Scholarlink

<p>The countermovement jump (CMJ) is a&#xa0;common field test used to assess neuromuscular performance and fatigue. Jump height is commonly estimated in applied and laboratory settings via the flight–time (FT) and impulse–momentum (IM) methods. This study evaluated the agreement and reliability between these two methods using a&#xa0;force plate system. Thirty-six strength-trained individuals (15&#xa0;females, 21&#xa0;males) performed multiple CMJ trials as part of a&#xa0;training intervention study. Each participant’s jump height was calculated using both methods. Agreement was analysed using Bland–Altman analysis and the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), while reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,3)) and coefficient of variation (CV) across three pre-test trials. Agreement between methods was strong (CCC = 0.875). However, the IM method yielded systematically lower jump heights than the FT method, with a&#xa0;mean difference of −2.49 cm (95% CI: −3.21 to −1.76 cm), indicating systematic overestimation by the FT method. Limits of agreement ranged from −7.67 to 2.69 cm, exceeding the predefined ±2 cm threshold. Both methods demonstrated excellent reliability (ICC = 0.99), though the IM method exhibited a&#xa0;slightly lower CV (2.72% vs. 2.91%). Despite high reliability, the methods are not interchangeable due to systematic bias. The IM method may be preferable when accuracy is critical. Practitioners and researchers should exercise caution when comparing jump height values obtained using different calculation methods.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Systematic overestimation of countermovement jump height by the flight–time method compared to impulse–momentum calculations

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月20日

查看全文
  • Erik Hobein,
  • Fabian Miltner,
  • Alexander Ferrauti,
  • Thimo Wiewelhove

摘要

The countermovement jump (CMJ) is a common field test used to assess neuromuscular performance and fatigue. Jump height is commonly estimated in applied and laboratory settings via the flight–time (FT) and impulse–momentum (IM) methods. This study evaluated the agreement and reliability between these two methods using a force plate system. Thirty-six strength-trained individuals (15 females, 21 males) performed multiple CMJ trials as part of a training intervention study. Each participant’s jump height was calculated using both methods. Agreement was analysed using Bland–Altman analysis and the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), while reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,3)) and coefficient of variation (CV) across three pre-test trials. Agreement between methods was strong (CCC = 0.875). However, the IM method yielded systematically lower jump heights than the FT method, with a mean difference of −2.49 cm (95% CI: −3.21 to −1.76 cm), indicating systematic overestimation by the FT method. Limits of agreement ranged from −7.67 to 2.69 cm, exceeding the predefined ±2 cm threshold. Both methods demonstrated excellent reliability (ICC = 0.99), though the IM method exhibited a slightly lower CV (2.72% vs. 2.91%). Despite high reliability, the methods are not interchangeable due to systematic bias. The IM method may be preferable when accuracy is critical. Practitioners and researchers should exercise caution when comparing jump height values obtained using different calculation methods.