See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258110490

Counter movement jump in performance diagnostics. Use of the correct

jumping technique

Article in European Journal of Sport Science · September 2011

DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2011.566369

CITATIONS READS
25 2,224

4 authors, including:

Anne Focke Gunther Kurz

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
18 PUBLICATIONS 217 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hermann Schwameder
University of Salzburg
289 PUBLICATIONS 1,917 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Speed Testing - Methodological Aspects View project

Digital Motion – Digital motion in sports, fitness and well-being View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anne Focke on 08 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Karlsruher Inst fur Technologie Kit]
On: 15 July 2012, At: 23:10
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Sport Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

Countermovement jump in performance diagnostics:

Use of the correct jumping technique
a b a a a b
Anne Richter , Stefan Räpple , Gunther Kurz & Hermann Schwameder
a
Biomotion Center, Department of Sport and Sport Science, Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
b
FoSS - Research Center for Physical Education and Sports of Children and Adolescents,
Karlsruhe, Germany

Version of record first published: 08 Sep 2011

To cite this article: Anne Richter, Stefan Räpple, Gunther Kurz & Hermann Schwameder (2012): Countermovement jump in
performance diagnostics: Use of the correct jumping technique, European Journal of Sport Science, 12:3, 231-237

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.566369

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 European Journal of Sport Science, May 2012; 12(3): 231
237

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Countermovement jump in performance diagnostics: Use of the correct

jumping technique

ANNE RICHTER1,2, STEFAN RÄPPLE1, GUNTHER KURZ1, &

HERMANN SCHWAMEDER1,2
1
Biomotion Center, Department of Sport and Sport Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany, and
2
FoSS - Research Center for Physical Education and Sports of Children and Adolescents, Karlsruhe, Germany
Downloaded by [Karlsruher Inst fur Technologie Kit] at 23:10 15 July 2012

Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of arm-swing and sporting activity on jump height and jump height
variability of countermovement jumps in adolescent students to inform correct jumping technique in different settings.
Altogether, 324 students (grades 5
11) performed three countermovement jumps with bilateral arm-swings and three
countermovement jumps without arm-swings on a force platform. The participants were divided into three groups based on
sporting activity. The groups with the most (‘‘active group’’; more than 6 h formal athletics in a sport club per week) and
least active (‘‘sedentary group’’; less than 3 h formal athletics in a sport club per week) participants were compared. Jump
height was calculated for all jumps, and the best trial of three was used for further analysis. Jump height variability was
indicated by the coefficient of variation over three jumps. The reliability of jump height was determined using the intra-class
correlation coefficient (ICC) over three trials of each jumping technique. The reliability of jump height was very high for all
conditions (ICC: 0.90
0.96). Jump height was significantly higher for countermovement jumps with than without arm-
swings for both groups. Jump height in the active group was significantly greater than in the sedentary group for both
jumping techniques. A significant interaction between jumping technique and sporting activity indicates a greater benefit of
arm-swing in the active than in the sedentary participants. No significant differences between groups were observed for
jump height variability. Jump height can be measured reliably in active and sedentary adolescent individuals for both
jumping techniques. The relevant jumping technique should be chosen with respect to the context of its application and
based on its suitability for the individual and task of interest.

Keywords: Variability, arm-swing, adolescents, sporting activity, jump height, reliability

Introduction that arm-swings increase jump height by 10
20%

(Feltner, Bishop, & Perez, 2004; Gerodimos, Zafeir-
In sports such as athletics, volleyball, and basketball,
idis, Perkos, Dipla, Manou, & Kellis, 2008; Harman,
vertical jumping ability is an important and perfor-
mance limiting factor that is directly related to the Rosenstein, Frykman, & Rosenstein, 1990; Lees,
athlete’s ability to produce a large amount of leg Vanrenterghem, & De Clercq, 2004; Shetty &
power. The measurement of leg power is a funda- Etnyre, 1989).
mental tool in biomechanical performance diagnos- While it is well accepted that arm-swings enhance
tics and countermovement jump height is widely jumping performance, it is unclear which jumping
used to measure explosive leg power (Frick, technique is most reliable and thus preferable in
Schmidtbleicher, & Wörn, 1991). Two different performance diagnostics procedures. It is possible
jumping techniques can be distinguished: counter- that using inconsistent arm-swings during repeated
movement jump with bilateral arm-swings and jumps results in increased variability between trials
countermovement jump without arm-swings. Several and hence reduces the reliability of the test. In
studies comparing these two techniques have shown contrast, holding the arms in a fixed position at the

