A systematic review of the different calculation methods for measuring jump height during the countermovement and drop jump tests

Xu, J, Turner, A, Comfort, P ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1131-8626, Harry, J, McMahon, JJ ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9952-7846, Chavda, S and Bishop, C 2023, 'A systematic review of the different calculation methods for measuring jump height during the countermovement and drop jump tests' , Sports Medicine, 11 .

	PDF - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only until 20 March 2024. Download (888kB) | Request a copy
Preview	PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Background The height obtained during the countermovement jump (CMJ) and drop jump (DJ) 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 CMJ and DJ. 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 to 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.

Item Type:	Article
Schools:	Schools > School of Health and Society > Centre for Health Sciences Research
Journal or Publication Title:	Sports Medicine
Publisher:	Springer
ISSN:	0112-1642
Depositing User:	Professor Paul Comfort
Date Deposited:	20 Feb 2023 12:17
Last Modified:	21 Mar 2023 10:15
URI:	https://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/66480

Actions (login required)

Edit record (repository staff only)