Next Article in Journal
A Prospective Study Evaluating Gait and Clinical Outcome Following First Metatarsophalangeal Arthrodesis for Hallux Rigidus
Previous Article in Journal
Electromyographic Activation of Flexed Arm Circumference, With or Without Contralateral Opposition
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comparison Between the Use of an Infrared Contact Mat and an IMU During Kinematic Analysis of Horizontal Jumps
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing the Contribution of Arm Swing to Countermovement Jump Height Using Three Different Measurement Methods in Physically Active Men

by
Daichi Yamashita
*,
Frederick James Henderson
and
Yuko Ishida
Japan Institute of Sports Sciences, 3-15-1, Nishigaoka, Kita-ku, Tokyo 115-0056, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomechanics 2025, 5(3), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics5030045
Submission received: 24 April 2025 / Revised: 7 June 2025 / Accepted: 23 June 2025 / Published: 1 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Inertial Sensor Assessment of Human Movement)

Abstract

Background/Objectives: This study evaluated the reliability and validity of three methods to measure jump height during countermovement jumps performed with (CMJAS) and without (CMJNAS) arm swing: (1) an impulse–momentum method with force platforms (FPimp), (2) a flight time method with force platforms (FPtime), and (3) an inertial measurement unit (PUSH Band 2.0; PUSH2). Methods: Eighteen physically active men performed CMJAS and CMJNAS on force platforms while wearing PUSH2 over two days. Besides jump height, we computed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the absolute and relative increases in jump height due to arm swing, compared to CMJNAS. Results: The reliability of intra-session, inter-session, and concurrent measures were good to excellent (intra-session ICC2,1 = 0.957–0.979, inter-session ICC2,1 = 0.806–0.990, concurrent ICC3,1 = 0.940–0.973) for CMJAS and CMJNAS heights, in all three methods. The three methods showed high to very high reliability for both the absolute and relative indices of arm swing contribution (ICC2,1 = 0.649–0.812). FPtime significantly overestimated CMJNAS height relative to FPimp (p < 0.01). The absolute index of arm swing contribution was similar in FPimp and FPtime (p = 0.38) but higher in PUSH2 (p < 0.01), indicating that arm swing amplified overestimation. Conclusions: All three methods demonstrated high reliability for jump height measurements, but FPtime and PUSH2 misestimated jump height depending on jump modalities. Caution is advised when assessing the absolute and relative contribution of arm swing, because errors in CMJNAS and CMJAS height measurements can affect these values and their interpretation.

1. Introduction

Jump performance evaluation is an important training tool in many sports, e.g., American football [1] and basketball [2]. For example, routine countermovement jump (CMJ) testing helps practitioners prescribe exercises and manage fatigue in athletes [3,4,5]. While various technologies and methods have emerged to measure CMJ performance, the validity and reliability of these measurement methods must be rigorously established to ensure diagnostic accuracy. Yet, this information is often lacking.
CMJ height is commonly measured with or without arm swing [6,7,8,9], with arm swing possibly enhancing CMJ height [6,10]. For example, previous research suggests that athletes can improve jump height by over 20% with arm swing compared to without arm swing [6,7,11], whereas non-athletes show more modest improvements [12]. Therefore, not only are reliable and valid measures of CMJ height crucial for practitioners and researchers, but understanding whether arm swing alters the reliability and validity of measurements is also important in evaluating athletes.
Different methods have different merits and demerits. The gold standard for measuring jump height involves recording ground reaction forces using force platforms (FPs) to derive the impulse (FPimp), utilizing the impulse–momentum relationship [13,14]. However, while extensively validated, implementing FPimp can be challenging due to the hardware costs, limited portability, and complex calculation processes. Alternatively, jump height can be derived from the flight time (FPtime) using not only a FP but also simpler, more affordable technology like a contact mat, photoelectric cell, or smartphone application [15]. Although the flight time method may overestimate jump height compared with FPimp, it remains widely used because the overestimation is considered reasonable [14,16]. Another method involves the use of commercially available inertial measurement units (IMUs) consisting of wireless accelerometers and gyroscopes. While all IMUs rely on similar technology, manufacturers often use proprietary computing algorithms generally treated as a “black box” [17,18]. One such IMU popular among strength and conditioning coaches is PUSH Band 2.0 (PUSH2; Push Inc., Toronto, Canada). To the authors’ knowledge, few studies have examined the validity and reliability of PUSH2, showing reliable measures but overestimating CMJ without arm swing (CMJNAS) height compared to FPimp [19] or the flight time method using FPs [20] and optical sensors [21]. However, although the PUSH2 approach is an attractive approach due to its lower cost, whether its measures are robust across CMJ modalities, i.e., CMJ with arm swing (CMJAS) or CMJNAS, has yet to be established.
In particular, it remains unclear whether the arm swing amplifies these overestimations. For example, CMJ height overestimation may affect the calculation of arm contribution—the difference in CMJ height between CMJNAS and CMJAS or the ratio of CMJAS and CMJNAS [6,7,11]—thus yielding an erroneous diagnostic. Indeed, if both CMJAS and CMJNAS heights are overestimated by the same amount (e.g., 4 cm), the relative arm contribution would appear smaller with PUSH2 or FPtime than with FPimp because the denominator (CMJNAS height) increases. Consequently, investigating how arm swing impacts IMU system reliability and validity compared to FPtime and FPimp would be valuable for practitioners to select the appropriate measuring tool.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was (1) to investigate the impact of the FPimp, FPtime, and PUSH2 methods on the reliability and validity of CMJNAS and CMJAS height measurements, and (2) to determine how the observed misestimation influences the computation of arm contribution indices. We hypothesized that the degree of overestimation in jump height calculated using the IMU compared to the FPimp method would be greater than using the FPtime method, whereas the degree of overestimation would be comparable between CMJNAS and CMJAS, regardless of the method used. Such outcomes would suggest that the evaluation of arm contributions can vary depending on the method employed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Eighteen physically active men (age: 34.4 ± 5.4 years; height: 171.8 ± 6.1 cm; body mass: 74.1 ± 8.6 kg), free from any injury affecting CMJ performance, provided written informed consent to participate in this study. This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Japanese Institute of Sports Sciences (No. 2019-062, approved on 10 February 2020) in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Power analysis using G*Power software (version 3.1.9.2, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany) showed that to achieve a power of 80% at an alpha level of 5%, at least eighteen participants were needed to achieve a medium effect size of partial ηp2 = 0.06 (f = 0.253) [22] in a within-subject repeated-measures 3 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) (1 group, 6 measurements, correlation among measures = 0.5, non-sphericity correction = 1).