Correspondence: A. Richter, Biomotion Center, Department of Sport and Sport Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Engler-Bunte-
Ring 15, Geb Bldg. 40.40, D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2012 European College of Sport Science
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.566369
 232 A. Richter et al.

hips is an unfamiliar movement that may also result Information on variability of jumping performance
in higher variability between repeated trials. The in countermovement jumps with arm-swing and with
primary goal of performance diagnostics is to mea- arms akimbo regarding different activity levels is
sure the current personal best of each athlete. The lacking. This information is critical, however, for
test item must be reliable with low variability to recommendations on preferred jumping technique
ensure a greater chance of measuring an individual’s for performance tests in participant groups of
actual best performance. Low variability of multiple different sporting activity. For instance, Laffaye
trials is an indication of stable, reliable, and applic- and colleagues (Laffaye, Bardy, & Taiar, 2006)
able test procedures. analysed drop jumps from 30 cm and 60 cm height
In most studies, jumping performance is measured with and without arm-swing and with respect to the
by jump height or, more specifically, by the max- participants’ sporting activity. Participants in both
imum rise of the body’s centre of gravity after take- groups jumped higher during the drop jump with
off (Arteaga, Dorado, Chavarren, & Calbert, 2000; arm-swing compared with drop jump with arms
Bencke, Damsgaard, Saekmose, Jorgensen, & akimbo, and experts jumped higher than novices.
Klausen, 2002; Frick et al., 1991; Gerodimos However, Laffaye et al. did not provide information
et al., 2008; Lees et al., 2004; Markovic, Dizdar, of test reliability and variability, and to date compar-
able studies on countermovement jumps are lacking.
Downloaded by [Karlsruher Inst fur Technologie Kit] at 23:10 15 July 2012

Jukic, & Cardinale, 2004; Slinde, Suber, Suber,

Edwén, & Svantesson, 2008; Temfemo, Hugues, The objectives of this study were to compare jump
Chardon, Mandengue, & Ahmaidi, 2008; Vanezis height and jump height variability between counter-
& Lees, 2005). In addition, variability in jump height movement jumps with and without arm-swings in
could be used to assess the stability of test proce- adolescents and to determine the role of activity level
dures (Arteaga et al., 2000; Gerodimos et al., 2008; on jump height and jump height variability for the
Markovic et al., 2004). Variability in height of two jumping techniques.
countermovement jumps without arm-swings (coef-
ficient of variation, CV) has been reported to range
from 2.8% (Markovic et al., 2004) to 6.3% (Arteaga Methods
et al., 2000). Corresponding data for countermove- Altogether, 127 female and 197 male secondary school
ment jumps with arm-swings are not available, and students (age 10
18 years, weight 49.7 9 13.3 kg,
thus jump height variability of these two jumping height 1.62 9 0.12 m, grades 5
11) provided informed
techniques cannot be compared. Therefore, research consent to participate in the study. Guardian consent
is required to assess the reliability and variability of was also provided for underage children. The test
jumping performance with respect to different arm- protocol received approval from the institutional
swing techniques. review board. Each child was asked to report his or
Another factor affecting jumping performance is her sporting activity (hours and type of formal
how active the participants are. Most studies on athletics in a sport club per week). Based on these
jumping performance have used individuals with data, the participants were separated into three
jumping experience (Arteaga et al., 2000; Bencke groups: ‘‘active’’ (6 h sporting activity in a sport
et al., 2002; Feltner et al., 2004; Gerodimos et al., club per week), ‘‘moderate’’ (3
6 h sporting activity
2008; Harman et al., 1990; Hudson, 1986; Lees, in a sport club per week), and ‘‘sedentary’’ ( B3 h
Vanrenterghem, & De Clercq, 2004, 2006; Markovic sporting activity in a sport club per week). Only the
et al., 2004; Quatman, Ford, Myer, & Hewett, 2006; active and sedentary groups were used for further
Vanezis & Lees, 2005; Walsh, Böhm, Butterfield, & analysis. The physical characteristics of these two
Santhosam, 2007). All research comparing counter- groups are presented in Table I.
movement jumps with and without arm-swings (e.g. All students were tested during their regular sports
Feltner, Fraschetti, & Crisp, 1999; Gerodimos et al., session in an enclosed diagnostic room close to the
2008; Lees et al., 2004) has included experienced
Table I. Physical characteristics of the active and sedentary
participants only, and no information on non-active
participants (mean9s)
individuals is available. Experienced and skilled
individuals presumably perform motor tasks more Activity Age Height Weight
consistently, and hence better jumping performance Group n (h × week
1) (years) (m) (kg)
can be expected for skilled compared with unskilled Active 129 8.593.2 13.392.1 1.6590.13 52.1913.5
participants. In addition, children and non-active (6 h ×
individuals may show greater variability in perform- week
1)
ing a motor task, and thus the choice of the proper Sedentary 104 1.791.3 12.291.8 1.5890.10 46.7912.6
(B3 h ×
jumping technique for performance tests in these week
1)
populations may be even more important.
 Countermovement jump in performance diagnostics 233

gymnasium. The time of testing of the participants was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients
depended on their schedule but was between 08:00 (ICC) of jump heights over three trials for each
and 14:00 h. Each participant performed three jumping technique and for each activity group. The
countermovement jumps on a force plate while using interrelation between countermovement jump with
their self-selected arm-swing and three counter- and without arm-swings for jump height and jump
movement jumps with their hands kept on the hips. height variability was investigated using Pearson’s
Both types of jump were performed from an upright correlation coefficient. Statistical significance for all
position and the participants were asked to jump as tests was set a priori to 0.05.
high as possible. A rest period of 1 min was allowed
between jumps.
Vertical ground reaction forces were measured Results
using a force plate (Leonardo Mechanograph† The results showed high reliability for all conditions
GRFP, Novotec Medical GmbH, Pforzheim (Table II). The intra-class correlation coefficients
Germany) at 800 Hz. Maximum jump height (h) were 0.95 (jump without arm-swings) and 0.90
was calculated based on the principle that the (jump with arm-swings) for the sedentary students,
impulse (integral of force over time) equals the and 0.96 (jump without arm-swings) and 0.93 (jump
momentum (product of mass and velocity) (Harman
Downloaded by [Karlsruher Inst fur Technologie Kit] at 23:10 15 July 2012

with arm-swings) for the active students. The results

et al., 1990). More specifically: were in agreement with those of previous studies
Z (Markovic et al., 2004; Slinde et al., 2008).
ðFðtÞ  FG Þdt ¼ mvðtÞ Jump heights for countermovement jump with and
without arm-swings for each group are presented in
where F(t)measured ground reaction forces, Figure 1. The countermovement jumps with arm-
FG body weight, mbody mass, and v(t)vertical swings resulted in significantly greater jump height
velocity of the centre of mass. than jumps without arm-swings (F97.18,
The integral of the force
time curve over the P B0.001, h2p 0.30). On average, the sedentary
entire take-off motion yields the take-off velocity group jumped 2.8 cm higher with arm-swings than
(v0). Jump height (h) is calculated by equalizing the without arm-swings (23.8 vs. 21.0 cm). In contrast,
kinetic (mv2/2) and potential energy (mgh) of the the active group jumped 4.0 cm higher with arm-
body using the following formula: swings than without arm-swings (28.9 vs. 24.9 cm).
The active group jumped 18.6% (3.9 cm) and
h¼ v20 =2g 21.4% (5.1 cm) higher than the sedentary group
without and with arm-swings, respectively. This
where g9.81 m × s
2. This parameter was chosen difference in jump height between the two groups
because it is widely used to describe jumping was statistically significant (F8.21, P 0.005,
performance in performance diagnostics (e.g. Frick h2p 0.04). In addition, the interaction between
et al., 1991; Gerodimos et al., 2008; Temfemo et al., jumping technique and sporting activity was signifi-
2008). The best of three trials for each jumping cant (F11.56, P 0.001, h2p 0.05).
technique was used for further analysis. Jump height
variability (CV-h) was quantified using the coeffi- Table II. Descriptive (mean9s) and reliability (ICC, CV-h)
cient of variation of the three jumps for each jumping statistics for countermovement jump without arm-swing (CMJ)
technique and was calculated as: and countermovement jump with arm-swing (CMJA)

