Original Research

Common Vertical Jump and Reactive Strength

Index Measuring Devices: A Validity and
Reliability Analysis
Samuel Montalvo,1 Matthew P. Gonzalez,1 Martin S. Dietze-Hermosa,1 Jeffrey D. Eggleston,2 and
Sandor Dorgo1
1
Fitness Research Facility, Department of Kinesiology, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas; and 2Stanley E. Fulton Gait
Research and Movement Analysis Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas

Abstract
Montalvo, S, Gonzalez, MP, Dietze-Hermosa, M, Eggleston, JD, and Dorgo, S. Common vertical jump and reactive strength index
measuring devices: A validity and reliability analysis. J Strength Cond Res 35(5): 1234–1243, 2021—Several field-test devices exist
to assess vertical jump, but they either lack proper validation or have been validated for the countermovement jump (CMJ) only. This
study aimed to quantify the validity and reliability of metrics, including jump height and the calculated reactive strength index (RSI),
obtained using the flight-time method from 4 different assessment devices with 3 different vertical jump modalities in comparison to
a force platform (criterion assessment). The Optojump, Push-Band 2.0, MyJump2 mobile application, and What’sMyVert mobile
application were used synchronously and together with the force platforms. Thirty subjects (17 males and 13 females; age 6 SD:
23.37 6 1.87 years) performed 5 repetitions of CMJ, squat jump (SQJ), and drop jump (DJ) with a standardized 90˚ knee flexion for
all jumps. Relative reliability was determined by intraclass correlation (ICC) and absolute reliability by coefficient of variation (CV)
analyses. Excellent reliability was considered as ICC . 0.9 and CV , 10%. Validity was obtained through an ordinary least products
regression, ICC, and CV. Significance was set at p , 0.05. Reliability was excellent on jump height for the CMJ (ICC $ 0.98; CV #
8.14%) for all instruments. With the exception of the Optojump, all instruments also had excellent reliability for the SQJ (ICC $ 0.98;
CV # 6.62) and DJ (ICC $ 0.94; CV # 8.19). For the RSI metric, all instruments had excellent relative reliability (ICC $ 0.92), but
none had excellent absolute reliability (CV $ 12.5%). The MyJump2 and What’sMyVert apps showed excellent validity on all jump
modalities and RSI. The Optojump and Push-Band 2.0 devices both showed system and proportional bias for several jump
modalities and RSI. Overall, both mobile applications may provide coaches with a cost-effective and reliable measurement of
various vertical jumps.
Key Words: validation, countermovement jump, squat jump, drop jump, reactive strength index

Introduction require a laboratory setup. Some of these alternative devices have

been previously validated in comparison to force platforms or
The vertical jump is frequently used as a measurement of lower-
motion capture but primarily using the countermovement jump
body power in the strength and conditioning field. Coaches and
(CMJ) as the only vertical jump modality to measure jump height.
researchers consider vertical jump height as one of the essential
To date, no comprehensive validation study has been conducted
athletic skills that translate into increased performance in the
to simultaneously assess multiple devices for different jump var-
athlete’s respective sport (8,13,14,43,49). Vertical jump training
iations and the reactive strength index (RSI).
is frequently implemented in sports that require explosive
The Optojump is a device consisting of a photoelectric cell
movements as can be seen in track and field, soccer, football,
transmitting and a receiving bar placed in a parallel position,
wrestling, and volleyball (51). Therefore, the ability to obtain
which uses signal interruption technology to record flight time
reliable performance data for the vertical jump is crucial for ex-
during the vertical jump. The Optojump offers flexible use by
ercise practitioners. The gold standard in vertical jump assess-
allowing a transportable application on various sport-specific
ment is through the use of force platforms (28) or motion capture
surfaces (i.e., gymnastic floor, track and field activities, judo mats,
technology (18,35). However, several other alternative assess-
etc.) without a laboratory setup (11,16,17,30,43,45,46). Previous
ment methods exist to evaluate vertical jump performance, in-
studies that aimed at validating the jump height for CMJ mea-
cluding mechanical vertical height reach methods (9,35), linear
sured by the Optojump device in direct comparison to force
transducers (10), contact mats (9,35), photoelectric cells such as
platforms found high validity (9,10,24,45). Glatthorn et al. (24)
the Optojump (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) device (10,24,45), as
reported high test-retest reliability, excellent intraclass correlation
well as mobile device camera-based applications (5,48). These
(ICC), and low systematic and random error through the Bland-
assessment tools may offer a field-based and cost-effective alter-
Altman analysis of vertical jump height for CMJ, as well as squat
native to force platforms or motion capture, which typically
jump (SQJ).
Address correspondence to Dr. Sandor Dorgo, [email protected]. More recently, inertial measuring unit (IMU) devices have been
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 35(5)/1234–1243 used to estimate velocity, power, and position of different barbell
ª 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association exercises (5,33,34). The Push-Band 2.0 is an IMU device that has

1234

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of Vertical Jump Devices (2021) 35:5 | www.nsca.com

