Abstract
The drop jump (DJ) is commonly utilised to assess athletes. The criterion two force platform (2FP) method of assessing DJ performance involves two adjacent force platforms, one for the box and one for the athlete to rebound from. Most researchers and practitioners only have access to one force platform (1FP) and they rarely account for the often considerable discrepancy between box height and drop height (DH). Therefore, this study aimed to determine the criterion validity of evaluating DJ performance with 1FP. Twenty-six young male sports students performed three DJs, from a 0.30 m and 0.40 m high box, on two adjacent force platforms. The DH, touchdown velocity and several performance variables were calculated using the 2FP and 1FP methods. Ordinary least-products regression identified no fixed or proportional bias between methods for any DJ variable. The mean DH was 10% lower than the 0.30 m box and 14% lower than the 0.40 m high box. This discrepancy highlights the importance of accounting for DH when conducting DJ assessments. In conclusion, the 1FP method of evaluating DJ performance is a valid alternative to the criterion 2FP method and could be embedded into automated force analysis software for researchers and practitioners to utilise.
Highlights
1FP method of evaluating drop jump (DJ) performance is a valid alternative to the criterion 2FP method and could be embedded into automated force analysis software for researchers and practitioners to utilise
Twenty-six participants were deemed appropriate for the study as it was a similar sample size (n = 22–28) to other recent concurrent validity studies that included vertical jumping tasks performed on a force platform and ordinary least products regression analyses as the main statistical approach [11,12]
The presented 1FP method of evaluating DJ performance is a valid alternative to the criterion 2FP method
Summary
Twenty-six young male sports students performed three DJs, from a 0.30 m and 0.40 m high box, on two adjacent force platforms. The DH, touchdown velocity and several performance variables were calculated using the 2FP and 1FP methods. Ordinary least-products regression identified no fixed or proportional bias between methods for any DJ variable. DH was 10% lower than the 0.30 m box and 14% lower than the 0.40 m high box. This discrepancy highlights the importance of accounting for DH when conducting DJ assessments. The Citation: McMahon, J.J.; Lake, J.P.; Stratford, C.; Comfort, P.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