CVh ð%Þ ¼ ½sðtrial 1  3Þ=meanðtrial 1  3Þ Group Trials h (cm) ICC CV-h (%)
 100 CMJ
Active (6 h × week
1) Trial 1 23.896.1 0.96 4.493.0
All statistical tests were performed using SPSS
Trial 2 24.196.2
v.17.0. A two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) Trial 3 24.196.2
with factors jumping technique and sporting activity Sedentary (B3 h × week
1) Trial 1 19.894.8 0.95 5.193.0
was used to detect significant differences in jump Trial 2 20.394.9
height and jump height variability between the two Trial 3 20.294.9
CMJA
jumping techniques and the two activity groups.
Active (6 h × week
1) Trial 1 27.197.2 0.93 5.594.8
Because of age and gender differences between the Trial 2 27.896.8
active and sedentary groups, these variables were Trial 3 27.996.8
included as covariates. Partial eta-squared (h2p) was Sedentary (B3 h × week
1) Trial 1 22.296.2 0.90 7.096.3
used to provide information about effect sizes. Effect Trial 2 22.595.6
Trial 3 22.895.5
sizes were as follows: large (h2p 0.14), medium
(h2p 0.06), and small (h2p 0.01) (Bortz, 2005; Note: hmaximum jump height; CV-hjump height variability;
Cohen, 1973, 1992). Reliability of performance ICCintra-class correlation coefficient.
 234 A. Richter et al.

Figure 2 presents jump height variability (CV-h)

for the two jumping techniques and the two activity
groups. For both arm-swing conditions, the varia-
bility was slightly higher in the sedentary group than
the active group (jump without arm-swings: 5.1% vs.
4.4%; jump with arm-swings: 7.0% vs. 5.5%). In
addition, jump height variability was greater with
than without arm-swings. However, these differences
were not statistically significant for condition, group
or the condition group interaction.
Jump height for countermovement jump with
arm-swings correlated significantly with that
for countermovement jump without arm-swings
(Table III) for the participants as a whole (r0.97)
Figure 1. Maximum jump height of countermovement jump
and for both sub-groups (active: r 0.97; sedentary: without arm-swing (CMJ) and countermovement jump with
r 0.95). The correlations between jump height arm-swing (CMJA) in active and sedentary students (mean9s).
variability for the two types of jump were very low
Downloaded by [Karlsruher Inst fur Technologie Kit] at 23:10 15 July 2012

