Ruf Ludwig, Altmann Stefan, Müller Katharina, Rehborn Anja, Schindler Fabian, Woll Alexander, Härtel Sascha
TSG ResearchLab gGmbH, Zuzenhausen, Germany.
Institute of Sports and Sports Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Front Sports Act Living. 2024 Jul 9;6:1437230. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1437230. eCollection 2024.
The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity of a contact mat against force plates to measure jump height in countermovement jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) in professional soccer players.
23 male professional soccer players performed the CMJ and SJ, which were concurrently recorded using a portable contact mat (SmartJump) and a portable dual force plate system (ForceDecks). Equivalence testing between both systems (contact mat vs. force plate) and the two methods (impulse-momentum vs. flight-time and flight-time vs. flight-time) was performed compared to equivalence bounds of ±1.1 cm for the CMJ and ±1.6 cm for the SJ. Additionally, 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were computed.
Mean differences for the impulse-momentum vs. flight-time comparison for CMJ [3.2 cm, 95% CI (2.3-4.1)] and SJ [2.7 cm, (1.8-3.6)] were non-equivalent between both systems. LoA were larger than the equivalence bunds for CMJ and SJ, while ICCs were good [CMJ, 0.89, (0.76-0.95)] and excellent [SJ, 0.91, (0.79-0.96)]. As for the flight-time vs. flight-time comparison, mean differences were non-equivalent for the CMJ [1.0 cm (0.8 to 1.2 cm)] and equivalent for the SJ [0.9 cm (0.7-1.1 cm)]. LoA were narrower than the equivalence bounds for CMJ and SJ, while ICCs were excellent [CMJ, 0.995, 95% CI (0.989-0.998); SJ, 0.997, 95% CI (0.993-0.997)].
Our findings indicate that the SmartJump contact mat cannot be used interchangeably with the ForceDecks force platform to measure jump height for the CMJ and SJ.
本研究旨在评估一种接触垫与测力台在测量职业足球运动员立定跳远(CMJ)和深蹲跳(SJ)的跳跃高度时的同时效度。
23名男性职业足球运动员进行CMJ和SJ测试,同时使用便携式接触垫(SmartJump)和便携式双测力台系统(ForceDecks)进行记录。将两种系统(接触垫与测力台)以及两种方法(冲量 - 动量法与飞行时间法、飞行时间法与飞行时间法)进行等效性测试,并与CMJ的±1.1厘米和SJ的±1.6厘米的等效界限进行比较。此外,计算了95%一致性界限(LoA)和组内相关系数(ICC)。
对于CMJ,冲量 - 动量法与飞行时间法比较的平均差异为[3.2厘米,95%置信区间(2.3 - 4.1)],SJ为[2.7厘米,(1.8 - 3.6)],两种系统之间不等效。CMJ和SJ的LoA大于等效界限,而ICC良好[CMJ,0.89,(0.76 - 0.95)]且优秀[SJ,0.91,(0.79 - 0.96)]。至于飞行时间法与飞行时间法比较,CMJ的平均差异不等效[1.0厘米(0.8至1.2厘米)],SJ等效[0.9厘米(0.7 - 1.1厘米)]。CMJ和SJ的LoA比等效界限窄,而ICC优秀[CMJ,0.995,95%置信区间(0.989 - 0.998);SJ,0.997,95%置信区间(0.993 - 0.997)]。
我们的研究结果表明,SmartJump接触垫不能与ForceDecks测力平台互换使用来测量CMJ和SJ的跳跃高度。