Resistance Training/Periodization
Crystal L. Williams
Graduate student
University of Montevallo
Montevallo, Alabama, United States
Brad M. Bowen
Head Strength and Conditioning Coach
University of Montevallo
Montevallo, Alabama, United States
Stacy H. Bishop, PhD, CSCS
Associate Professor
University of Montevallo
Montevallo, Alabama, United States
Emily Langford, PhD
Assistant Professor
University of Montevallo
Homewood, Alabama, United States
Shawn M. Mitchell
Associate Professor
University of Montevallo
Montevallo, Alabama, United States
Curtis Fennell
Associate Professor
University of Montevallo
Montevallo, Alabama, United States
Robert L. Herron, EdD (he/him/his)
Assistant Professor
University of Montevallo
Montevallo, Alabama, United States
Purpose: Vertical jump is a performance measure related to one’s lower body power, relative to their body size. However, vertical jump performance can be assessed in many ways. The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences between vertical jump performance assessed simultaneously via electronic mat and jump reach methods in Division II, NCAA male basketball athletes.
Methods: A sample of male collegiate basketball athletes (n = 15; aged 21 ± 2 y, ht. = 186.5 ± 10.2 cm, wt. = 85.6 ± 13.1 kg) participated in this study. Participants completed two vertical jump attempts, separated by at least one minute. Participants completed both jumps on an electronic mat (eVJ) while simultaneously performing a jump reach attempt (VJ). Data were recorded from the mat’s handheld computer (eVJ) and the difference between maximum reach and standing jump reach – adjusted for the thickness of the jump mat – were used to calculate the jump reach score (VJ). Attempt 1 and Attempt 2 were combined for analysis. Mean differences were investigated via paired-samples t-test (VJ vs. eVJ; α = 0.05) and contextualized via Cohen’s d. Additionally, Pearson’s correlations were implemented to investigate the relationship between assessment styles.
Results: Vertical jump scores differed between the two assessment styles (n = 30, VJ = 66.3 ± 9.0 cm, eVJ = 69.8 ± 8.7 cm; p < 0.001, d = 0.40, r = 0.91). Of note, 17 of the 30 observations showed absolute differences > 2.54 cm.
Conclusion: These data show that vertical jump scores completed via electronic jump mat or traditional jump reach method should not be used interchangeably. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Coaches and strength and conditioning professionals can use both method types but not in a process that uses the data interchangeability. For example, an eVJ could be used for daily monitoring but a traditional VJ used for athlete performance assessment – allowing both data points to be useful but within their method/mode-specific context.
Acknowledgements: None