been shown to have good reliability and validity during com- Methods
pound movements such as vertical jumping compared with force
platforms and motion capture (33,34). A previous study found Experimental Approach to the Problem
good reliability of the Push-Band 2.0 on peak and mean velocity This study used a single-session experimental design, where ver-
of the vertical jump despite an overestimation of 9–17% and tical jumps through CMJ, SQJ, and DJ modalities were simulta-
24–27%, respectively (34). neously and synchronously assessed by 4 field-test devices
With the rapid growth of smartphones, a video application (Optojump, Push-Band 2.0, MyJump2, and What’sMyVert mo-
(MyJump2 application) was developed to track vertical jump bile applications) along with motion capture and force platforms
performance using video analysis (5,6,48). The main advantage serving as criterion reference measures. Before vertical jump data
of this application is the cost and portability because it only re- collection, subjects attended a familiarization session composed
quires a mobile device with the application downloaded. A pre- of several practice trials of each jump modality. During the as-
vious validation study found good validity (r 5 0.995) of the sessment session, subjects were instructed to perform all jumps
MyJump2 application vertical jump measurement for CMJs in with maximal effort. Every attempt of each jump modality was
comparison to force platforms (5). At the same time, one of the recorded, and jump height was assessed by all measurement de-
main disadvantages of this application is that it requires the user vices. During the trials for the DJ modality, the same devices were
to visually select the video frames of the takeoff and landing used to determine the calculated RSI metric.
moments, which may lead to an interrater disagreement and thus
potentially inaccurate results. However, a recent study showed
good agreement between trained and untrained raters for jump Subjects
height assessment, indicating that the video application has good
interrater reliability (44). Thirty recreationally trained young adult subjects (17 males and
Reactive strength index measures the ability to rapidly 13 females; age 6 SD: 23.37 6 1.87 years) with experience in
change from downward to upward motion (26) and is a mea- plyometric training volunteered to participate in this study. The
sure of dynamic explosive jump capacity (20). Traditionally, inclusion criteria required subjects to be older than 18 years of
RSI is measured during drop jumps (DJs) by dividing jump age, be free of spine deformities and joint pain, and have no
height by ground contact time (7,20,21,32,43). Recent litera- musculoskeletal injuries for the past 6 months. Anthropometric
ture reported the MyJump2 application as a reliable and valid characteristics of subjects are displayed in Table 1. A priori
method to measure vertical jump height performance and RSI analysis was conducted on G*Power (version 3.1, Universität
during the DJ when compared with the force platform (29). An Kiel, Germany). The sample size was selected based on previous
alternative measure to RSI is a modified RSI (RSImod), which validation studies (5,33), indicating that a minimum total of 20
is computed by time to takeoff divided by flight time during the subjects were needed to obtain a large effect size of 0.5 with a
CMJ (19). However, the RSImod can only be measured on a power (1 2 b) of 0.90, and with the alpha (a) set at 0.05. A signed
force platform, whereas most of the alternative devices such as written informed consent form was obtained from each subject
the MyJump2 app (29), Push-Band 2.0, and Optojump (30) before participation. The study was approved by the University of
rely on the DJ to assess RSI as they are unable to detect the start Texas at El Paso institutional review board. (IRB ID: 1350234).
of motion during the CMJ that is necessary to measure
RSImod.
Procedures
Despite these earlier validation studies, several gaps exist in
the current literature. Previous studies have focused on the Before the vertical jump performance assessment session, an-
CMJ and failed to include other vertical jump modalities such thropometrics were measured; height was obtained from a sta-
as SQJs or DJs. Squat jumps are often used to estimate the diometer, whereas mass, body mass index (BMI) (kg·m22), and
eccentric/concentric ratio of the vertical jump by eliminating body fat percentage (BF %) were obtained through a bioelectrical
the eccentric phase of the CMJ and thus develop concentric impedance analysis (Tanita TBF-400; Tanita Corporation,
power without the utilization of the stretch-shortening cycle Arlington Heights, IL). Subjects completed a 5-minute generic
(SSC). On the contrary, subjects performing the DJ heavily rely warm-up on a treadmill at a self-selected pace, followed by 10
on the utilization of the SSC, thus it is an ideal movement to minutes of dynamic stretching exercises. The dynamic stretches
estimate the RSI (41). Consequently, by omitting the consid- included 10 repetitions of quad-stretches, front stretch kicks,
eration of these alternative vertical jump modalities, validation forward lunges, bodyweight squats, and low-intensity CMJ
studies have been lacking comprehensiveness. Furthermore, jumps. After the warm-up, each subject performed 5 repetitions of
the evaluation of RSI was absent from previous validation the CMJ, SQJ, and DJ in a randomized order. Subjects were
studies. Although in recent years the RSI has been used to de- instructed to stand with their feet placed in the center of the force
termine athletes’ ability to attenuate landing forces and platforms in preparation for the CMJ and SQJ trials. For the DJ
translate them into a peak concentric contraction in the trials, all jumps were performed using a 0.3-m box, following
shortest amount of time (20), no previous research focused on previously established protocols (19,29,41). The takeoff box was
the validation of alternative devices in reference to the RSI. placed approximately 10–15 cm behind the force platforms, and
Therefore, the objective of this study was twofold: (a) to ex- subjects were instructed to land with their feet contacting the
amine the validity of alternative vertical jump measurement middle of the force platforms. To eliminate the confounding ef-
devices compared with force platform-derived data for jump fects of the arm swing, all jumps were performed with hands
height and the RSI, and (b) to investigate the variability within placed on the iliac crests (akimbo) as recommended by previous
these assessment methods when different vertical jump mo- studies (5,9,10,18,19,24,35,36,42). For the CMJ trials, on the
dalities are used. It was hypothesized that the alternative ver- command of the researcher, subjects executed maximal effort
tical jump measuring devices will display high validity when jumps with a visually assessed 90-degree knee flexion, following
compared with force platforms. protocols practiced previously during the familiarization session.

1235

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of Vertical Jump Devices (2021) 35:5

