Cargando…

Validity Study of a Jump Mat Compared to the Reference Standard Force Plate

BACKGROUND: In the field of vertical jump diagnostics, force plates (FP) are the reference standard. Recently, despite a lack of evidence, jump mats have been used increasingly. Important factors in favor of jumping mats are their low cost and portability. OBJECTIVES: This validity study compared th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rogan, Slavko, Radlinger, Lorenz, Imhasly, Caroline, Kneubuehler, Andrea, Hilfiker, Roger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Kowsar 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4691308/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26715970
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/asjsm.25561
_version_ 1782407134565105664
author Rogan, Slavko
Radlinger, Lorenz
Imhasly, Caroline
Kneubuehler, Andrea
Hilfiker, Roger
author_facet Rogan, Slavko
Radlinger, Lorenz
Imhasly, Caroline
Kneubuehler, Andrea
Hilfiker, Roger
author_sort Rogan, Slavko
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the field of vertical jump diagnostics, force plates (FP) are the reference standard. Recently, despite a lack of evidence, jump mats have been used increasingly. Important factors in favor of jumping mats are their low cost and portability. OBJECTIVES: This validity study compared the Haynl-Elektronik jump mat (HE jump mat) with the reference standard force plate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers participated and each participant completed three series of five drop jumps (DJ). The parameters ground contact time (GCT) and vertical jump height (VJH) from the HE jump mat and the FP were used to evaluate the concurrent validity. The following statistical calculations were performed: Pearson's correlation (r), Bland-Altman plots (standard and for adjusted trend), and regression equations. RESULTS: The Bland-Altman plots suggest that the HE jump mat measures shorter contact times and higher jump heights than the FP. The trend-adjusted Bland-Altman plot shows higher mean differences and wider wing-spreads of confidence limits during longer GCT. During the VJH the mean differences and the wing-spreads of the confidence limits throughout the range present as relatively constant. The following regression equations were created, as close as possible to the true value: GCT = 5.920385 + 1.072293 × [value HE jump mat] and VJH = -1.73777 + 1.011156 × [value HE jump mat]. CONCLUSIONS: The HE jump mat can be recommended in relation to the validity of constraints. In this study, only a part of the quality criteria were examined. For the final recommendation it is advised to examine the HE jump mat on the other quality criteria (test-retest reliability, sensitivity change).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4691308
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Kowsar
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46913082015-12-29 Validity Study of a Jump Mat Compared to the Reference Standard Force Plate Rogan, Slavko Radlinger, Lorenz Imhasly, Caroline Kneubuehler, Andrea Hilfiker, Roger Asian J Sports Med Brief Report BACKGROUND: In the field of vertical jump diagnostics, force plates (FP) are the reference standard. Recently, despite a lack of evidence, jump mats have been used increasingly. Important factors in favor of jumping mats are their low cost and portability. OBJECTIVES: This validity study compared the Haynl-Elektronik jump mat (HE jump mat) with the reference standard force plate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers participated and each participant completed three series of five drop jumps (DJ). The parameters ground contact time (GCT) and vertical jump height (VJH) from the HE jump mat and the FP were used to evaluate the concurrent validity. The following statistical calculations were performed: Pearson's correlation (r), Bland-Altman plots (standard and for adjusted trend), and regression equations. RESULTS: The Bland-Altman plots suggest that the HE jump mat measures shorter contact times and higher jump heights than the FP. The trend-adjusted Bland-Altman plot shows higher mean differences and wider wing-spreads of confidence limits during longer GCT. During the VJH the mean differences and the wing-spreads of the confidence limits throughout the range present as relatively constant. The following regression equations were created, as close as possible to the true value: GCT = 5.920385 + 1.072293 × [value HE jump mat] and VJH = -1.73777 + 1.011156 × [value HE jump mat]. CONCLUSIONS: The HE jump mat can be recommended in relation to the validity of constraints. In this study, only a part of the quality criteria were examined. For the final recommendation it is advised to examine the HE jump mat on the other quality criteria (test-retest reliability, sensitivity change). Kowsar 2015-12-01 2015-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4691308/ /pubmed/26715970 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/asjsm.25561 Text en Copyright © 2015, Sports Medicine Research Center. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Brief Report
Rogan, Slavko
Radlinger, Lorenz
Imhasly, Caroline
Kneubuehler, Andrea
Hilfiker, Roger
Validity Study of a Jump Mat Compared to the Reference Standard Force Plate
title Validity Study of a Jump Mat Compared to the Reference Standard Force Plate
title_full Validity Study of a Jump Mat Compared to the Reference Standard Force Plate
title_fullStr Validity Study of a Jump Mat Compared to the Reference Standard Force Plate
title_full_unstemmed Validity Study of a Jump Mat Compared to the Reference Standard Force Plate
title_short Validity Study of a Jump Mat Compared to the Reference Standard Force Plate
title_sort validity study of a jump mat compared to the reference standard force plate
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4691308/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26715970
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/asjsm.25561
work_keys_str_mv AT roganslavko validitystudyofajumpmatcomparedtothereferencestandardforceplate
AT radlingerlorenz validitystudyofajumpmatcomparedtothereferencestandardforceplate
AT imhaslycaroline validitystudyofajumpmatcomparedtothereferencestandardforceplate
AT kneubuehlerandrea validitystudyofajumpmatcomparedtothereferencestandardforceplate
AT hilfikerroger validitystudyofajumpmatcomparedtothereferencestandardforceplate