Scholarlink

<p>This study explored the influence of different counter movement jump (CMJ) goals on performance, kinetics, and kinematics between 56 highly-trained and elite track and field (T&amp;F), football, and futsal athletes. Within and between-sport difference were compared when aiming to: (a) “jump as high as possible” (CMJ<sub>h</sub>) and (b) “jump as fast as possible” (CMJ<sub>f</sub>), using a mixed MANOVA and follow-up univariate mixed ANOVAs. Movement goals had a significant main effect on all variables (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Comparatively, CMJ<sub>f</sub> elicited higher mean propulsive power normalized to body mass (MPP<sub>bm</sub>, η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = 0.794) and reactive strength index modified (RSI<sub>MOD</sub>, η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = 0.755), alongside lower jump height (η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = 0.782), contraction time (ConT, η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = 0.857), propulsive displacement (η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = 0.751), and countermovement velocity (CM<sub>velocity</sub>, η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = 0.600). Sport interaction analyses revealed that T&amp;F athletes consistently outperformed the other sports in RSI<sub>MOD</sub> across both movement goals (<i>d</i> = 1.105 − 1.598). MPP<sub>bm</sub> and ConT differed significantly between T&amp;F and football (<i>d</i> = 0.947 − 1.324). A Movement goal × Sport interaction for CM<sub>velocity</sub> indicated that T&amp;F and football athletes increased CM<sub>velocity</sub> under CMJ<sub>h</sub> (<i>d</i> = 1.242 − 1.635, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) compared to CMJ<sub>f</sub>, whereas futsal players maintained similar downward motion across goals (<i>p</i> = 0.938). In conclusion, movement goals significantly modify CMJ performance variables in such athletes, and these effects are further influenced by sport specialization. Clear and goal-specific verbal instructions should be standardized in CMJ testing to ensure reliable athlete monitoring and performance evaluation.</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

Effect of movement goal on countermovement jump performance in athletes across different sports

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月18日

查看全文
  • Dario Pompa,
  • Howie J. Carson,
  • Ruggero Romagnoli,
  • Antonio Lucadamo,
  • Francesco Lagala,
  • Luca Bovolon,
  • Alessandra S. Caporale,
  • Vincenzo Manzi,
  • Marco Beato,
  • Francesco Sartor,
  • Marika Berchicci,
  • Maurizio Bertollo

摘要

This study explored the influence of different counter movement jump (CMJ) goals on performance, kinetics, and kinematics between 56 highly-trained and elite track and field (T&F), football, and futsal athletes. Within and between-sport difference were compared when aiming to: (a) “jump as high as possible” (CMJh) and (b) “jump as fast as possible” (CMJf), using a mixed MANOVA and follow-up univariate mixed ANOVAs. Movement goals had a significant main effect on all variables (p < 0.001). Comparatively, CMJf elicited higher mean propulsive power normalized to body mass (MPPbm, ηp2 = 0.794) and reactive strength index modified (RSIMOD, ηp2 = 0.755), alongside lower jump height (ηp2 = 0.782), contraction time (ConT, ηp2 = 0.857), propulsive displacement (ηp2 = 0.751), and countermovement velocity (CMvelocity, ηp2 = 0.600). Sport interaction analyses revealed that T&F athletes consistently outperformed the other sports in RSIMOD across both movement goals (d = 1.105 − 1.598). MPPbm and ConT differed significantly between T&F and football (d = 0.947 − 1.324). A Movement goal × Sport interaction for CMvelocity indicated that T&F and football athletes increased CMvelocity under CMJh (d = 1.242 − 1.635, p < 0.001) compared to CMJf, whereas futsal players maintained similar downward motion across goals (p = 0.938). In conclusion, movement goals significantly modify CMJ performance variables in such athletes, and these effects are further influenced by sport specialization. Clear and goal-specific verbal instructions should be standardized in CMJ testing to ensure reliable athlete monitoring and performance evaluation.