For the SQJ, subjects were first placed in an isometric squat po- iPad (Apple, Inc., Cupertino, CA). The Push-Band 2.0 was set to
sition with knees flexed at a visually inspected 90°. Once subjects collect data at a 1,000 Hz. Finally, an iPhone X (Apple, Inc.)
assumed the squat position, researchers audibly counted to 3 mobile camera device was used to video record all jump trials at
seconds upon which subjects executed the concentric-only verti- 240 Hz. Vertical jump height was analyzed using both the
cal jumps. Subjects were instructed to avoid any countermove- MyJump2 and the What’sMyVert mobile applications, whereas
ment during the SQJ, which was practiced during the the RSI was analyzed on the MyJump2 application only. The
familiarization session and visually assessed by the researchers takeoff moment was visually selected as the first video frame in
during each jump trial. For the DJ trials, subjects were asked to which both feet left the ground, whereas landing was selected as
stand on top of the box. At the researcher’s signal, subjects were the frame in which either feet touched the ground (5).
instructed to drop off the box and land on the force platforms
followed by explosively accelerating for a vertical counter jump.
To reduce intersubject technical variability for the DJ and CMJ Statistical Analyses
trials, subjects were instructed to achieve 90-degrees of knee The IBM SPSS 23 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) and
flexion during the descending (eccentric) phase of the jump before Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) were
explosively performing triple extension (concentric phase). The used to compare the data obtained from the jump trials. A two-
90-degree knee flexion for each jump trial was visually inspected way random-effects model intraclass correlation ICC2, k(consis-
by the principal investigator and several research assistants. A tency) and coefficient of variation (CV) were conducted for each
trial was repeated if the 90-degree knee flexion was not met, or if instrument using the 5 jump trials for each of the CMJ, SQJ, and
subjects landed outside the force platforms. Subjects also needed DJ to obtain instrument test-retest relative and absolute re-
to repeat trials for all jump modalities if their hands were removed liability, respectively. Intraclass correlation greater than 0.75 was
from their iliac crest during the attempt. Subjects were given considered “good,” and ICC greater than 0.9 was considered
about one-minute rest between jump trials. “excellent” relative reliability (22). The CV was calculated as the
SD of the 5 jump trials divided by the mean of the 5 jump trials
Instrumentation. Two calibrated force platforms (AMTI OR6-7- multiplied by 100, and interpreted as “excellent” if less than 10%
100) at a sampling frequency of 1,000 Hz were used (Advanced (CV , 10%) as recommended by previous studies (2,15,29).
Mechanical Technology, Inc., Watertown, MA). The optimal Furthermore, to assess the validity of the alternative instruments
frequency cutoff was determined using a Fast-Fourier Transform compared with the force platform, a Model II regression, the
through visual inspection of the signal. Hence, a fourth-order ordinary least products (OLP) regression was used following
low-pass digital Butterworth with a cutoff at 50 Hz was used to previous recommendations (37–39). Systematic bias was con-
remove any noise, following protocols used in previous studies sidered to be present if the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the
(4,7,27). Vertical jump height was obtained from flight time, intercept (x) did not cross “0,” and proportional bias was also
where a threshold of ,10 N was used to determine takeoff and considered to be present if the 95% CI of the slope (y) did not
landing time-points, following previously recommended proce- cross “1.0” (33,34). To compare results with previous studies
dures (30,34,47). Each of the force platform jump trials was vi- (1,3,5,10,23,24,29), ICC2,k(agreement), CV, random standard
sually screened for potential errors (i.e., accidental early trigger). error, RSI, and validity analyses (OLP regressions) were included
Furthermore, the flight-time method was selected so the mea- for each jump.
surements could be methodologically consistent with the Opto-
jump (3), MyJump2 application (29), and What’sMyVert
application because all these devices use the flight-time method to Results
estimate jump height. Furthermore, subjects were instructed to
Test-retest reliability was found to be excellent for jump height for
jump and land with full extension of the knees and hips, and
all instruments for the CMJ (ICC $ 0.98; CV # 8.14%). With the
plantar flexion of the ankles through each of the jump trials to
exception of the Optojump, all instruments also had excellent
minimize the potential source of error yielded by the landing
reliability for the SQJ (ICC $ 0.98; CV # 6.62) and DJ (ICC $
posture (1,42). Drop jump height was computed based upon
0.94; CV # 8.19). For the RSI metric, all instruments had ex-
previously established protocols (5,6,9,42).
cellent relative reliability (ICC $ 0.92). However, the absolute
A 10-camera motion capture system (200 Hz; Vicon Motion
reliability (CV) was higher than the established threshold of CV ,
Systems Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom) was used to track a single
10% for all devices (Table 2). The lower limit of the 95% confi-
marker set on the sacrum. Vertical jump height from the motion
dence interval for the force platform device and the MyJump2 app
capture system was obtained by the overall vertical displacement
was within the CV , 10% threshold, but for the Optojump and
of the marker from the starting position. The optimal frequency of
Push-Band 2.0, the CV values and confidence intervals exceeded
the sacral marker was also determined through visual inspection
this threshold (19.90% [95% CI 5 15.22–24.58] and 16.89%
of the signal using a Fast-Fourier Transform. Kinematic data were
[95% CI 5 11.90–21.87], respectively), as shown in Table 2.
filtered using a low-pass Butterworth filter of 12 Hz (12,34).
Force platform and kinematic data for the sacrum marker were
exported and analyzed on Python 3.7.0 using the open-source
Table 1
Spyder integrated development environment, and custom code
Subject anthropometrics (6SD).
for data filtering and analysis.
To perform a concurrent validation of the alternative devices, All (n 5 30) Male (n 5 17) Female (n 5 13)
the Optojump bars were placed on both sides of the force plat- Age (y) 23.37 6 1.87 23.76 6 1.92 22.85 6 1.72
forms. The Push-Band 2.0 accelerometer was placed on the sub- Height (m) 1.62 6 0.29 1.60 6 0.37 1.65 6 0.10
Mass (kg) 70.85 6 17.55 77.54 6 17.97 62.11 6 12.95
jects’ iliac crest and used according to the manufacturer’s
Body fat (%) 24.11 6 6.51 23.02 6 5.91 25.54 6 6.95
recommendations. The Push-Band software was used to calculate
BMI (kg·m22) 24.92 6 4.47 26.65 6 4.75 22.65 6 2.89
vertical jump height and RSI on all jump trials using an Apple

1236

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of Vertical Jump Devices (2021) 35:5 | www.nsca.com

Table 2
Intraclass correlation and CV; test-retest consistency of the instruments through the CMJ, SQJ, DJ, and RSI.*
CMJ SQJ DJ RSI
ICC (95%
ICC (95% CI) CV (95% CI) ICC (95% CI) CV (95% CI) ICC (95% CI) CV (95% CI) CI) CV (95% CI)
Force 0.99 (0.98–0.99) 6.91 (5.26–8.57) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 4.68 (3.61–5.74) 0.98 (0.97–0.99) 8.19 (5.86–10.52) 0.97 11.92
platform (0.95–0.98) (9.10–14.74)†
Optojump 0.98 (0.97–0.99) 8.14 (6.14–10.22) 0.95 (0.92–0.97) 10.40 (6.63–14.18)† 0.94 (0.90–0.97) 12.04 (8.59–15.48)† 0.96 19.90
(0.93–0.97 (15.22–24.58)†
Push-Band 0.98 (0.97–0.99) 7.15 (5.40–8.90) 0.98 (0.96–0.99) 6.62 (4.94–8.30) 0.94 (0.90–0.97) 7.15 (5.40–8.90) 0.92 16.89
2.0 (0.87–0.96) (11.90–21.87)†
MyJump2 0.99 (0.98–0.99) 7.05 (5.65–8.46) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 4.78 (3.44–6.12) 0.98 (0.97–0.99) 7.10 (8.46–8.73) 0.97 12.49
(0.95–0.98) (8.88–16.09)†
What’sMyVert 0.99 (0.98–0.99) 5.74 (4.58–6.89) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 5.30 (3.57–7.02) 0.98 (0.97–0.99) 6.60 (5.34–7.87) — —
Motion 0.99 (0.98–0.99) 5.74 (4.59–6.90) 0.98 (0.97–0.99) 5.30 (3.58–7.03) 0.98 (0.96–0.98) 6.61 (5.34–7.88) — —
capture
*CV 5 coefficient of variation; CMJ 5 countermovement jump; RSI 5 reactive strength index; SQJ 5 squat jump; CI 5 confidence interval; ICC 5 intraclass correlation.
†Indicates mean values for absolute reliability (CV) are greater than the acceptable threshold (.10% of CV).

The Optojump and What’sMyVert app showed excellent 5 0.94), but the absolute reliability was higher than the
validity (ICC . 0.94, CV , 7.95%) with no systematic and established threshold (CV 5 10.74%), and there was a pro-
proportional bias when compared with the force platform on portional bias of overestimation of jump height (Table 4 and
vertical jump height measurement for the CMJ (Table 3). The Figure 3).
MyJump2 app showed excellent validity (ICC 5 0.99, CV 5 The MyJump2 and What’sMyVert apps displayed no systematic
2.21); however, the instrument indicated systematic bias or proportional bias with excellent ICC (0.99) and CV (2.16 and
(Table 3). For the Push-Band 2.0, although the ICC and CV 2.21%, respectively) when compared with the force platforms on
values were within the threshold (ICC 5 0.94, CV 5 8.85%), all the jumps (CMJ, SQJ, and DJ) combined (Table 4 and Figure 4).
the device showed both proportional and systematic bias, with Despite excellent ICC (0.93) and CV (8.16%) for the Optojump
an average overestimation of the CMJ height when compared when all jumps were combined, there was a proportional bias when
with the force platform (Table 3 and Figure 1). For the SQJ, the compared with the force platforms (Table 4). For the Push-Band
Optojump showed good validity (ICC 5 0.89, CV 5 9.42%), 2.0, excellent ICC (0.92) and CV (9.39%) validity were observed,
whereas the MyJump2 app and the What’sMyVert app both but a systematic bias of jump height overestimation was observed
showed excellent validity (ICC . 0.98, CV , 1.71%) and no when all jump modalities were combined (Table 4).
proportional or systematic bias (Table 3 and Figure 2). The For all of CMJ, SQJ, DJ, and combined jump assessments, a
Push-Band 2.0 showed excellent validity (ICC 5 0.94, CV 5 systematic bias was observed for the motion capture with the
8.58), but indicated systematic bias resulting in an average sacral marker placement method when compared with the force
overestimation of jump height (Table 3). platform (25.90, 27.38, 212.22, and 28.41, respectively). Also,
For the DJ, the Optojump, MyJump2 app, and What’- ICC values (0.78, 0.78, 0.6, and 0.7, respectively) and CV values
sMyVert app showed excellent validity (ICC . 0.94, CV , (23.4, 23.6, 29.2, and 25.4%, respectively) were consistently
7.11%) with no systematic and proportional bias. At the same higher than the established ICC and CV threshold for excellent
time, the Push-Band 2.0 showed good relative reliability (ICC classification consideration (Tables 3–5).

Table 3
Concurrent validation of the alternative measuring devices on the CMJ and SQJ in reference to measured jump height using the force
platform as a criterion.*
Jump Force Ordinary least products regression
height platform
(cm 6 SD) (cm 6 SD) Slope (95% CI) Intercept (95% CI) RSE (95% CI) ICC (95% CI) CV (95% CI)
CMJ (cm)
Optojump 29.93 6 9.64 27.95 6 9.58 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 21.78 (20.50 to 3.20) 4.35 (3.50–5.47) 0.94 (0.92–0.96) 7.95 (6.41–9.49)
Push-Band 2.0 29.63 6 8.89 — 1.07 (1.02–1.12)† 23.99 (25.45 to 22.45)† 4.17 (3.40–5.18) 0.94 (0.93–0.96) 8.85 (7.52–10.18)
MyJump2 27.51 6 9.65 — 0.99 (0.97–1.00) 0.63 (0.16 to 1.15)† 1.29 (0.85–2.07) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 2.20 (1.69–2.71)
What’sMyVert 27.49 6 9.60 — 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.49 (0.00 to 1.01) 1.31 (0.87–2.10) 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 2.21 (1.69–2.73)
Motion capture 38.26 6 10.82 — 0.88 (0.85–0.91)† 25.90 (27.14 to 24.56)† 2.30 (2.01–2.87) 0.78 (0.59–0.94)† 23.40 (22.20–24.50)†
SQJ (cm)
Optojump 30.85 6 9.65 27.83 6 8.94 0.92 (0.82–0.98)† 20.74 (22.70 to 1.54) 0.92 (0.82–0.98) 0.89 (0.85–0.92)† 9.42 (7.47–11.37)
Push-Band 2.0 30.06 6 9.01 — 0.99 (0.92–1.05) 22.00 (23.69 to 20.13)† 0.99 (0.92–1.05) 0.94 (0.92–0.96) 8.58 (7.21–9.94)
MyJump2 27.36 6 9.13 — 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.31 (20.04 to 0.70) 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.98 (0.97–0.99) 1.62 (1.41–1.84)
What’sMyVert 27.56 6 1.32 — 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.29 (20.08 to 0.68) 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 1.71 (1.49–1.94)
Motion capture 37.88 6 9.61 — 0.92 (0.88–0.98)† 27.38 (29.37 to 25.92)† 3.62 (2.83–4.84) 0.78 (0.11–0.92)† 23.60 (22.30–24.80)†
*CMJ 5 countermovement jump; SQJ 5 squat jump; RSE 5 random standard error; ICC 5 intraclass correlation; CI 5 confidence interval; CV 5 coefficient of variation.
†Indicates that within the 95% CI, there is systematic (intercept) or proportional bias (slope), or that mean values for ICC (absolute agreement) are lower than 0.90, or that mean values for CV are greater than 10.00%.

1237

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of Vertical Jump Devices (2021) 35:5

Figure 1. Scatter plot with ordinary least products (OLP) regression between force platform vs. Optojump, Push-Band 2.0,
MyJump2 application, and What’sMyVert application (from top to bottom and left to right) of the CMJ. CMJ 5 counter-
movement jump.

Although the Push-Band 2.0 showed an excellent ICC for RSI Discussion
values (ICC 5 0.94), there was a proportional bias and CV
The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive vali-
greater than the threshold (CV 5 15.43%). For the Optojump,
dation and reliability analysis of multiple vertical jump modalities
CV was greater than threshold for RSI values (CV 5 37.69%) and
through different vertical jump measuring devices. The results in-
ICC was classified as good (ICC 5 0.89). Also, both systematic
and proportional bias were observed for the Optojump device. dicated that all measurement devices provided an excellent test-
Finally, the MyJump2 app demonstrated no systematic or pro- retest reliability for the CMJ. For the SQJ and DJ, however, results
portional bias, with excellent ICC (0.98) and CV levels (2.90%) indicated that the Optojump failed to provide excellent test-retest
for the RSI metrics (Table 5 and Figure 5). reliability, whereas the other devices did. In terms of validity, the

Figure 2. Scatter plot with ordinary least products (OLP) regression of force platform vs. Optojump, Push-Band 2.0, MyJump2
application, and What’sMyVert application (from top to bottom and left to right) of the SQJ. SQJ 5 squat jump.