*P B0.05.
and not statistically significant.
2000; Gerodimos et al., 2008; Harrison & Gaffney,
2001; Slinde et al., 2008; Temfemo et al., 2008;
Discussion
Walsh et al., 2007), but as they were not the main
The reliability of the present data was very high for focus of this study they are only mentioned here in
all investigated conditions. The test procedure used the Discussion.
in this study is able to measure jump height reliably Countermovement jumping ability with and with-
in countermovement jumping with and without arm- out arm-swings in active and sedentary individuals
swings in active and sedentary adolescents. had not previously been compared. In this study,
Maximum jump height in this study was 21.0
active students jumped significantly higher than
24.9 cm for countermovement jumps without arm- sedentary students irrespective of technique. This
swings and 23.8
28.9 cm for countermovement suggests that physical activity and sporting experi-
jumps with arm-swings. Previous studies (Harman
ence influence jumping performance. The significant
et al., 1990; Hudson, 1986; Markovic et al., 2004;
interaction between jumping technique and sporting
Vanezis & Lees, 2005) reported absolute jump
activity for jump height showed that the benefit of
heights of 29.1
48.7 cm for countermovement
arm-swings differs between the two groups. This
jumps without arm-swings and 35.3
57.9 cm for
countermovement jumps with arm-swings. The low- difference may highlight a difference in effectiveness
er average jump heights in the present study can be of arm-swings between the two groups, possibly as a
explained by the differences in age of participants in result of the greater coordination of active compared
the different studies. While the average age of our with sedentary participants. This is in agreement
participants was 12.8 years, the average age of those with Gerodimos et al. (2008), who showed signifi-
in previous studies was 20
28 years. In addition,
the different sporting activity of participants in the
different studies likely contributed to differences in
jumping performance. While previous studies only
assessed physically active individuals, we included
sedentary individuals as well. The greater jump
heights (13.3% and 16.1% for the sedentary
and active groups, respectively) with arm-swings is in
agreement with the results of previous studies
(Feltner et al., 2004; Gerodimos et al., 2008;
Harman et al., 1990; Lees et al., 2004; Shetty &
Etnyre, 1989). However, the interaction between
jumping technique and age (PB0.001, h2p 0.32) as
well as between jumping technique and gender
(PB0.001, h2p 0.10) showed higher effect sizes
Figure 2. Coefficient of variation of jump height of counter-
than the interaction between jumping technique movement jump without arm-swing (CMJ) and countermove-
and sporting activity. These interactions are in line ment jump with arm-swing (CMJA) in active and sedentary
with the results of previous studies (Arteaga et al., students (mean9s).
 Countermovement jump in performance diagnostics 235

Table III. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between counter- terparts. Despite these differences in jump height
movement jump without arm-swing (CMJ) and countermove- and jump height variability between the two jumping
ment jump with arm-swing (CMJA) (h and CV-h)
techniques and the two participant groups, all
h CMJ CV-h CMJ measurements showed a high reliability for all
conditions. Based on these results, we conclude
All participants h CMJA 0.97*
CV-h CMJA 0.01
that the two jumping techniques can be used for

1
jumping performance diagnostics in both active and
Active(6 h × week ) h CMJA 0.97*
CV-h CMJA 0.08
sedentary individuals.

1
Correlations between countermovement jumps
Sedentary(B3 h × week ) h CMJA 0.95*
with and without arm-swings with respect to jump
CV-h CMJA 0.10
height and jump height variability could reveal a
Note: hmaximum jump height; CV-hjump height variability. potential interdependency of the two techniques.
*P B0.05. High correlation coefficients would indicate the
compatibility of the two jumping techniques and
cant differences in absolute jump height between would support the application of either technique for
three groups (children, adolescents, and adults) of performance diagnostics purposes. High correlation
basketball players when using arm-swings versus no
Downloaded by [Karlsruher Inst fur Technologie Kit] at 23:10 15 July 2012

