The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the concurrent validity and test-retest repeatability of torso-worn IMU-derived power and jump height in a counter-movement jump test. Twenty-seven healthy recreationally active males (age, 21.9 [SD 2.0] y, height, 1.76 [0.7] m, mass, 73.7 [10.3] kg) wore an IMU and completed three counter-movement jumps a week apart. A force platform and a 3D motion analysis system were used to concurrently measure the jumps and subsequently derive power and jump height (based on take-off velocity and flight time). The IMU significantly overestimated power (mean difference = 7.3 W/kg; P < 0.001) compared to force-platform-derived power but good correspondence between methods was observed (Intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.69). IMU-derived power exhibited good reliability (ICC = 0.67). Velocity-derived jump heights exhibited poorer concurrent validity (ICC = 0.72 to 0.78) and repeatability (ICC = 0.68) than flight-time-derived jump heights, which exhibited excellent validity (ICC = 0.93 to 0.96) and reliability (ICC = 0.91). Since jump height and power are closely related, and flight-time-derived jump height exhibits excellent concurrent validity and reliability, flight-time-derived jump height could provide a more desirable measure compared to power when assessing athletic performance in a counter-movement jump with IMUs.

Considering the large and repetitive loads associated with jumping in team sports, automatic detection and quantification of jumping may show promise in reducing injury risks. The aim of this study was to validate commercially available inertial-movement analysis software to detect and quantify jumping in team sports. In addition, the test-retest reliability of the software to quantify jumping was assessed. Seventy-six healthy male participants completed a team sport circuit six times containing seven common movements (including three countermovement and two single-leg jumps) whilst wearing an inertial sensor (Catapult Sports, Australia). Jump detection accuracy was assessed by comparing the known number of jumps to the number recorded by the inertial movement analysis software. A further 27 participants separately performed countermovement and single-leg jumps at 33%, 66% and 100% of maximal jump height over two sessions. Jump height quantification accuracy was assessed by comparing criterion three-dimensional motion analysis-derived heights to that recorded by the inertial movement analysis software. Test-retest reliability was assessed by comparing recorded jump heights between both testing sessions. Catapult's inertial movement analysis software displayed excellent jump detection accuracy (96.9%) and test-retest jump height quantification reliability (ICC: 0.86 [countermovement jump], 0.88 [single-leg jump]). However, significant mean bias (-2.74 cm [95% LoA -10.44 - 4.96]) was observed for jump height quantification. Overall, Catapult's inertial movement analysis software appears to be a suitable method of automatically detecting jumping in team sports, and although reliable, caution is advised when using the IMA software to quantify jump height.