Faculty of Science and Technology, London Sport Institute, Middlesex University, London, UK.
Directorate of Psychology and Sport, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Sports Med. 2023 May;53(5):1055-1072. doi: 10.1007/s40279-023-01828-x. Epub 2023 Mar 20.
BACKGROUND: The heights obtained during the countermovement jump and drop jump tests have been measured by numerous studies using different calculation methods and pieces of equipment. However, the differences in calculation methods and equipment used have resulted in discrepancies in jump height being reported. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to examine the available literature pertaining to the different calculation methods to estimate the jump height during the countermovement jump and drop jump. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed electronic databases, with all articles required to meet specified criteria based on a quality scoring system. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria, relating various calculation methods and equipment employed when measuring jump height in either of these two tests. The flight time and jump-and-reach methods provide practitioners with jump height data in the shortest time, but their accuracy is affected by factors such as participant conditions or equipment sensitivity. The motion capture systems and the double integration method measure the jump height from the centre of mass height at the initial flat foot standing to the apex of jumping, where the centre of mass displacement generated by the ankle plantarflexion is known. The impulse-momentum and flight time methods could only measure the jump height from the centre of mass height at the instant of take-off to the apex of jumping, thus, providing statistically significantly lower jump height values compared with the former two methods. However, further research is warranted to investigate the reliability of each calculation method when using different equipment settings. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that using the impulse-momentum method via a force platform is the most appropriate way for the jump height from the instant of take-off to the apex of jumping to be measured. Alternatively, the double integration method via a force platform is preferred to quantify the jump height from the initial flat foot standing to the apex of jumping.
背景:反跳和跳落测试中获得的高度已被众多研究使用不同的计算方法和设备进行测量。然而,由于使用的计算方法和设备不同,报告的跳跃高度存在差异。
目的:本系统评价的目的是检查有关反跳和跳落测试中估计跳跃高度的不同计算方法的现有文献。
方法:使用 SPORTDiscus、MEDLINE、CINAHL 和 PubMed 电子数据库进行系统文献回顾,所有文章都需要根据质量评分系统满足特定标准。
结果:21 篇文章符合纳入标准,涉及在这两种测试中测量跳跃高度时使用的各种计算方法和设备。飞行时间和跳-触方法为从业者提供了最短时间内的跳跃高度数据,但它们的准确性受到参与者条件或设备灵敏度等因素的影响。运动捕捉系统和双积分法从初始平足站立的质心高度测量跳跃高度,其中已知由踝关节跖屈产生的质心位移。冲量-动量和飞行时间法只能从起飞瞬间的质心高度测量到跳跃顶点,因此与前两种方法相比,提供的跳跃高度值具有统计学意义上的显著降低。然而,需要进一步的研究来调查在使用不同的设备设置时,每种计算方法的可靠性。
结论:我们的研究结果表明,使用力台的冲量-动量法是测量从起飞瞬间到跳跃顶点的跳跃高度的最合适方法。或者,通过力台的双积分法更适合量化从初始平足站立到跳跃顶点的跳跃高度。
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019-11-5
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999-3
J Strength Cond Res. 2010-6
J Strength Cond Res. 2015-2
Hum Mov Sci. 2004-4
Sports (Basel). 2019-6-27
J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2025-6-18
Front Sports Act Living. 2025-6-3
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2025-12
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2025-4-17
Front Sports Act Living. 2025-3-31
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2025-3-8
PLoS One. 2025-2-14
J Strength Cond Res. 2022-5-1
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019-11-5
J Appl Biomech. 2018-10-1