Does Footwear Influence Countermovement Jump Parameters Used To Monitor Performance In Collegiate Basketball Players?

Abstract

The countermovement jump (CMJ) is frequently used in team sports to monitor short- and long-term changes in neuromuscular performance. Practical relevance in longitudinal changes may be subtle, requiring detailed and consistent testing protocols to limit error and allow for detection of meaningful change. Collegiate basketball players often wear different types of shoes depending upon the training activity, potentially influencing CMJ performance outcomes. PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of footwear on key CMJ performance variables used for routine monitoring strategies in a cohort of women’s collegiate basketball players. METHODS: 11 NCAA female basketball players performed three CMJs in sport- (S), training- (T), and olympic weightlifting (WL) shoes, in a randomized order in the same testing session. One-way repeated measures analyses of variance were used to discern differences in Concentric Mean Force (ConcMF), Eccentric Mean Force (EccMF), Jump Height (JH) and Reactive Strength Index Modified (RSIMod) during the CMJ among shoe conditions, with significant set at p ≤ 0.05. Effects sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated for pairwise comparisons and interpreted as trivial (0-0.19), small (0.20-0.49), medium (0.50-0.79) and large (≥0.80). RESULTS: Significant differences were detected among shoe-types for ConcMF (T = 1650.1 ± 182.4; S = 1645.1 ± 188.2; WL = 1616.6 ± 164, p = 0.008), EccMF (T = 808.6 ± 84.2; S = 810.1 ± 85.5; WL = 812.5 ± 83.9, p < 0.001), JH (T = 28.2 ± 3.3; S = 28.2 ± 3.4; WL = 27.3 ± 2.7, p = 0.004) and RSIMod (T = 0.45 ± 0.06; S = 0.44 ± 0.06; WL = 0.42 ± 0.05, p = 0.001). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed T exhibited significantly greater ConcMF (p = 0.018, d = 0.19), EccMF (p = 0.002, d = 0.05), JH (p = 0.040, d = 0.32) and RSIMod (p = 0.004, d = 0.49) compared to WL. Similarly, S demonstrated significantly greater EccMF (p = 0.014, d = 0.03), JH (p = 0.035, d = 0.33) and RSIMod (p = 0.032, d = 0.40) compared to WL. No significant differences and only trivial effects appeared between S and T (p > 0.05, d < 0.1). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest footwear significantly influences CMJ performance. Practically, controlling for footwear between S and T shoes may not be necessary when using the CMJ for routine athlete monitoring. However, WL shoes appear to significantly influence the CMJ, resulting in decreases in performance.