2.2. Procedures

To evaluate inter-day reliability, all participants completed two testing sessions 3–7 days apart, as used in previous research [23,24,25], to allow for neuromuscular recovery, limit possible fatigue, and minimize any potential learning effect. Testing was conducted around the same time of the day (within a 2 h window) to minimize circadian influences [26]. The participants were also asked to maintain their normal routines and avoid strenuous exercise 48 h before each test and during the interval between sessions.
The participants first completed a standardized warm-up consisting of jogging, dynamic stretching, and jumping. PUSH2 was then attached to the participant’s waist using the manufacturer-provided waist belt. Finally, the participants performed three CMJNAS and three CMJAS with each foot on a different FP (1200 Hz, 0.6 m × 0.4 m, type 9281E; Kistler, Winterthur, Switzerland). For CMJNAS, the participants were instructed to jump as high as possible using a rapid countermovement while keeping their hands on their hips. For CMJAS, they were instructed to jump as high as possible using a rapid countermovement while swinging their arms. For both jump types, the participants were instructed to initiate landing with their legs straight to limit the influence of posture on flight time. In addition, for CMJAS, they were asked to land with their arms raised to approximately the same height as at take-off to minimize potential overestimation of CMJAS height (Figure 1) [14]. A minimum of 30 s of rest was given between each jump trial and 180 s of rest between each jump modality. One experimenter watched each trial and, if instructions were not respected (e.g., leg tucking upon landing), the trial was repeated 30 s later.
Unfiltered left- and right-side vertical ground reaction forces (GRFv) were then summed for analysis, because low-pass filtering can cause substantial underestimation of jump height [27]. Jump height obtained from PUSH2 (sampled at 1000 Hz) was sent via Bluetooth to an iPad Pro (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) using the manufacturer’s software (PUSH Pro, v7.7.0). Body weight was calculated from the 0.5 s (600 data points) moving average of GRFv, shifted by one frame, displaying the smallest standard deviation (SD) during quiet standing. The start of the motion was identified as the moment when GRFv deviated from body weight by 1% [14], and take-off was defined as the first point when GRFv fell below 10 N (Figure 2) [28]. To estimate the vertical velocity at take-off (Vto), GRFv was integrated from the start of the motion until take-off by trapezoid rule integration [14]. Jump height from FPimp was then calculated as
Jump   height   from   FP imp = 1 2 g V t o 2 ,
where g represents the gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2). Jump height from FPtime was calculated as [20]
Jump   height   from   FP time = 1 8 g T flight 2 ,
where Tflight represents the flight time from take-off to landing, defined as the first and second time that GRFv crosses the 10 N threshold [28]. The results from FPimp were the reference measurements [19].
The arm contribution indices (AI) were defined as previously reported [7,8]. The absolute AI (AIabs) was thus the difference in CMJ height with and without arm swing:
A I a b s c m = C M J A S C M J N A S .
The relative AI (AIrel) was AIabs relative to CMJNAS:
A I r e l % = A I a b s C M J N A S × 100 .

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The height of each participant’s three CMJNAS or CMJAS trials was used to compute intra-session and concurrent reliability, along with Bland–Altman analyses. The average of the three trials was used for the other analyses, including ANOVAs, assessments of inter-day test–retest reliability, and concurrent validity. Means and SDs were calculated after confirming the data’s normal distribution using Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistics (p ≥ 0.05).
The intra-session reliability for CMJNAS and CMJAS height from the FPimp, FPtime, and PUSH2 methods was determined by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1; two-way mixed-effects model with absolute agreement) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) [29,30,31]. In addition, the test–retest inter-day reliability of all variables between Day 1 and 2 was assessed using ICC2,1 (i.e., two-way random-effects model with absolute agreement) with a 95% CI [31].
A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc paired t-tests was used to evaluate the effect of the two jump modalities (CMJAS and CMJNAS) and the three methods on CMJ height. One-way repeated-measures ANOVAs with Bonferroni post hoc paired t-tests were used to test the differences in AIabs and AIrel across the three methods. The Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied if the Mauchly sphericity test revealed that the assumption of sphericity was violated. Partial eta-squared values ( η p 2 ) were reported as a measure of effect size: small (0.01–0.06), medium (0.06–0.14), and large (>0.14) [22].
The concurrent validity among the three methods was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r). To further evaluate agreement, Bland–Altman plots were analyzed to quantify the systematic bias and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) among the three methods [30,32]. The 95% LoA was corrected for repeated measures [33]. Proportional bias was identified when the coefficient of determination (R2) was greater than 0.1 [34]. In addition, concurrent reliability among the three methods was assessed using ICC3,1 (i.e., two-way mixed-effects model for consistency) with a 95% CI [31].
For ICC and r interpretations, we used the following criteria: poor (<0.50), moderate (0.50–0.75), good (0.75–0.90), and excellent (>0.90) [31]. For CV, we used the following criteria: poor (>10%), moderate (5–10%), and good (<5%) [35,36]. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 (IBM Corp., Chicago, IL, USA) and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).

3. Results

Intra-session reliability analysis showed good reliability based on CV (1.56–2.48%) and excellent reliability based on ICC2,1 (0.96–0.98) for all variables (Table 1). The inter-day test–retest reliability analysis showed excellent reliability for CMJNAS and CMJAS height in each method (ICC2,1 = 0.940–0.973), but moderate to excellent reliability for AIabs and AIrel in all three methods (ICC2,1 = 0.62–0.78) (Table 2).
The two-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between jump modalities and methods in CMJ height (F [1.50, 25.47] = 14.22, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.455, large effect size) (Table 2). Regarding jump modalities, post hoc paired t-tests with Bonferroni corrections revealed that CMJAS height was significantly greater than CMJNAS height across all three measurement methods (p < 0.01). Furthermore, regarding measurement methods, both the CMJNAS height and the CMJAS height were greater for PUSH2 than FPtime and greater for FPtime than FPimp (p < 0.01).
One-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of measurement methods on AIabs (Day 1: F [2, 34] = 14.21, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.455; Day 2: F [2, 34] = 14.03, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.452) and AIrel (Day 1: F [1.50, 25.55] = 9.11, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.349; Day 2: F [2, 34] = 10.71, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.386), indicating large effect sizes across both days (Table 3). On both days, AIabs was significantly higher when using PUSH2 compared to FPimp (p < 0.01) and FPtime (p < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in AIabs between FPtime and FPimp (Day 1: p = 0.384; Day 2; p = 0.60) (Table 3). This greater difference in AIabs from PUSH2 explains the significant interaction between jump modality and measurement method. For AIrel, values were significantly lower when using FPtime compared to PUSH2 (p < 0.01) and FPimp (p = 0.04) on Day 1. On Day 2, AIrel from FPtime remained significantly lower than PUSH2 (p < 0.01), while the difference in AIrel between FPtime and FPimp was not statistically significant (p = 0.23).
For concurrent validity, Pearson’s correlation coefficients revealed excellent agreement between the methods (r = 0.92–0.96) (Figure 3). Concurrent reliability, accounting for within-subject variation across repeated trials, was also excellent between methods (ICC (3,1) = 0.88–0.96) (Table 3).
The systematic and proportional biases between measurement devices, assessed using Bland–Altman plots, are summarized in Table 3. For CMJAS height on Day 1, a proportional bias was observed between FPimp and PUSH2 (R2 = 0.15). On Day 2, proportional bias was found for CMJNAS height between FPimp and PUSH2 (R2 = 0.17) and FPtime and PUSH2 (R2 = 0.12).

4. Discussion

This study evaluated the reliability and validity of force platform-derived impulse (FPimp), force platform-derived flight time (FPtime), and an inertial measurement unit (PUSH2) in assessing CMJ height, both with and without arm swing, and subsequently examined the implications of these methods on arm contribution indices. The main findings were that FPtime and PUSH2 can be considered reliable methods for assessing CMJNAS and CMJAS heights, but both overestimated CMJAS and CMJNAS heights. Among the three methods, PUSH2 overestimated AIabs and AIrel the most and was less reliable between sessions.
The intra-session and inter-day reliability of the CMJNAS height for all three methods was good to excellent (ICC > 0.75) [31]. This result aligns with previous studies using FPimp, FPtime, and PUSH2 [19,20,21]. In addition, for all three methods, the intra-session and inter-day reliability of CMJAS height in the present study was acceptable. Consequently, all these methods offered reliable and valid evaluations of jump height.
Regarding CMJ height, there was an interaction between jump modalities and measurement methods. CMJ heights were consistently ranked, from the highest to the lowest, PUSH2-FPtime-FPimp for both CMJAS and CMJNAS. Critically, AIabs using PUSH2 was significantly greater than FPimp and FPtime. Hence, the arm swing amplified the intrinsic overestimation of jump height from PUSH2, but not FPtime. Although the coefficients of determination were not large and the specific jump modality showing a bias varied by day, given the proportional bias observed between FPimp and PUSH2, PUSH2 may differentially affect CMJ height measurements based on jump performance level. However, PUSH Inc. has not disclosed their algorithms, making it uncertain whether the algorithms for the two CMJ modalities are identical. This is problematic because the computation algorithm, which includes data filtering, can have a sizeable effect on the measurement [37]. Still, we can speculate that the kinematics of the IMU device fixed on the waist level would vary between CMJAS and CMJNAS among participants (i.e., owing to trunk length, angle, and angular velocity). For example, the trunk segment at take-off may be more forward-tilted in untrained participants [38] but more upright in volleyball players [39] during CMJAS than during CMJNAS. Consequently, kinematic differences in the trunk might lead to a more pronounced overestimation of jump height from PUSH2 attached to the participants’ waist when arm swing is involved.
In this study, arm swing improved jump height by 4.86 cm (12.72%) for FPimp, 4.40 cm (10.75%) for FPtime, and 6.65 cm (15.39%) for PUSH2. Previous studies have suggested that arm swing enhances the effect of proximal-to-distal sequencing during jumping [10], and the contribution of CMJ height influences proper jump techniques in sports such as volleyball [11]. However, our results revealed that the metrics used to evaluate arm contribution (i.e., AIabs and AIrel) differed across methods. PUSH2 overestimated AIrel because its overestimation of CMJAS height was greater than that of CMJNAS height, but FPtime underestimated AIrel by similarly overestimating CMJNAS and CMJAS, which appear in the numerator and denominator of Equation (4). A previous study speculated that the overestimation by FPtime in CMJAS would be greater than that in CMJNAS because the height of the arm at take-off tends to be higher than that at landing [14]. In contrast, participants in this study were instructed to ensure that their arm height at landing matched that at take-off. This suggests that specific instructions regarding arm swing at landing could effectively mitigate the potential systematic bias of the CMJAS height from FPtime.
Regarding inter-session reliability, AIabs and AIrel displayed lower ICCs than CMJAS and CMJNAS, although CMJAS and CMJNAS heights from the three methods demonstrated acceptable inter-day reliability. Specifically, while the reliability for FPtime was below the acceptable threshold, the reliability of the other methods slightly exceeded this threshold. It is crucial to consider that indices derived from two numbers typically exhibit lower reliability, owing to the inherent variability of both numbers [40]. Thus, caution is advised when using such indices. Additionally, it is worth highlighting that the participants in this study were neither competitive athletes nor engaged in sports involving arm-swing techniques. AIrel from FPimp (12–13%) was considerably lower than the 24% in collegiate male and female basketball players reported in Heishman et al. [6] or the 38% in elite male volleyball players reported in Vaverka et al. [11]. Consequently, our findings may not apply to populations with pronounced arm contribution, such as basketball and volleyball athletes used to jumping with an arm swing.
Jump height in CMJAS and CMJNAS from all three methods showed good to excellent intra-session, inter-session, and concurrent reliability. Each method therefore appears reproducible and robust in evaluating CMJ height, with no proportional bias between methods. While proportional bias was generally not observed between FPimp and FPtime, it tended to be present or higher in comparisons involving PUSH2 against the other two methods, which aligns with findings from other studies using PUSH2 [20]. Previous studies reported that PUSH2 overestimated CMJNAS height by 3.8 cm [20] and 7.9 cm [41] compared to the FPtime, and 6.0 cm compared to the FPimp [19], which was higher than presently (1.4–1.8 cm from FPtime and 3.4–4.0 cm from FPimp). This greater overestimation could be attributed to differences in software versions used across studies. In our study, we used PUSH2 software version 7.7.0. In contrast, Watkins et al. [20] used version 4.5.0, Comyns et al. [41] used version 4.6.2, and McMaster et al. [19] used version 2.0.5. Software updates are typically designed to enhance measurement accuracy; hence, practitioners should be mindful of variations induced by the computation algorithm.
Among limitations to this study, whether the low inter-day reliability of AIabs and AIrel extends to athletes with greater arm contribution must be carefully considered. All participants were men, so whether the present results are applicable to female individuals may need confirmation. Strict control of participants’ behavior between sessions was practically not possible, but the high reliability and validity reported suggest that any confounding influence would have been minimal. Lastly, the current findings of PUSH2 might not be applicable to other IMUs likely using a different algorithm, although the hardware technology is essentially the same. Future research may need to clarify how the arm swing impacts the reliability of jump performance measurement across populations of athletes, notably higher-level athletes implementing jumping as a tool to monitor training implementations over longer time periods.

5. Conclusions

All three methods showed high intra-session and inter-session reliability for jump height, supporting their use in athlete monitoring when applied consistently. However, compared to the gold-standard FPimp method, both FPtime and PUSH2 overestimated jump height. Because it overestimated jump heights similarly in both CMJ modalities, FPtime misestimated the relative effect of arm swing. PUSH2 potentially misestimated both the absolute and relative effects of arm swing, owing to different degrees of overestimation between CMJNAS and CMJAS. Also, since arm contribution indices showed lower inter-day reliability, their use in monitoring should be approached with caution.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.Y. and Y.I.; methodology, D.Y.; software, D.Y.; validation, D.Y., Y.I. and F.J.H.; formal analysis, D.Y.; investigation, D.Y. and Y.I.; resources, D.Y.; data curation, D.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, D.Y., Y.I. and F.J.H.; writing—review and editing, D.Y., Y.I. and F.J.H.; visualization, D.Y.; supervision, D.Y.; project administration, D.Y.; funding acquisition, D.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number 19K20003.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Japan Institute of Sports Sciences (No. 2019-062, approved on 18 February 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author due to institutional policies restricting the public distribution of code and software used in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIabsAbsolute arm contribution index (difference in CMJ height between CMJAS and CMJNAS)
AIrelRelative arm contribution index (percentage change in CMJAS height relative to CMJNAS)
CIConfidence interval
CMJCountermovement jump
CMJASCountermovement jump with arm swing
CMJNASCountermovement jump without arm swing
CVCoefficient of variation
FPimpImpulse–momentum method using force platforms
FPtimeFlight time method using force platforms
GRFvVertical ground reaction force
ICCIntraclass correlation coefficient
IMUInertial measurement unit
LoALimits of agreement
PUSH2PUSH Band 2.0
TflightFlight time
VtoVertical velocity at take-off
ηₚ2Partial eta-squared

References

  1. Yamashita, D.; Asakura, M.; Ito, Y.; Yamada, S.; Yamada, Y. Physical Characteristics and Performance of Japanese Top-Level American Football Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 2455–2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Teramoto, M.; Cross, C.L.; Rieger, R.H.; Maak, T.G.; Willick, S.E. Predictive Validity of National Basketball Association Draft Combine on Future Performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 396–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Edwards, T.; Spiteri, T.; Piggott, B.; Bonhotal, J.; Haff, G.G.; Joyce, C. Monitoring and Managing Fatigue in Basketball. Sports 2018, 6, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Claudino, J.G.; Cronin, J.; Mezencio, B.; McMaster, D.T.; McGuigan, M.; Tricoli, V.; Amadio, A.C.; Serrao, J.C. The Countermovement Jump to Monitor Neuromuscular Status: A Meta-Analysis. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2016, 20, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sanders, G.J.; Boos, B.; Rhodes, J.; Kollock, R.O.; Peacock, C.A.; Scheadler, C.M. Factors Associated with Minimal Changes in Countermovement Jump Performance Throughout a Competitive Division I Collegiate Basketball Season. J. Sports Sci. 2019, 37, 2236–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Heishman, A.D.; Daub, B.D.; Miller, R.M.; Freitas, E.D.S.; Frantz, B.A.; Bemben, M.G. Countermovement Jump Reliability Performed with and without an Arm Swing in Ncaa Division 1 Intercollegiate Basketball Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 546–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Borràs, X.; Balius, X.; Drobnic, F.; Galilea, P. Vertical Jump Assessment on Volleyball: A Follow-Up of Three Seasons of a High-Level Volleyball Team. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 1686–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gonçalves, C.A.; Lopes, T.J.D.; Nunes, C.; Marinho, D.A.; Neiva, H.P. Neuromuscular Jumping Performance and Upper-Body Horizontal Power of Volleyball Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 2236–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wen, N.; Dalbo, V.J.; Burgos, B.; Pyne, D.B.; Scanlan, A.T. Power Testing in Basketball: Current Practice and Future Recommendations. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 2677–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chiu, L.Z.F.; Bryanton, M.A.; Moolyk, A.N. Proximal-to-Distal Sequencing in Vertical Jumping With and Without Arm Swing. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 1195–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vaverka, F.; Jandačka, D.; Zahradník, D.; Uchytil, J.; Farana, R.; Supej, M.; Vodičar, J. Effect of an Arm Swing on Countermovement Vertical Jump Performance in Elite Volleyball Players: FINAL. J. Hum. Kin. 2016, 53, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Gerodimos, V.; Zafeiridis, A.; Perkos, S.; Dipla, K.; Manou, V.; Kellis, S. The Contribution of Stretch-Shortening Cycle and Arm-Swing to Vertical Jumping Performance in Children, Adolescents, and Adult Basketball Players. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 2008, 20, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lake, J.P.; Mundy, P.; Comfort, P.; McMahon, J.J.; Suchomel, T.J.; Carden, P. Concurrent Validity of a Portable Force Plate Using Vertical Jump Force-Time Characteristics. J. Appl. Biomech. 2018, 34, 410–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yamashita, D.; Murata, M.; Inaba, Y. Effect of Landing Posture on Jump Height Calculated from Flight Time. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rago, V.; Brito, J.; Figueiredo, P.; Carvalho, T.; Fernandes, T.; Fonseca, P.; Rebelo, A. Countermovement Jump Analysis Using Different Portable Devices: Implications for Field Testing. Sports 2018, 6, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Aragón, L.F. Evaluation of Four Vertical Jump Tests: Methodology, Reliability, Validity, and Accuracy. Meas. Phys. Edu. Exer. Sci. 2000, 4, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Willy, R.W. Innovations and pitfalls in the use of wearable devices in the prevention and rehabilitation of running related injuries. Phys. Ther. Sport 2018, 29, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Windt, J.; MacDonald, K.; Taylor, D.; Zumbo, B.D.; Sporer, B.C.; Martin, D.T. “To Tech or Not to Tech?” A Critical Decision-Making Framework for Implementing Technology in Sport. J. Athl. Train. 2020, 55, 902–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McMaster, D.T.; Tavares, F.; O’Donnell, S.; Driller, M. Validity of Vertical Jump Measurement Systems. Meas. Phys. Edu. Exer. Sci. 2021, 25, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Montalvo, S.; Gonzalez, M.P.; Dietze-Hermosa, M.S.; Eggleston, J.D.; Dorgo, S. Common Vertical Jump and Reactive Strength Index Measuring Devices: A Validity and Reliability Analysis. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 1234–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Iglesias-Caamaño, M.; Álvarez-Yates, T.; Carballo-López, J.; Cuba-Dorado, A.; García-García, O. Interday Reliability of a Testing Battery to Assess Lateral Symmetry and Performance in Well-Trained Volleyball Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 895–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cormack, S.J.; Newton, R.U.; McGuigan, M.R.; Doyle, T.L.A. Reliability of Measures Obtained During Single and Repeated Countermovement Jumps. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2008, 3, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Dobbin, N.; Hunwicks, R.; Highton, J.; Twist, C. A Reliable Testing Battery for Assessing Physical Qualities of Elite Academy Rugby League Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 3232–3238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Heishman, A.D.; Curtis, M.A.; Saliba, E.N.; Hornett, R.J.; Malin, S.K.; Weltman, A.L. Comparing Performance During Morning vs. Afternoon Training Sessions in Intercollegiate Basketball Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 1557–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Street, G.; McMillan, S.; Board, W.; Rasmussen, M.; Heneghan, J.M. Sources of Error in Determining Countermovement Jump Height with the Impulse Method. J. Appl. Biomech. 2001, 17, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sado, N.; Yoshioka, S.; Fukashiro, S. Free-leg side elevation of pelvis in single-leg jump is a substantial advantage over double-leg jump for jumping height generation. J. Biomech. 2020, 104, 109751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement Between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement. Lancet 1986, 327, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Atkinson, G.; Nevill, A.M. Statistical Methods for Assessing Measurement Error (Reliability) in Variables Relevant to Sports Medicine. Sports Med. 1998, 26, 217–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016, 15, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Applying the Right Statistics: Analyses of Measurement Studies. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2003, 22, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J. Biopharm. Stat. 2007, 17, 571–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. García-Ramos, A.; Pérez-Castilla, A.; Martín, F. Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the Velowin Optoelectronic System to Measure Movement Velocity During the Free-Weight Back Squat. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2018, 13, 737–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hopkins, W.G. A Scale of Magnitudes for Effect Statistics: A New View of Statistics. Sportscience 2002, 502, 411. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lake, J.P.; Augustus, S.; Austin, K.; Mundy, P.; McMahon, J.J.; Comfort, P.; Haff, G.G. The Validity of the Push Band 2.0 During Vertical Jump Performance. Sports 2018, 6, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lajimi, S.A.M.; McPhee, J. A comprehensive filter to reduce drift from Euler angles, velocity, and position using an IMU. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 30th Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), Windsor, ON, Canada, 30 April–3 May 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hara, M.; Shibayama, A.; Takeshita, D.; Fukashiro, S. The Effect of Arm Swing on Lower Extremities in Vertical Jumping. J. Biomech. 2006, 39, 2503–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Feltner, M.E.; Fraschetti, D.J.; Crisp, R.J. Upper Extremity Augmentation of Lower Extremity Kinetics during Countermovement Vertical Jumps. J. Sports Sci. 1999, 17, 449–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bishop, C.; Shrier, I.; Jordan, M. Ratio Data: Understanding Pitfalls and Knowing When to Standardise. Symmetry 2023, 15, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Comyns, T.M.; Murphy, J.; O’Leary, D. Reliability, Usefulness, and Validity of Field-Based Vertical Jump Measuring Devices. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2023, 37, 1594–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Illustration of the countermovement jump tasks: without arm swing (CMJNAS; left) and with arm swing (CMJAS; right).
Figure 1. Illustration of the countermovement jump tasks: without arm swing (CMJNAS; left) and with arm swing (CMJAS; right).
Biomechanics 05 00045 g001
Figure 2. Force–time curves of vertical ground reaction forces (GRFv) from the left and right legs during a countermovement jump, showing key events and definitions. SD = standard deviation; BW = body weight.
Figure 2. Force–time curves of vertical ground reaction forces (GRFv) from the left and right legs during a countermovement jump, showing key events and definitions. SD = standard deviation; BW = body weight.
Biomechanics 05 00045 g002
Figure 3. Correlations between CMJ height for FPimp, FPtime, and PUSH2.
Figure 3. Correlations between CMJ height for FPimp, FPtime, and PUSH2.
Biomechanics 05 00045 g003
Table 1. Intra-session reliability of the CMJ height from FPimp, FPtime, and PUSH2.
