Leard John S, Cirillo Melissa A, Katsnelson Eugene, Kimiatek Deena A, Miller Tim W, Trebincevic Kenan, Garbalosa Juan C
Physical Therapy Department, University of Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut 06117, USA.
J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Nov;21(4):1296-9. doi: 10.1519/R-21536.1.
Vertical jump height is frequently used by coaches, health care professionals, and strength and conditioning professionals to objectively measure function. The purpose of this study is to determine the concurrent validity of the jump and reach method (Vertec) and the contact mat method (Just Jump) in assessing vertical jump height when compared with the criterion reference 3-camera motion analysis system. Thirty-nine college students, 25 females and 14 males between the ages of 18 and 25 (mean age 20.65 years), were instructed to perform the countermovement jump. Reflective markers were placed at the base of the individual's sacrum for the 3-camera motion analysis system to measure vertical jump height. The subject was then instructed to stand on the Just Jump mat beneath the Vertec and perform the jump. Measurements were recorded from each of the 3 systems simultaneously for each jump. The Pearson r statistic between the video and the jump and reach (Vertec) was 0.906. The Pearson r between the video and contact mat (Just Jump) was 0.967. Both correlations were significant at the 0.01 level. Analysis of variance showed a significant difference among the 3 means F(2,235) = 5.51, p < 0.05. The post hoc analysis showed a significant difference between the criterion reference (M = 0.4369 m) and the Vertec (M = 0.3937 m, p = 0.005) but not between the criterion reference and the Just Jump system (M = 0.4420 m, p = 0.972). The Just Jump method of measuring vertical jump height is a valid measure when compared with the 3-camera system. The Vertec was found to have a high correlation with the criterion reference, but the mean differed significantly. This study indicates that a higher degree of confidence is warranted when comparing Just Jump results with a 3-camera system study.
垂直跳高度常被教练、医疗保健专业人员以及体能训练专业人员用于客观地测量身体机能。本研究的目的是确定与标准参照3摄像头运动分析系统相比，跳碰及伸展法（Vertec）和接触垫法（Just Jump）在评估垂直跳高度时的同时效度。39名年龄在18至25岁之间的大学生（25名女性和14名男性，平均年龄20.65岁）被要求进行反向纵跳。在个体骶骨底部放置反光标记，以便3摄像头运动分析系统测量垂直跳高度。然后受试者被要求站在Vertec下方的Just Jump垫子上进行跳跃。每次跳跃时同时记录来自3个系统中的每个系统的测量数据。视频与跳碰及伸展（Vertec）之间的Pearson r统计值为0.906。视频与接触垫（Just Jump）之间的Pearson r为0.967。两种相关性在0.01水平上均具有显著性。方差分析显示3个均值之间存在显著差异，F(2,235) = 5.51，p < 0.05。事后分析显示标准参照（M = 0.4369米）与Vertec（M = 0.3937米，p = 0.005）之间存在显著差异，但标准参照与Just Jump系统（M = 0.4420米，p = 0.972）之间不存在显著差异。与3摄像头系统相比，Just Jump测量垂直跳高度的方法是一种有效的测量方法。发现Vertec与标准参照具有高度相关性，但均值存在显著差异。本研究表明，将Just Jump结果与3摄像头系统研究进行比较时，有更高的置信度保证。
