PURPOSE: To determine the concurrent validity and reliability of the popular Just Jump system (JJS) for determining jump height and, if necessary, provide a correction equation for future reference. METHODS: Eighteen male college athletes performed 3 bilateral countermovement jumps (CMJs) on 2 JJSs (alternative method) that were placed on top of a force platform (criterion method). Two JJSs were used to establish consistency between systems. Jump height was calculated from flight time obtained from the JJS and force platform. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) demonstrated excellent within-session reliability of the CMJ height measurement derived from both the JJS (ICC = .96, P < .001) and the force platform (ICC = .96, P < .001). Dependent t tests revealed that the JJS yielded a significantly greater CMJ jump height (0.46 ± 0.09 m vs 0.33 ± 0.08 m) than the force platform (P < .001, Cohen d = 1.39, power = 1.00). There was, however, an excellent relationship between CMJ heights derived from the JJS and force platform (r = .998, P < .001, power = 1.00), with a coefficient of determination (R2) of .995. Therefore, the following correction equation was produced: Criterion jump height = (0.8747 × alternative jump height) - 0.0666. CONCLUSIONS: The JJS provides a reliable but overestimated measure of jump height. It is suggested, therefore, that practitioners who use the JJS as part of future work apply the correction equation presented in this study to resultant jump-height values.
PURPOSE: To determine the concurrent validity and reliability of the popular Just Jump system (JJS) for determining jump height and, if necessary, provide a correction equation for future reference. METHODS: Eighteen male college athletes performed 3 bilateral countermovement jumps (CMJs) on 2 JJSs (alternative method) that were placed on top of a force platform (criterion method). Two JJSs were used to establish consistency between systems. Jump height was calculated from flight time obtained from the JJS and force platform. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) demonstrated excellent within-session reliability of the CMJ height measurement derived from both the JJS (ICC = .96, P < .001) and the force platform (ICC = .96, P < .001). Dependent t tests revealed that the JJS yielded a significantly greater CMJ jump height (0.46 ± 0.09 m vs 0.33 ± 0.08 m) than the force platform (P < .001, Cohen d = 1.39, power = 1.00). There was, however, an excellent relationship between CMJ heights derived from the JJS and force platform (r = .998, P < .001, power = 1.00), with a coefficient of determination (R2) of .995. Therefore, the following correction equation was produced: Criterion jump height = (0.8747 × alternative jump height) - 0.0666. CONCLUSIONS: The JJS provides a reliable but overestimated measure of jump height. It is suggested, therefore, that practitioners who use the JJS as part of future work apply the correction equation presented in this study to resultant jump-height values.
Authors: Stuart N Guppy; Yosuke Kotani; Jason P Lake; Christopher Latella; Jodie Cochrane Wilkie; Kristina L Kendall; G Gregory Haff Journal: Int J Exerc Sci Date: 2022-05-01