Next Article in Journal
Forecast Model Update Based on a Real-Time Data Processing Lambda Architecture for Estimating Partial Discharges in Hydrogenerator
Previous Article in Journal
Improved GNSS Localization and Byzantine Detection in UAV Swarms
Article

Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Three Ultra-Portable Vertical Jump Assessment Technologies

1
Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, 1142 Auckland, New Zealand
2
Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, Nord University, 7601 Levanger, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2020, 20(24), 7240; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247240
Received: 25 October 2020 / Revised: 9 December 2020 / Accepted: 16 December 2020 / Published: 17 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Biomedical Sensors)
Vertical jump is a valuable training, testing, and readiness monitoring tool used across a multitude of sport settings. However, accurate field analysis has not always been readily available or affordable. For this study, two-dimensional motion capture (Mo-Cap), G-Flight micro-sensor, and PUSH accelerometer technologies were compared to a research-grade force-plate. Twelve healthy university students (7 males, 5 females) volunteered for this study. Each participant performed squat jumps, countermovement jumps, and drop jumps on three separate occasions. Between-device differences were determined using a one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Systematic bias was determined by limits of agreement using Bland–Altman analysis. Variability was examined via the coefficient of variation, interclass correlation coefficient, and typical error of measure. Dependent variables included jump height, contact-time, and reactive strength index (RSI). Mo-Cap held the greatest statistical similarity to force-plates, only overestimating contact-time (+12 ms). G-Flight (+1.3–4 cm) and PUSH (+4.1–4.5 cm) consistently overestimate jump height, while PUSH underestimates contact-time (−24 ms). Correspondingly, RSI was the most valid metric across all technologies. All technologies held small to moderate variably; however, variability was greatest with the G-Flight. While all technologies are practically implementable, practitioners may want to consider budget, athlete characteristics, exercise demands, set-up, and processing time before purchasing the most appropriate equipment. View Full-Text
Keywords: force-plate; motion-capture; reactive strength index; stiffness; variability force-plate; motion-capture; reactive strength index; stiffness; variability
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Watkins, C.M.; Maunder, E.; Tillaar, R.v.d.; Oranchuk, D.J. Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Three Ultra-Portable Vertical Jump Assessment Technologies. Sensors 2020, 20, 7240. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247240

AMA Style

Watkins CM, Maunder E, Tillaar Rvd, Oranchuk DJ. Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Three Ultra-Portable Vertical Jump Assessment Technologies. Sensors. 2020; 20(24):7240. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247240

Chicago/Turabian Style

Watkins, Casey M., Ed Maunder, Roland v.d. Tillaar, and Dustin J. Oranchuk 2020. "Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Three Ultra-Portable Vertical Jump Assessment Technologies" Sensors 20, no. 24: 7240. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247240

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop