Fitness Research Facility, Department of Kinesiology, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas; and.
Stanley E. Fulton Gait Research and Movement Analysis Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas.
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 May 1;35(5):1234-1243. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003988.
Montalvo, S, Gonzalez, MP, Dietze-Hermosa, M, Eggleston, JD, and Dorgo, S. Common vertical jump and reactive strength index measuring devices: A validity and reliability analysis. J Strength Cond Res 35(5): 1234-1243, 2021-Several field-test devices exist to assess vertical jump, but they either lack proper validation or have been validated for the countermovement jump (CMJ) only. This study aimed to quantify the validity and reliability of metrics, including jump height and the calculated reactive strength index (RSI), obtained using the flight-time method from 4 different assessment devices with 3 different vertical jump modalities in comparison to a force platform (criterion assessment). The Optojump, Push-Band 2.0, MyJump2 mobile application, and What'sMyVert mobile application were used synchronously and together with the force platforms. Thirty subjects (17 males and 13 females; age ± SD: 23.37 ± 1.87 years) performed 5 repetitions of CMJ, squat jump (SQJ), and drop jump (DJ) with a standardized 90° knee flexion for all jumps. Relative reliability was determined by intraclass correlation (ICC) and absolute reliability by coefficient of variation (CV) analyses. Excellent reliability was considered as ICC > 0.9 and CV < 10%. Validity was obtained through an ordinary least products regression, ICC, and CV. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Reliability was excellent on jump height for the CMJ (ICC ≥ 0.98; CV ≤ 8.14%) for all instruments. With the exception of the Optojump, all instruments also had excellent reliability for the SQJ (ICC ≥ 0.98; CV ≤ 6.62) and DJ (ICC ≥ 0.94; CV ≤ 8.19). For the RSI metric, all instruments had excellent relative reliability (ICC ≥ 0.92), but none had excellent absolute reliability (CV ≥ 12.5%). The MyJump2 and What'sMyVert apps showed excellent validity on all jump modalities and RSI. The Optojump and Push-Band 2.0 devices both showed system and proportional bias for several jump modalities and RSI. Overall, both mobile applications may provide coaches with a cost-effective and reliable measurement of various vertical jumps.
蒙塔尔沃、冈萨雷斯、迪泽-埃格洛萨、埃格莱斯顿和多尔戈。常见的垂直跳跃和反应强度指数测量设备：有效性和可靠性分析。《力量与调节研究杂志》35（5）：1234-1243，2021 年-有几种现场测试设备可用于评估垂直跳跃，但它们要么缺乏适当的验证，要么仅针对反向跳跃（CMJ）进行了验证。本研究旨在通过与力台（标准评估）比较，量化使用飞行时间法从 4 种不同的评估设备和 3 种不同的垂直跳跃方式获得的跳跃高度和计算出的反应强度指数（RSI）的指标的有效性和可靠性。Optojump、Push-Band 2.0、MyJump2 移动应用程序和 What'sMyVert 移动应用程序被同步使用，与力台一起使用。30 名受试者（17 名男性和 13 名女性；年龄±标准差：23.37±1.87 岁）以标准化的 90°膝关节屈曲进行 5 次 CMJ、深蹲跳（SQJ）和跳落（DJ）。相对可靠性通过组内相关系数（ICC）和变异系数（CV）分析确定。极好的可靠性被定义为 ICC＞0.9，CV＜10%。通过普通最小二乘法回归、ICC 和 CV 获得有效性。置信水平设置为 p＜0.05。对于所有仪器，CMJ 的跳跃高度的可靠性均为优秀（ICC≥0.98；CV≤8.14%）。除了 Optojump，所有仪器对 SQJ（ICC≥0.98；CV≤6.62）和 DJ（ICC≥0.94；CV≤8.19）的可靠性也很好。对于 RSI 指标，所有仪器的相对可靠性均为优秀（ICC≥0.92），但没有一个仪器的绝对可靠性达到优秀水平（CV≥12.5%）。MyJump2 和 What'sMyVert 应用程序在所有跳跃模式和 RSI 上均表现出极好的有效性。Optojump 和 Push-Band 2.0 设备在多个跳跃模式和 RSI 上都表现出系统和比例偏差。总的来说，这两个移动应用程序可能为教练提供一种具有成本效益且可靠的测量各种垂直跳跃的方法。
