Vertical jump is one of the most prevalent acts performed in several sport activities. It is therefore important to ensure that the measurements of vertical jump height made as a part of research or athlete support work have adequate validity and reliability. The aim of this study was to evaluate concurrent validity and reliability of the Optojump photocell system (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) with force plate measurements for estimating vertical jump height. Twenty subjects were asked to perform maximal squat jumps and countermovement jumps, and flight time-derived jump heights obtained by the force plate were compared with those provided by Optojump, to examine its concurrent (criterion-related) validity (study 1). Twenty other subjects completed the same jump series on 2 different occasions (separated by 1 week), and jump heights of session 1 were compared with session 2, to investigate test-retest reliability of the Optojump system (study 2). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for validity were very high (0.997-0.998), even if a systematic difference was consistently observed between force plate and Optojump (-1.06 cm; p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability of the Optojump system was excellent, with ICCs ranging from 0.982 to 0.989, low coefficients of variation (2.7%), and low random errors (±2.81 cm). The Optojump photocell system demonstrated strong concurrent validity and excellent test-retest reliability for the estimation of vertical jump height. We propose the following equation that allows force plate and Optojump results to be used interchangeably: force plate jump height (cm) = 1.02 × Optojump jump height + 0.29. In conclusion, the use of Optojump photoelectric cells is legitimate for field-based assessments of vertical jump height.

BackgroundThe aims of this study were to evaluate the construct validity (known group), concurrent validity (criterion based) and test-retest (intra-rater) reliability of manual goniometers to measure passive hip range of motion (ROM) in femoroacetabular impingement patients and healthy controls.MethodsPassive hip flexion, abduction, adduction, internal and external rotation ROMs were simultaneously measured with a conventional goniometer and an electromagnetic tracking system (ETS) on two different testing sessions. A total of 15 patients and 15 sex- and age-matched healthy controls participated in the study.ResultsThe goniometer provided greater hip ROM values compared to the ETS (range 2.0-18.9 degrees; P < 0.001); good concurrent validity was only achieved for hip abduction and internal rotation, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of 0.94 and 0.88, respectively. Both devices detected lower hip abduction ROM in patients compared to controls (P < 0.01). Test-retest reliability was good with ICCs higher 0.90, except for hip adduction (0.82-0.84). Reliability estimates did not differ between the goniometer and the ETS.ConclusionsThe present study suggests that goniometer-based assessments considerably overestimate hip joint ROM by measuring intersegmental angles (e.g., thigh flexion on trunk for hip flexion) rather than true hip ROM. It is likely that uncontrolled pelvic rotation and tilt due to difficulties in placing the goniometer properly and in performing the anatomically correct ROM contribute to the overrating of the arc of these motions. Nevertheless, conventional manual goniometers can be used with confidence for longitudinal assessments in the clinic.

The side-lying body position offers the most valid and reliable assessment of unilateral hip abductor strength.

We evaluated the use of direct muscle stimulation for quantifying quadriceps inactivation at different contraction levels as opposed to conventional twitch interpolation using nerve stimulation. Fourteen healthy volunteers were tested. Paired stimuli were delivered to the femoral nerve or to the quadriceps muscle belly during voluntary contractions ranging from 20% to 100% of maximum, and the amplitude of the superimposed doublet was quantified to investigate inactivation. Superimposed doublet for muscle and nerve stimulation, respectively between the range of 60% to 100% of maximum (e.g., at 100%, muscle stimulation was 14 ± 5 Nm and nerve stimulation was 15 ± 6 Nm). Despite higher current doses, muscle stimulation was associated with less discomfort than nerve stimulation (P < 0.05). Collectively, our data suggest that direct muscle stimulation could be used to assess quadriceps inactivation at maximal and quasi-maximal contraction levels as a valid alternative to motor nerve stimulation.

No abstract