Table 1. Intra-session reliability of the CMJ height from FPimp, FPtime, and PUSH2.
Day 1Day 2
Mean CV (95% CI)ICC2,1 (95% CI)Mean CV (95% CI)ICC2,1 (95% CI)
CMJNASFPimp1.89 (1.26, 2.52)0.98 (0.96, 0.99)2.21 (1.45, 2.98)0.97 (0.93, 0.99)
FPtime1.91 (1.31, 2.52)0.97 (0.94, 0.99)2.48 (1.63, 3.33)0.95 (0.89, 0.98)
PUSH21.98 (1.40, 2.57)0.98 (0.95, 0.99)2.37 (1.38, 3.35)0.93 (0.86, 0.97)
CMJASFPimp1.68 (1.15, 2.21)0.97 (0.94, 0.99)1.56 (0.97, 2.15)0.98 (0.95, 0.99)
FPtime1.99 (1.33, 2.65)0.96 (0.92, 0.99)2.06 (1.29, 2.83)0.96 (0.90, 0.98)
PUSH21.60 (1.21, 2.84)0.96 (0.91, 0.98)1.69 (1.22, 2.17)0.96 (0.91, 0.98)
FPimp = impulse–momentum method using force platforms; FPtime = flight time method using force platforms; PUSH2 = PUSH Band 2.0; CMJNAS = countermovement jump without arm swing; CMJAS = countermovement jump with arm swing; CV = coefficient of variation; CI = confidence interval; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient.
Table 2. Comparison of CMJ heights measured using three methods across two jump modalities, with corresponding inter-day reliability.
Table 2. Comparison of CMJ heights measured using three methods across two jump modalities, with corresponding inter-day reliability.
Mean ± SD
(Day 1)
Mean ± SD
(Day 2)
ICC2,1
(95% CI)
CMJNAS (cm)
FPimp40.04 ± 6.3639.86 ± 6.190.97 (0.93, 0.99)
FPtime42.27 ± 6.26 41.86 ± 5.87 0.96 (0.90, 0.99)
PUSH244.03 ± 6.46 † ‡43.24 ± 5.41 † ‡0.96 (0.89, 0.98)
CMJAS (cm)
FPimp44.90 ± 6.07 *44.41 ±6.18 *0.96 (0.91, 0.99)
FPtime46.67 ± 5.55 *45.92 ± 6.17 *0.95 (0.86, 0.98)
PUSH250.68 ± 7.72 † ‡ *49.42 ± 6.87 † ‡ *0.94 (0.81, 0.98)
AIabs (cm)
FPimp4.86 ± 2.184.54 ± 2.160.77 (0.48, 0.91)
FPtime4.40 ± 2.684.05 ± 2.130.65 (0.28, 0.85)
PUSH26.65 ± 3.50 † ‡6.18 ± 2.86 † ‡0.81 (0.57, 0.93)
AIrel (%)
FPimp12.72 ± 6.26 11.77 ± 5.810.74 (0.44, 0.89)
FPtime10.75 ± 6.379.91 ± 5.500.62 (0.23, 0.84)
PUSH215.39 ± 8.29 14.37 ± 6.54 0.78 (0.50, 0.91)
FPimp = impulse–momentum method using force platforms; FPtime = flight time method using force platforms; PUSH2 = PUSH Band 2.0; CMJNAS = countermovement jump without arm swing; CMJAS = countermovement jump with arm swing; AIabs = absolute arm contribution index; AIrel = relative arm contribution index; CV = coefficient of variation; CI = confidence interval; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient. * Significantly higher than CMJNAS (p < 0.05). Significantly higher than FPimp (p < 0.05). Significantly higher than FPtime (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Systematic bias, proportional bias, and concurrent reliability of CMJ height measurements.
Table 3. Systematic bias, proportional bias, and concurrent reliability of CMJ height measurements.
Day 1Day 2
Systematic Bias
(cm) (95% LoA)
R2ICC3,1
(95% CI)
Systematic Bias
(cm) (95% LoA)
R2ICC3,1
(95% CI)
CMJNAS
FPtime vs. FPimp2.23 (−1.83, 6.29)<0.010.95 (0.87, 0.98)2.00 (−2.24, 6.24)0.020.95 (0.86, 0.98)
PUSH2 vs. FPimp3.99 (−0.73, 8.72)<0.010.94 (0.84, 0.98)3.38 (−0.97, 7.73)0.170.94 (0.84, 0.98)
PUSH2 vs. FPtime1.76 (−1.89, 5.42)<0.010.96 (0.90, 0.99)1.38 (−3.69, 6.46)0.120.96 (0.89, 0.98)
CMJAS
FPtime vs. FPimp1.77 (−3.16, 6.70)0.040.93 (0.83, 0.98)1.51 (−3.31, 6.33)<0.010.93 (0.84, 0.98)
PUSH2 vs. FPimp5.78 (−0.16, 11.82)0.150.91 (0.77, 0.97)5.01 (−1.47, 11.50)<0.010.88 (0.70, 0.95)
PUSH2 vs. FPtime4.01 (−1.27, 9.29)0.060.93 (0.83, 0.97)3.50 (−1.03, 8.04)<0.010.94 (0.86, 0.98)
FPimp = impulse–momentum method using force platforms; FPtime = flight time method using force platforms; PUSH2 = PUSH Band 2.0; CMJNAS = countermovement jump without arm swing; CMJAS = countermovement jump with arm swing; LoA = limit of agreement; CI = confidence interval. R2 = coefficient of determination. The 95% LoA was corrected for repeated measures [33].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yamashita, D.; Henderson, F.J.; Ishida, Y. Assessing the Contribution of Arm Swing to Countermovement Jump Height Using Three Different Measurement Methods in Physically Active Men. Biomechanics 2025, 5, 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics5030045

AMA Style

Yamashita D, Henderson FJ, Ishida Y. Assessing the Contribution of Arm Swing to Countermovement Jump Height Using Three Different Measurement Methods in Physically Active Men. Biomechanics. 2025; 5(3):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics5030045

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yamashita, Daichi, Frederick James Henderson, and Yuko Ishida. 2025. "Assessing the Contribution of Arm Swing to Countermovement Jump Height Using Three Different Measurement Methods in Physically Active Men" Biomechanics 5, no. 3: 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics5030045

APA Style

Yamashita, D., Henderson, F. J., & Ishida, Y. (2025). Assessing the Contribution of Arm Swing to Countermovement Jump Height Using Three Different Measurement Methods in Physically Active Men. Biomechanics, 5(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics5030045

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop