Countermovement Jump Analysis Using Different Portable Devices: Implications for Field Testing

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the concurrent validity, test–retest reliability, and capacity to detect changes of four different portable devices used to measure a wide range of neuromuscular parameters derived from countermovement jump (CMJ). An accelerometric device (Myotest), a jump mat (Ergojump), an optical device (Optojump), and a smartphone app (MyJump) were simultaneously examined for concurrent validity against gold-standard measures (motion-capture system and a force platform). Twenty-two CMJ-derived variables were collected from 15 healthy male subjects (n = 60 CMJs). Contraction time (CT) and eccentric duration (EccD) measurements obtained from the Myotest were moderately to largely associated with and not different from force platform measurements (r = 0.31 to 0.64, ES = 0.11 to 0.18) and showed moderate test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.92 to 0.97, coefficient of variation (CV) = 3.8 to 8.0%). Flight time (FT) and jump height (JH) from Ergojump, Optojump, and MyJump showed moderate to strong associations with gold-standard measurements (r = 0.57 to 0.98) and good test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.54 to 0.97, CV = 1.8 to 4.2). However, all portable devices underestimated JH (ES = 1.25 to 2.75). Independent of the instrument used, the analyzed CMJ variables showed good capacity to detect changes (standard error of measurement (SEM) < smallest worthwhile change (SWC)), with the exception of rate of force and rate of power development parameters, which showed marginal capacity (SEM > SWC). The Myotest is preferable to measure temporal parameters during ground contact, whereas Ergojump, Optojump, and MyJump devices may be preferable to measure FT and JH, with the Optojump being the most accurate.

Keywords

• force platform
• motion analysis
• neuromuscular assessment
• measurements
• reliability
• validity