1238

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of Vertical Jump Devices (2021) 35:5 | www.nsca.com

Table 4
Concurrent validation of the alternative measuring devices on the DJ and all jumps combined (CMJ, SQJ, and DJ) in reference to
measured jump height using the force platform as a criterion.*
Jump Force Ordinary least products regression
height platform
(cm 6 SD) (cm 6 SD) Slope (95% CI) Intercept (95% CI) RSE (95% CI) ICC (95% CI) CV (95% CI)
DJ (cm)
Optojump 27.09 6 8.35 25.79 6 8.39 1.00 (0.90–1.06) 21.39 (23.18 to 1.17) 4.10 (3.33–5.42) 0.94 (0.92–0.96) 7.11 (5.38–8.49)
Push-Band 2.0 28.15 6 8.29 — 1.01 (0.92–1.08) 22.69 (24.65 to 20.13)† 4.58 (3.84–5.60) 0.94 (0.93–0.96) 10.74 (9.02–12.46)†
MyJump2app 25.43 6 8.31 — 1.00 (0.97–1.06) 0.12 (21.60 to 0.88) 1.30 (0.86–2.21) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 2.65 (1.66–3.64)
What’sMyVert 25.48 6 8.31 — 1.00 (0.97–1.06) 0.08 (21.62 to 0.85) 1.32 (0.19–2.22) 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 2.71 (1.75–3.70)
Motion capture 38.21 6 8.42 — 0.99 (0.94–1.05) 212.22 (214.77 to 210.05)† 3.91 (3.34–4.40) 0.60 (0.08–0.87)† 29.17 (27.31–31.03)†
All jumps
combined (cm)
Optojump 29.29 6 9.36 27.19 6 9.02 0.96 (0.91–0.99)† 21.04 (22.01 to 0.16) 4.79 (4.19–5.67) 0.93 (0.91–0.95) 8.16 (7.15–9.16)
Push-Band 2.0 29.26 6 8.75 — 1.03 (0.98–1.06) 22.98 (24.00 to 21.86)† 4.36 (3.90–4.90) 0.92 (0.89–0.94) 9.39 (8.53–10.24)
MyJump2app 26.77 6 9.08 — 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.37 (20.19 to 0.69) 1.14 (0.91–1.55) 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 2.16 (1.78–2.53)
What’sMyVert 26.84 6 9.00 — 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.29 (20.29 to 0.60) 1.16 (0.94–1.58) 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 2.21 (1.83–2.59)
Motion capture 38.12 6 9.65 — 0.93 (0.90–0.96)† 28.41 (29.48 to 27.39)† 3.46 (3.08–4.06) 0.70 (20.09–0.91)† 25.40 (24.53–26.27)†
*DJ 5 drop jump; CMJ 5 countermovement jump; SQJ 5 squat jump; CI 5 confidence interval; RSE 5 random standard error; ICC 5 intraclass correlation; CV 5 coefficient of variation.
†Indicates that within the 95% CI, there is systematic (intercept) or proportional bias (slope), or that mean values for ICC (absolute agreement) are lower than 0.90, or that mean values for CV are greater than
10.00%.

video applications (MyJump2 app and What’sMyVert apps) pre- OLP regression in the SQJ, DJ, a combination of all jumps, and the
sented a high validity on vertical jump height measurements during RSI. Only for the CMJ did the MyJump2 app display systematic
all vertical jumps (CMJ, SQJ, and DJ) and RSI measurements when bias, but not proportional bias. Moreover, the current findings
compared with the force platforms. Data from the Optojump dis- indicate excellent relative and absolute reliability with ICC values
played proportional bias for the CMJ and all jumps combined. consistently above 0.98 and CV values below 2.9% for all jump
Additionally, data from the Optojump showed both systematic or modalities and the RSI. Therefore, the MyJump2 app can be a field
proportional bias for the RSI and failed to meet the excellent substitute for the force platforms when studying jump height;
classification criteria for the RSI. The Motion Capture with the however, precaution must be taken when measuring jump height of
sacral marker placement method seemed to have systematic and the CMJ because there is a presence of systematic bias. These
proportional bias for all jump modalities and also failed to meet findings are consistent with an earlier report by Balsalobre-
excellent classification for all jumps; in fact, for the DJ, it failed to Fernandez et al. (5), in which ICC was nearly identical to our
meet even the good classification. results (ICC 5 0.99) in the CMJ. The authors reported a systematic
The current findings indicate that the MyJump2 app does not bias of 1.1 6 0.5 cm using a Bland-Altman plot, whereas the cur-
present any proportional or systematic bias, as obtained from the rent findings through the OLP regression indicated systematic bias

Figure 3. Scatter plot with ordinary least products (OLP) regression of force platform vs. Optojump, Push-Band 2.0, MyJump2
application, and What’sMyVert application (from top to bottom and left to right) of the DJ. DJ 5 drop jump.

1239

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of Vertical Jump Devices (2021) 35:5

Figure 4. Scatter plot with ordinary least products (OLP) regression of force platform vs. Optojump, Push-Band 2.0, MyJump2
application, and What’sMyVert application (from top to bottom and left to right) of all jumps combined (CMJ, SQJ, and DJ).
CMJ 5 countermovement jump; SQJ 5 squat jump; DJ 5 drop jump.

but no proportional bias. More recently, a study reported on the assessed each jump according to the MyJump2 instructions using a
validity and reliability of the MyJump2 app on DJ performance at high-capacity video camera (iPhone X at 240fps), ensuring con-
different heights and RSI (29). The study findings for ICC for a sistency and high video quality.
depth jump of 0.4 m on vertical jump height and RSI were 0.95 and The Push-Band 2.0 demonstrated high test-retest reliability
0.96, respectively, values that are close to our reported values. In (ICC and CV) for all jump modalities, with the exception of RSI,
addition, the authors reported a high validity through the Pearson where only the ICC met the excellent classification criteria but not
correlation. However, a correlation of 2 instruments (2 variables), CV. The Push-Band 2.0 demonstrated excellent validity through
as commonly performed through a Pearson’s r correlation co- the ICC and CV on all jumps and RSI, with the exception of the
efficient, does not indicate agreement between these instruments DJ, where the CV did not meet the criteria for excellent validity.
(38). Fortunately, the authors did report Bland-Altman plots and The current findings also indicate that the Push-Band 2.0 has a
indicated strong agreement; however, the Bland-Altman plots were systematic bias on all jump modalities, and proportional bias for
only constructed for RSI and not for jump height for the DJ, and the CMJ and RSI. Due to the excellent test-retest reliability of the
not interpreted. Our current results through the OLP, ICC, and CV Push-Band 2.0 in all vertical jump modalities, the Push-Band 2.0
indicate that the MyJump2 app can be a field substitute for the could potentially be used to monitor changes in vertical jump
force platforms. At the same time, it is important to notice that the height, but not in RSI. In addition, given the lack of validity and
MyJump2 app has 3 potential limitations: (a) the quality of the the presence of systematic and proportional bias, the Push-Band
video recording is dependent on the sampling frequency at which 2.0 should not be a replacement to the force platforms because it
the video is recorded, (b) the accuracy of the measurement is de- tends to overestimate vertical jump height of jumps and RSI. The
pendent on the individual managing the phone, and (c) the frame in errors in jump height estimation could be due to the band
which the actual takeoff and landing events take place. In the placement. The Push-Band 2.0 is attached to the waist through
current study, the same researcher assessed each of the trials to the manufacturer’s waist belt, which even if secured properly
ensure consistency throughout the measurements. The evaluator could have shifted during the jump. The body’s movement may

