Abstract des Autors

A Vertec jump measurement and training system measures vertical jump heights but not additional variables that would reveal how the performance was achieved. Technology advances to equipment now include additional variables that elucidate how jump performance is achieved. However, acceptance of new jump-related equipment is predicated on the reliability of the vertical heights it measures in relation to those assessed by the Vertec. Thus, our study compared vertical jump height reliability data from a newly created instrumented platform to those concurrently derived from the Vertec. Methods required subjects (n = 105) to perform 2 jump trials separated by at least 2 days of rest. Trials began with a warm-up, followed by 3 to 5 maximal-effort jumps. The Vertec was placed directly over the platform so, as jumps occurred, subjects took off and landed on the instrumented device. At the jump apex subjects contacted the highest Vertec slapstick possible to assess maximum height attained. Four height measurements were derived from each jump: 3 platform-based calculations (from subject’s take-off, hang time, and landing) and 1 Vertec. The platform-based calculations were compared to Vertec data to assess the reliability of the instrumented device. Intraclass correlation coefficient (0.90), coefficient of variation (17.3%), standard error of measurement (0.9 cm), and smallest real difference (3.7 cm) results showed heights calculated from platform take-offs were most reliable to Vertec values. It was concluded take-off from the platform yielded jump heights that are a viable alternative to those derived from the Vertec. Practical applications suggest coaches may use the platform to derive reliable vertical jump data in addition to other variables to better understand the performance of their athletes. Verf.-Referat