several days after long-lasting stretch-shortening
cycle exercise. J Appl Physiol 86: 1292–1300, 1999.
7. Bangsbo, J. Fitness Training in Football: A Scientific Approach. Bagsvaerd,
Denmark: August Krogh Inst., University of Copenhagen, 1994.
8. Bangsbo, J, Iaia, FM, and Krustrup, P. The yo-yo intermittent
recovery test: A useful tool for evaluation of physical performance in
intermittent sports. Sports Med 38: 37–51, 2008.
9. Bishop, PA, Jones, E, and Woods, AK. Recovery from training: A
brief review: Brief review. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1015–1024,
2008.
10. Bobbert, MF. Drop jumping as a training method for jumping
ability. Sports Med 9: 7–22, 1990.
2530
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
11. Borresen, J and Lambert, MI. The quantification of training load, the
training response and the effect on performance. Sports Med 39: 779–
795, 2009.
12. Bradshaw, EJ, Maulder, PS, and Keogh, JW. Biological movement
variability during the sprint start: Performance enhancement or
hindrance? Sports Biomech 6: 246–260, 2007.
13. Byrne, C and Eston, R. The effect of exercise-induced muscle
damage on isometric and dynamic knee extensor strength and
vertical jump performance. J Sports Sci 20: 417–425, 2002.
14. Byrne, C, Twist, C, and Eston, R. Neuromuscular function after
exercise-induced muscle damage: Theoretical and applied
implications. Sports Med 34: 49–69, 2004.
15. Cormack, SJ, Newton, RU, McGuigan, MR, and Doyle, TL.
Reliability of measures obtained during single and repeated
countermovement jumps. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 3: 131, 2008.
16. 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.
17. Dousset, E, Avela, J, Ishikawa, M, Kallio, J, Kuitunen, S,
Kyrolainen, H, Linnamo, V, and Komi, PV. Bimodal recovery pattern
in human skeletal muscle induced by exhaustive stretch-shortening
cycle exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 453–460, 2007.
18. Gathercole, R, Sporer, B, Stellingwerff, T, and Sleivert, G.
Alternative countermovement jump analysis to quantify acute
neuromuscular fatigue. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 10: 84–92, 2014.
19. Gathercole, R, Stellingwerff, T, and Sporer, B. Effect of acute
fatigue and training adaptation on countermovement jump
performance in elite snowboard cross athletes. J Strength Cond
Res 29: 37–46, 2014.
20. Girard, O, Micallef, JP, and Millet, GP. Changes in spring-mass
model characteristics during repeated running sprints. Eur J Appl
Physiol 111: 125–134, 2011.
21. Hopkins, WG, Marshall, SW, Batterham, AM, and Hanin, J.
Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise
science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009.
22. Krustrup, P, Mohr, M, Amstrup, T, Rysgaard, T, Johansen, J,
Steensberg, A, Pedersen, PK, and Bangsbo, J. The yo-yo intermittent
recovery test: Physiological response, reliability, and validity. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 35: 697–705, 2003.
23. McGuigan, MR, Doyle, TL, Newton, M, Edwards, DJ, Nimphius, S,
and Newton, RU. Eccentric utilization ratio: Effect of sport and
phase of training. J Strength Cond Res 20: 992–995, 2006.
24. McLellan, CP, Lovell, DI, and Gass, GC. The role of rate of force
development on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 25:
379–385, 2011.
25. McMaster, DT, Gill, N, Cronin, J, and McGuigan, M. A brief review
of strength and ballistic assessment methodologies in sport. Sports
Med 44: 603–623, 2014.
26. Mendez-Villanueva, A, Edge, J, Suriano, R, Hamer, P, and Bishop, D.
The recovery of repeated-sprint exercise is associated with PCr
resynthesis, while muscle pH and EMG amplitude remain
depressed. PLoS One 7: e51977, 2012.
27. Mero, A. Force-time characteristics and running velocity of male
sprinters during the acceleration phase of sprinting. Res Q Exerc Sport
59: 94–98, 1988.
28. Meylan, C, Cronin, J, and Nosaka, K. Isoinertial assessment of
eccentric muscular strength. Strength Cond J 30: 56–64, 2008.
29. Moir, G, Button, C, Glaister, M, and Stone, MH. Influence of
familiarization on the reliability of vertical jump and acceleration
sprinting performance in physically active men. J Strength Cond Res
18: 276–280, 2004.
30. Morin, JB, Tomazin, K, Samozino, P, Edouard, P, and Millet, GY.
High-intensity sprint fatigue does not alter constant-submaximal
velocity running mechanics and spring-mass behavior. Eur J Appl
Physiol 112: 1419–1428, 2012.

31. Murphy, AJ and Wilson, GJ. The ability of tests of muscular function
to reflect training-induced changes in performance. J Sports Sci 15:
191–200, 1997.
32. Nedelec, M, McCall, A, Carling, C, Legall, F, Berthoin, S, and
Dupont, G. Recovery in soccer: Part I—Post-match fatigue and time
course of recovery. Sports Med 42: 997–1015, 2012.
33. Nicol, C, Avela, J, and Komi, PV. The stretch-shortening cycle: A
model to study naturally occurring neuromuscular fatigue. Sports
Med 36: 977–999, 2006.
34. Nicol, C, Kuitunen, S, Kyröläinen, H, Avela, J, and Komi, P. Effects of
long- and short-term fatiguing stretch-shortening cycle exercises on
reflex EMG and force of the tendon-muscle complex. Eur J Appl
Physiol 90: 470–479, 2003.
35. Oliver, J, Armstrong, N, and Williams, C. Changes in jump
performance and muscle activity following soccer-specific exercise.
J Sports Sci 26: 141–148, 2008.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
36. Perrey, S, Racinais, S, Saimouaa, K, and Girard, O. Neural and
muscular adjustments following repeated running sprints. Eur J Appl
Physiol 109: 1027–1036, 2010.
37. Reilly, T, Morris, T, and Whyte, G. The specificity of training
prescription and physiological assessment: A review. J Sports Sci 27:
575–589, 2009.
38. Sheppard, JM, Cormack, S, Taylor, KL, McGuigan, MR, and
Newton, RU. Assessing the force-velocity characteristics of the leg
extensors in well-trained athletes: The incremental load power
profile. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1320–1326, 2008.
39. Taylor, KL, Cronin, J, Gill, ND, Chapman, DW, and Sheppard, J.
Sources of variability in iso-inertial jump assessments. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 5: 546–558, 2010.
40. Twist, C and Highton, J. Monitoring fatigue and recovery
in rugby league players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 8: 467–474,
2013.
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2015 | 2531