Table 5
Concurrent validation of the alternative measuring devices on RSI in reference to measured jump height using the force platform as a
criterion.*
Force platform Ordinary least products regression
RSI (6SD) RSI (6SD) Slope (95% CI) Intercept (95% CI) RSE (95% CI) ICC (95% CI) CV (95% CI)
Optojump 0.71 6 0.40 1.13 6 0.50 1.24 (1.16–1.33)† 0.24 (0.19 to 0.29)† 0.30 (0.24–0.38) 0.89 (0.85–0.92)† 37.69 (35.18–40.21)†
Push-Band 2.0 1.35 6 0.59 — 0.85 (0.76–0.91)† 20.02 (20.09 to 0.05) 0.34 (0.27–0.45) 0.94 (0.92–0.96) 15.43 (12.87–17.99)†
MyJump2 1.10 6 0.50 — 1.00 (0.96–1.02) 0.02 (0.00 to 0.07) 1.00 (0.96–1.02) 0.98 (0.97–0.99) 2.90 (1.76–4.05)
*RSI 5 reactive strength index (6SD); CI 5 confidence interval; ICC 5 intraclass correlation; RSE 5 random standard error; CV 5 coefficient of variation.
†Indicates that within the 95% CI, there is systematic (intercept) or proportional bias (slope), or that mean values for ICC (absolute agreement) are lower than 0.90, or that mean values for CV are greater than
10.00%.

1240

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of Vertical Jump Devices (2021) 35:5 | www.nsca.com

Figure 5. Scatter plot with ordinary least products (OLP) regression of force platform vs. Optojump, Push-Band 2.0, and
MyJump2 application (from top to bottom and left to right) of the RSI. RSI 5 reactive strength index.

have affected the placement of the device, which has been shown different instruments that implement distinct vertical jump height
to be a source of error in IMUs (31). Furthermore, more recently, calculation methods including the Optojump using the flight-time
Lake et al. (34) demonstrated that the Push-Band 2.0 could method while force platforms used the DIF method.
overestimate peak and mean velocity in the CMJ of approxi- Finally, the What’sMyVert video application showed no pro-
mately 9–17% and 24–27%, respectively. The authors suggest portional or systematic bias and excellent agreement (ICC .
that despite velocity being used to obtain vertical jump height 0.90, CV , 10%) for the CMJ, SQJ, DJ, and all jumps combined,
(42), peak velocity occurs before takeoff during the vertical jump, when compared with force platforms. However, the What’-
and this method does not take into account that force cannot sMyVert app currently does not automatically compute RSI, and
continue to be applied after the joints of the lower body achieve although RSI can be manually computed from the contact time
full extension. Hence, peak velocity as a method to estimate jump and flight time, the time spent on computing RSI might present a
height will lead to overestimation (34). practical limitation to coaches and athletes who might need in-
Similarly, we observed that the Optojump presented an ex- stant feedback. The What’sMyVert application is an excellent
cellent test-retest relative reliability (ICC . 0.9) for all jump field measurement video application that can be used when force
modalities and RSI; however, for the SQJ, DJ, and RSI, the device platforms are not available.
failed to meet the criteria for excellent absolute reliability (CV , It is important to note that in this study, flight time was used as
10%). Furthermore, although the Optojump showed no system- a method to measure vertical jump height for the criterion refer-
atic or proportional bias and high agreement through the ICC and ence force platform measure. This was selected for 2 reasons: (a)
CV values for the CMJ and DJ, for the SQJ and all jumps com- Optojump, MyJump2, What’sMyVert, and Push-Band 2.0 all use
bined, there was proportional bias observed. Therefore, the the flight-time method to estimate vertical jump height; therefore,
Optojump can be used to measure vertical jump height when the use of flight time allowed consistency among the modalities;
force platforms are not available; however, caution must be taken and (b) although vertical jump height can be estimated through
because there is a lack of absolute reliability on the SQJ and DJ. By different methods such as takeoff velocity, impulse-momentum,
contrast, we observed systematic and proportional bias, and no and takeoff velocity 1 displacement of the center of mass (COM)
agreement through the ICC and CV on RSI; therefore, we con- (36), these methods can induce errors when selecting the appro-
clude that the Optojump should not be used to assess RSI metrics. priate takeoff time, starting of the jump, frequency of force
Previously, the Optojump was compared to force platforms with platforms, and filtering of the signal (50). In addition, the flight-
a high ICC but with a mean standard error of the measurement of time method can also introduce error if the subject does not land
0.8 cm (3), which led to an underestimation of 231 to 227% of with proper body position. For example, a subject who lands with
the jump height in the CMJ. The authors attributed this source of increased hip, knee, or plantar flexion could increase their flight
error to the flight-time method of the Optojump and made the time, thus increasing their jump height due to error (50). To ac-
comparison to the double integration of force (DIF) method using count for this, in this study, we asked subjects to always land with
force platforms. The data indicated that there might be some their hip and knee as fully extended as possible, and their ankles
proportional bias when comparing the Optojump with force plantarflexed until ground contact, thereby seeking to decrease
platforms using the same method (flight-time method). Therefore, the presence of human error. After contact, subjects were allowed
the underestimation of vertical jump height reported by Attia to use hip, knee, and ankle flexion to attenuate force to decrease
et al. (3) could have been magnified due to the comparison of 2 the risk of injury. In addition, the fully extended landing

1241

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of Vertical Jump Devices (2021) 35:5

instructions given to the subjects could have altered their landing used as a monitoring and motivational tool due to its in-
strategy, which could be a high-risk practice for injury (25). stantaneous feedback of the data, which showed high test-retest
Hence, caution must be taken into consideration when landing reliability. However, caution must be taken when assessing
with legs fully extended. Therefore, given the aggregated sources vertical jump height with the Push-Band 2.0 and Optojump
of error that are inherent in the flight-time method, this method because these devices might present systematic as well as pro-
should be generally avoided and other vertical jump height esti- portional bias in some jumps and in the RSI, and less than ac-
mation methods (i.e., takeoff velocity and impulse-momentum) ceptable absolute reliability. In addition, the Optojump should
should be adopted if force platforms are available for jump not be used to assess RSI because it lacks reliability and validity
assessment. when compared with the force platform. Furthermore, the
In this study, in addition to the flight-time method comparison MyJump2 app showed systematic bias on the CMJ, but no
between the force platform and the alternative devices, the force proportional or systematic bias for any of the other jump mo-
platforms were compared with the motion capture using the dalities and RSI. Similarly, the What’sMyVert app did not show
COM displacement calculation. We found a large discrepancy any systematic or proportional bias for any of the jump mo-
between the 2 measures for all jump modalities and all jumps dalities. Therefore, it is concluded that these 2 video applica-
combined, as observed by the presence of systematic and pro- tions can be used as a substitute to the force platforms to
portional bias, and no agreement criteria being met for the ICC measure vertical jump height and RSI when the force platforms
and CV. This indicates that the sacral method of the motion are not available. It is worth noting these devices only provide
capture and the flight-time method from the force platform to performance metrics (vertical jump height and RSI), which can
measure jump height should not be used interchangeably. Pre- be useful for the strength and conditioning practitioners.
viously, a comparison of the force platforms and the motion However, these devices do not have the capability to provide
capture has shown no difference in vertical jump height (18). force-time characteristics of vertical jump performance and
Previous studies have modeled the pelvis to estimate jump height; cannot be used when seeking to understand strategies un-
however, it has been shown that a single sacrum marker can be derpinning vertical jump performance (7,40).
used to estimate the COM with little difference to modeling the
pelvis using 3 markers (12). A small CV (4.34%) was found be-
tween methods. It should be noted that the sacral method mea- Practical Applications
sures the overall displacement of the sacrum marker from the
standing position, whereas the force platform method takeoff and Based on the data provided, the mobile video applications
landing were obtained when the feet leave the ground and struck (MyJump2 and What’sMyVert) provide a valid and reliable
the ground again (42). This could have been the primary source of method to measure vertical jump height and RSI during CMJ,
error in the discrepancy between these 2 methods. Further in- SQJ, and DJ. This may provide a low-cost and practical al-
vestigation using different vertical jump methods from the force ternative for coaches and exercise practitioners. At the same
platform and sacrum marker placement for the motion capture, time, caution must be exercised when using the Push-Band 2.0
along with reconstruction of the pelvis, could be needed to de- or the Optojump devices because these tend to overestimate
termine the errors produced by these methods. jump height. In addition, it is also suggested that practitioners
The current study is not without limitations. For example, using any of the devices described in the current study avoid
vertical jump height was estimated using the flight-time method. using them interchangeably. The consistent use of one selected
As previously stated, subjects were instructed to jump and land device will likely allow the highest reliability for within- and
with full extension of the knees and hips, with full plantar flexion between-subject comparisons.
of the ankles to reduce any error during the estimation of the jump
height. Although our subjects were experienced with the vertical
jump, individual mechanics could have influenced and induced Acknowledgments
potential errors to the estimation of the jump height. Future The authors acknowledge the involvement of volunteers in the
studies should investigate the relationship between field measur- study during data collection. They have no conflict of interest and
ing devices using the estimation of jump height through other no relationship with the manufacturers of the products referenced
methods such as the impulse-momentum or the work-energy in this manuscript. The results of the current study do not
method. Moreover, although 90-degree knee flexion angles were constitute endorsement of the referenced products by the authors
visually determined during jumps, actual angles achieved during or the NSCA.
the various jumps may have differed. Thus, future studies may
desire to incorporate more rigorous methods to ensure subjects References
meet standardized joint angles. In addition, force platform and
1. Aragón-Vargas LF. Evaluation of four vertical jump tests: Methodology,
motion capture signals were filtered to remove noise. However, reliability, validity, and accuracy. Meas Phys Edu Exerc Sci 4: 215–228,
the data from any of the other instrumentations were not filtered 2000.
as these devices provide results and the extraction of the raw data 2. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement
is not possible, which could have also been an additional source of error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 26:
error. 217–238, 1998.
3. Attia A, Dhahbi W, Chaouachi A, et al. Measurement errors when esti-
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to mating the vertical jump height with flight time using photocell devices:
assess the concurrent validity and reliability of the Push-Band The example of Optojump. Biol Sport 34: 63–70, 2017.
2.0, Optojump, MyJump2 application, and What’sMyVert ap- 4. Baker D. Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances on power
plication in determining vertical jump height and RSI during output during upper-body complex power training. J Strength Cond Res
17: 493–497, 2003.
various types of vertical jumps. Furthermore, this study is the 5. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Glaister M, Lockey RA. The validity and re-
first to report the validity and reliability of the What’sMyVert liability of an iPhone app for measuring vertical jump performance.
video application. The Push-Band 2.0 and Optojump may be J Sports Sci 33: 1574–1579, 2015.

1242

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability of Vertical Jump Devices (2021) 35:5 | www.nsca.com

6. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Kuzdub M, Poveda-Ortiz P, Campo-Vecino JD. 29. Haynes T, Bishop C, Antrobus M, Brazier J. The validity and re-
Validity and reliability of the PUSH wearable device to measure movement liability of the my jump 2 app for measuring the reactive strength index
velocity during the back squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 30: and drop jump performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 59: 253–258,
1968–1974, 2016. 2019.
7. Barker LA, Harry JR, Mercer JA. Relationships between countermove- 30. Healy R, Kenny IC, Harrison AJ. Assessing reactive strength measures in
ment jump ground reaction forces and jump height, reactive strength in- jumping and hopping using the Optojump™ system. J Hum Kinet 54:
dex, and jump time. J Strength Cond Res 32: 248–254, 2018. 23–32, 2016.
8. Beedle B, Rytter SJ, Healy RC, Ward TR. Pretesting static and dynamic 31. Kianifar R, Joukov V, Lee A, Raina S, Kulic D. Inertial measurement
stretching does not affect maximal strength. J Strength Cond Res 22: unit-based pose estimation: Analyzing and reducing sensitivity to
1838–1843, 2008. sensor placement and body measures. J Rehabil Assist Tech Eng 6:
9. Buckthorpe M, Morris J, Folland JP. Validity of vertical jump measure- 1–12, 2019.
ment devices. J Sports Sci 30: 63–69, 2012. 32. Kipp K, Kiely MT, Geiser CF. Reactive strength index modified is a valid
10. Castagna C, Ganzetti M, Ditroilo M, et al. Concurrent validity of vertical measure of explosiveness in collegiate female volleyball players. J Strength
jump performance assessment systems. J Strength Cond Res 27: 761–768, Cond Res 30: 1341–1347, 2016.
2013. 33. Lake J, Augustus S, Austin K, et al. The reliability and validity of the bar-
11. Chelly MS, Hermassi S, Shephard RJ. Effects of in-season short-term mounted PUSH Band(TM) 2.0 during bench press with moderate and
plyometric training program on sprint and jump performance of young heavy loads. J Sports Sci: 1–6, 2019.
male track athletes. J Strength Cond Res 29: 2128–2136, 2015. 34. Lake JP, Augustus S, Austin K, et al. The validity of the push band 2.0
12. Chiu LZ, Salem GJ. Pelvic kinematic method for determining vertical during vertical jump performance. Sports (Basel) 6: 1–13, 2018.
jump height. J Appl Biomech 26: 508–511, 2010. 35. Leard JS, Cirillo MA, Katsnelson E, et al. Validity of two alternative
13. Cochrane DJ, Legg SJ, Hooker MJ. The short-term effect of whole-body systems for measuring vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res 21:
vibration training on vertical jump, sprint, and agility performance. 1296–1299, 2007.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 828–832, 2004. 36. Linthorne NP. Analysis of standing vertical jumps using a force platform.
14. Cochrane DJ, Stannard SR. Acute whole body vibration training increases Am Assoc Phys 69: 1198–1204, 2001.
vertical jump and flexibility performance in elite female field hockey 37. Ludbrook J. Comparing methods of measurements. Clin Exp Pharmacol
players. Br J Sports Med 39: 860–865, 2005. Physiol 24: 193–203, 1997.
15. Cormack SJ, Newton RU, McGuigan MR, Doyle TL. Reliability of 38. Ludbrook J. Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or
measures obtained during single and repeated countermovement jumps. methods of measurement: But which regression? Clin Exp Pharmacol
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 3: 131–144, 2008. Physiol 37: 692–699, 2010.
16. Di Cagno A, Baldari C, Battaglia C, et al. Preexercise static stretching 39. Ludbrook J. A primer for biomedical scientists on how to execute model II
effect on leaping performance in elite rhythmic gymnasts. J Strength Cond linear regression analysis. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 39: 329–335,
Res 24: 1995–2000, 2010. 2012.
17. Di Cagno A, Baldari C, Battaglia C, et al. Factors influencing performance 40. McBride JM, Kirby TJ, Haines TL, Skinner J. Relationship between rel-
of competitive and amateur rhythmic gymnastics—Gender differences. ative net vertical impulse and jump height in jump squats performed to
J Sci Med Sport 12: 411–416, 2009. various squat depths and with various loads. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
18. Eagles AN, Leigh Sayers MG, Bousson M, Lovell DI. Motion capture 5: 484–496, 2010.
system versus common force platform methodologies for vertical jump 41. McMahon JJ, Lake JP, Comfort P. Reliability of and relationship between
analysis. Int J Phys Med Rehabil 4: 1–5, 2016. flight time to contraction time ratio and reactive strength index modified.
19. Ebben WP, Petushek EJ. Using the reactive strength index modified to Sports (Basel) 6: 1–10, 2018.
evaluate plyometric performance. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1983–1987, 42. Moir GL. Three different methods of calculating vertical jump height from
2010. force platform data in men and women. Meas Phys Edu Exerc Sci 12:
20. Flanagan EP, Comyns T. The use of contact time and the reactive strength 207–218, 2008.
index to optimize Fast stretch-shortening cycle training. Strength Cond J 43. Montalvo S, Dorgo S. The effect of different stretching protocols on ver-
30: 32–38, 2008. tical jump measures in college age gymnasts. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 59:
21. Flanagan EP, Ebben WP, Jensen RL. Reliability of the reactive strength 1956–1962, 2019.
index and time to stabilization during depth jumps. J Strength Cond Res 44. Pueo B, Jimenez-Olmedo JM, Penichet-Tomás A, Bernal-Soriano MC.
22: 1677–1682, 2008. Inter-rater reliability of trained and untrained raters for measuring jump
22. Fleiss JL. Reliability of measurement. In: The Design and Analysis of height with the MyJump app. J Phys Edu Sport 18: 821–824, 2018.
Clinical Experiments. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1986. pp. 45. Rago V, Brito J, Figueiredo P, et al. Countermovement jump analysis using
1–32. different portable devices: Implications for field testing. Sports (Basel) 6:
23. Gallardo-Fuentes F, Gallardo-Fuentes J, Ramirez-Campillo R, et al. In- 1–15, 2018.
tersession and intrasession reliability and validity of the My Jump app for 46. Sattler T, Hadzic V, Dervisevic E, Markovic G. Vertical jump perfor-
measuring different jump actions in trained male and female athletes. mance of professional male and female volleyball players: Effects of
J Strength Cond Res 30: 2049–2056, 2016. playing position and competition level. J Strength Cond Res 29:
24. Glatthorn JF, Gouge S, Nussbaumer S, et al. Validity and reliability of 1486–1493, 2015.
Optojump photoelectric cells for estimating vertical jump height. 47. Simpson JD, Miller BL, O’Neal EK, Chander H, Knight AC. Ground
J Strength Cond Res 25: 556–560, 2011. reaction forces during a drop vertical jump: Impact of external load
25. Harry JR, Barker LA, Eggleston JD, Dufek JS. Evaluating performance training. Hum Mov Sci 59: 12–19, 2018.
during maximum effort vertical jump landings. J Appl Biomech 34: 48. Stanton R, Wintour SA, Kean CO. Validity and intra-rater reliability of
403–409, 2018. MyJump app on iPhone 6s in jump performance. J Sci Med Sport 20:
26. Harry JR, Barker LA, Paquette MR. A joint power approach to define 518–523, 2017.
countermovement jump phases using force platforms. Med Sci Sports 49. Vanezis A, Lees A. A biomechanical analysis of good and poor performers
Exerc 52: 993–1000, 2020. of the vertical jump. Ergonomics 48: 1594–1603, 2005.
27. Harry JR, Blinch J, Barker LA, Krzyszkowski J, Chowning L. Low-pass 50. Vanrenterghem J, De Clercq D, Van Cleven P. Necessary precautions in
filter effects on metrics of countermovement vertical jump performance. measuring correct vertical jumping height by means of force plate mea-
J Strength Cond Res, 2020. Volume Publish Ahead of Print. doi: 10.1519/ surements. Ergonomics 44: 814–818, 2001.
JSC.0000000000003611. 51. Ziv G, Lidor R. Vertical jump in female and male basketball players—A
28. Hatze H. Validity and reliability of methods for testing vertical jumping review of observational and experimental studies. J Sci Med Sport 13:
performance. J Appl Biomech 14: 127–140, 1998. 332–339, 2010.

1243

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.