Biology of Sport
eISSN: 2083-1862
ISSN: 0860-021X
Biology of Sport
Current Issue Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Archive Ethical standards and procedures Contact Instructions for authors Journal's Reviewers Special Information
SCImago Journal & Country Rank


2/2022
vol. 39
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Does a linear position transducer placed on a stick and belt provide sufficient validity and reliability of countermovement jump performance outcomes?

Vladimír Hojka
1
,
Petr Šťastný
1
,
James J. Tufano
1
,
Dan Omcirk
1
,
Martin T. Janikov
1
,
Martin Komarc
1
,
Radim Jebavý
1

1.
Charles University, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Prague, Czech Republic
Biol Sport. 2022;39(2):341–348.
Online publish date: 2021/04/21
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Manufacturers recommend that linear position transducers (LPTs) should be placed on the side of a barbell (or wooden dowel) to measure countermovement jump (CMJ) height, but the validity and reliability of this placement have not been compared to other attachment sites. Since this recommended attachment site is far from the centre of mass, a belt attachment where the LPT is placed between the feet may increase the validity and reliability of CMJ data. Thirty-six physical education students participated in the study (24.6 ± 4.3 years; 177.0 ± 7.7 cm; 77.2 ± 9.0 kg). Parameters from the two LPT attachments (barbell and belt) were simultaneously validated to force plate data, where the nature of bias was analysed (systematic vs random). The within-session and between-session reliability of both attachment sites were compared to force plate data using a test-retest protocol of two sets of 5 CMJs separated by 7 days. The LPT provided highly reliable and valid measures of peak force, mean force, mean power, and jump height, where the bias was mostly systematic (r2 > 0.7; ICC > 0.9). Peak velocity, mean velocity, and peak power were in very good agreement with the force plate and were highly reliable (r2 > 0.5; ICC > 0.7). Therefore, both attachment sites produced similar results with a systematic bias compared to force plate data. Thus, both attachment sites seem to be valid for assessing CMJs when the measuring tool and site remain consistent across measurements. However, if LPT data are to be compared to force plate data, recalculation equations should be used.
keywords:

Linear position transducer, Force plate, Explosive strength, Jump height, Power

 
Quick links
© 2022 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.