Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The purposes of this study were to analyze the validity and reliability of 2 photocell mats and to probe the possible influence of the type of mat (contact vs. photocell) on vertical jump height estimated from flight time. In 2 separate studies, 89 and 92 physical students performed 3 countermovement jumps that were simultaneously registered by a Force Plate (gold standard method), 2 photocell mats (SportJump System Pro and ErgoJump Plus), and a contact mat (SportJump-v1.0). The first study showed that the 2 photocell mats underestimated the vertical jump height (1.3 ± 0.2 cm and 5.9 ± 5.2 cm, respectively), but only SportJump System Pro showed a high correlation with the Force Plate (r = 0.999 and 0.676, respectively) and good intraday reliability (coefficient of variation = 2.98 and 15.94%, intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.95-0.97 and 0.45-0.57, respectively). The second study demonstrated a strong correlation (r = 0.994) between the 2 technologies (contact vs. photocell mats) with differences in vertical jump height of 2.0 ± 0.8 cm (95% confidence interval = 1.9-2.1 cm), which depended on both flight time and subjects' body mass. In conclusion, SportJump System Pro was a valid and reliable device. The new devices to measure vertical jump height from flight time should be validated. The type of mat (contact vs. photocell) affected approximately 6% the vertical jump height (approximately 2 cm in this study), which should be considered in further studies. The use of validated photocell mats instead of the contact mats was recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
García-López et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: