Int J Sports Med 2017; 38(02): 99-104
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-118313
Physiology & Biochemistry
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Validity of a Jump Mat for assessing Countermovement Jump Performance in Elite Rugby Players

Nick Dobbin
1   Sport and Exercise Science, University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2   Rugby Football League, Human Performance, Leeds, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
,
Richard Hunwicks
2   Rugby Football League, Human Performance, Leeds, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
,
Jamie Highton
1   Sport and Exercise Science, University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
,
Craig Twist
1   Sport and Exercise Science, University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf



accepted after revision 27. September 2016

Publikationsdatum:
08. Dezember 2016 (online)

Preview

Abstract

This study determined the validity of the Just Jump System® (JJS) for measuring flight time, jump height and peak power output (PPO) in elite rugby league players. 37 elite rugby league players performed 6 countermovement jumps (CMJ; 3 with and 3 without arms) on a jump mat and force platform. A sub-sample (n=28) was used to cross-validate the equations for flight time, jump height and PPO. The JJS systematically overestimated flight time and jump height compared to the force platform (P<0.05), but demonstrated strong associations for flight time (with R2=0.938; without R2=0.972) and jump height (with R2=0.945; without R2=0.987). Our equations revealed no systematic difference between corrected and force platform scores and an improved the agreement for flight time (Ratio limits of agreement: with 1.00 vs. 1.36; without 1.00 vs. 1.16) and jump height (with 1.01 vs. 1.34; without 1.01 vs. 1.15), meaning that our equations can be used to correct JJS scores for elite rugby players. While our equation improved the estimation of PPO (with 1.02; without 1.01) compared to existing equations (Harman: 1.20; Sayers: 1.04), this only accounted for 64 and 69% of PPO.