coefficients for jump height between countermove-

arm-swings during countermovement jumps. How- ment jumps with and without arm-swings were
ever, Gerodimos et al. did not observe significant observed, indicating the compatibility of the two
differences in relative jump height as in the present techniques (Figure 3). Hence, the two techniques
study. Thus, in their study participants’ age did not
provide similar information on jump height and can
appear to affect relative jump height between coun-
be used interchangeably considering a difference in
termovement jumps with and without arm-swings.
jump height of 10
20% (Feltner et al., 2004;
The variability in jump height in this study was
Gerodimos et al., 2008; Harman et al., 1990; Lees
between 4.4 and 7.0%. Jump height variability for
et al., 2004; Shetty & Etnyre, 1989) is possible.
countermovement jumps without arm-swings of
Thus, choice of jumping technique in performance
4.4% for active and 5.1% for sedentary students is
diagnostics could be based specifically on the parti-
in agreement with the data of Markovic et al. (2004)
cipant group.
and Arteaga et al. (2000). This study is the first
The correlation between the coefficient of varia-
report of jump height variability for countermove-
ment jumps with arm-swings and the first compar- tion of jump height for jumps with and without arm-
ison of jump height variability between active and swings was low and not significant. This indicates a
sedentary individuals. No significant differences certain amount of instability in repeated jumps for
were observed between the variability of both jump- the groups investigated. Both active and sedentary
ing conditions and both activity groups. In future students did not show any systematic patterns for the
studies, the inclusion of individuals experienced in two techniques. Most participants showed a jump
jumping instead of active individuals of different height variability of up to 10%, which is within the
sports might show significant differences in jump range of variability inherent in biological systems
height variability with respect to groups and jumping
techniques.
The results of this study indicate that jumping
performance depends on jumping technique and
sporting activity. While the use of arm-swings had
large effects (h2p 0.30) on jump height, the effects
of sporting activity (h2p 0.04) and the interaction
between sporting activity and jumping technique
(h2p 0.05) were small. While no significant effects
were observed for jump height variability, the data
showed a clear trend. The lower variability and
greater reliability of countermovement jumps with-
out arm-swings versus countermovement jumps with
arm-swings in both groups suggests that having the
arms in a fixed position may provide a more stable
configuration than allowing unrestricted arm move- Figure 3. Relationship between maximum jump height of coun-
ment. In addition, the active students showed lower termovement jump without arm-swing (CMJ) and countermove-
variability and higher reliability in jumping height for ment jump with arm-swing (CMJA) for all participants (r 0.97;
both jumping techniques than their sedentary coun- *P B0.05.
 236 A. Richter et al.

(Stokes, 1985). However, for some participants, References

both active and sedentary, coefficients of variation Arteaga, R., Dorado, C., Chavarren, J., & Calbert, J. A. L. (2000).
15% were observed. This result suggests that not Reliability of jumping performance in active men and women
every child is able to reach his or her maximum under different stretch loading conditions. Journal of Sports
performance repeatedly in succession. Several trials Medicine and Physical Fitness, 40, 26
34.
Bencke, J., Damsgaard, R., Saekmose, A., Jorgensen, P., &
should be performed in jumping performance diag-
Klausen, K. (2002). Anaerobic power and muscle strength
nostics to help measure an individual’s actual best characteristics of 11 years old elite and non-elite boys and girls
performance. Based on the data obtained in this from gymnastics, team handball, tennis and swimming.
study and aspects of testing economy, collecting Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 12,
three trials is recommended for jumping perfor- 171
178.
mance diagnostics. Because of the large between- Bortz, J. (2005). Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (6th
edn.). Heidelberg: Springer.
trial variability in some participants, the best of the Cohen, J. (1973). Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed
three trials should be chosen for further analysis. factor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological
One limitation of the present study is the simple Measurement, 33, 107
112.
distinction between active and sedentary students. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
A more detailed classification of participants into 155
159.
Feltner, M. E., Bishop, E. J., & Perez, C. M. (2004). Segmental
specific sporting categories may provide more insight
Downloaded by [Karlsruher Inst fur Technologie Kit] at 23:10 15 July 2012

and kinetic contributions in vertical jumps with and without an

into sport-specific differences between the two arm swing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 216

jumping techniques. For instance, Bencke et al. 230.
(2002) analysed muscle strength characteristics of Feltner, M. E., Fraschetti, D. J., & Crisp, R. J. (1999). Upper
boys and girls from gymnastics, team handball, extremity augmentation of lower extremity kinetics during
tennis, and swimming and observed differences in countermovement vertical jumps. Journal of Sports Sciences,
17, 449
466.
jump height between the sport groups. Similarly, Frick, U., Schmidtbleicher, D., & Wörn, C. (1991). Vergleich
differences in jump height between jumping biomechanischer Meßverfahren zur Bestimmung der Sprun-
techniques may be more pronounced in individuals ghöhe bei Vertikalsprüngen. Leistungssport, 2, 48
53.
who regularly perform activities that require well- Gerodimos, V., Zafeiridis, A., Perkos, S., Dipla, K., Manou, V., &
coordinated arm-swings. Kellis, S. (2008). The contribution of stretch
shortening cycle
and arm-swing to vertical jumping performance in children,
adolescents, and adult basketball players. Pediatric Exercise
Science, 20, 379
389.
Conclusion Harman, E. A., Rosenstein, M. T., Frykman, P. N., & Rosenstein,
R. M. (1990). The effects of arms and countermovement on
The results of this study revealed differences in vertical jumping. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 22,
jumping performance between two jumping techni- 825
833.
ques and between individuals of different sporting Harrison, A. J., & Gaffney, S. (2001). Motor development and
activity. Greater jump heights were observed for the gender effects on stretch
shortening cycle performance.
arm-swing condition than the no-arm-swing condi- Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 4, 406
415.
Hudson, J. L. (1986). Coordination of segments in the vertical
tion, and active students jumped higher than sedentary jump. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 18, 242
251.
students. A greater reliability for countermovement Laffaye, G., Bardy, B., & Taiar, R. (2006). Upper-limb motion
jumps without than with arm-swings for both activity and drop jump: Effect of expertise. Journal of Sports Medicine
groups might indicate a more stable configuration and Physical Fitness, 46, 238
247.
with a fixed arm position. Further specific research is Lees, A., Vanrenterghem, J., & De Clercq, D. (2004). Under-
standing how an arm swing enhances performance in the
needed to support and strengthen this tendency.
vertical jump. Journal of Biomechanics, 37, 1929
1940.
High reliability for the two techniques suggests that Lees, A., Vanrenterghem, J., & De Clercq, D. (2006). The
both are appropriate for assessing jump height in energetics and benefit of an arm swing in submaximal and
active and in sedentary adolescents. Consequently, maximal vertical jump performance. Journal of Sports Sciences,
the jumping technique for the assessment of jumping 24, 51
57.
Markovic, G., Dizdar, D., Jukic, I., & Cardinale, M. (2004).
performance can be selected based on specific
Reliability and factorial validity of squat and countermovement
participant groups and specific tasks of interest. jump tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18,
For instance, for the assessment of pure leg exten- 551
555.
sion power, the more stable countermovement jump Quatman, C. E., Ford, K. R., Myer, G. D., & Hewett, T. E.
without arm-swings is preferable. In comparison, (2006). Maturation leads to gender differences in landing force
countermovement jumps with arm-swings may be and vertical jump performance. American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 34, 806
813.
more suitable for the assessment of jumping perfor-
Shetty, A. B., & Etnyre, B. R. (1989). Contribution of arm
mance in a sport-specific task that is typically movement to the force components of a maximum vertical
performed with arm-swings, such as jumping in jump. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 11,
volleyball or high jump. 198
201.
 Countermovement jump in performance diagnostics 237

Slinde, F., Suber, C., Suber, L., Edwén, C. E., & Svantesson, U. performance and anthropometric characteristics during growth
(2008). Test
retest reliability of three different countermove- in boys and girls. European Journal of Paediatrics, 168, 457
464.
ment jumping tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Vanezis, A., & Lees, A. (2005). A biomechanical analysis of good
Research, 22, 640
644. and poor performers of the vertical jump. Ergonomics, 48,
Stokes, M. (1985). Reliability and repeatability of methods for 1594
1603.
measuring muscle in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy Practice, 1, Walsh, M. S., Böhm, H., Butterfield, M. M., & Santhosam, J.
71
76. (2007). Gender bias in the effects of arms and counter-
Temfemo, A., Hugues, J., Chardon, K., Mandengue, S.-H., & movement on jumping performance. Journal of Strength and
Ahmaidi, S. (2008). Relationship between vertical jumping Conditioning Research, 21, 362
366.
Downloaded by [Karlsruher Inst fur Technologie Kit] at 23:10 15 July 2012

View publication stats