A Framework to Guide

Practitioners for
Selecting Metrics During
the Countermovement
and Drop Jump Tests
Chris Bishop, PhD,1 Anthony Turner, PhD,1 Matt Jordan, PhD,2 John Harry, PhD,3 Irineu Loturco, PhD,4
Jason Lake, PhD,5 and Paul Comfort, PhD6
1
London Sport Institute, Middlesex University, Stone-X Stadium, London, United Kingdom; 2Canadian Sport Institute,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 3Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas;
4
Nucleus of High Performance in Sport, Sao Paulo, Brazil; 5Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of
Chichester, Chichester, United Kingdom; and 6Human Performance Laboratory, Directorate of Psychology and Sport,
University of Salford, Manchester, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT in sport performance and rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION settings, especially when working with
Researchers and practitioners have
ump testing is commonly used to large squads of athletes where time
highlighted the necessity to monitor
jump strategy metrics and the com-
monly reported outcome measures
J assess lower limb neuromuscular
function (5,6,9,50), monitor adap-
tations to training (4,11), readiness
constraints may preclude regular neu-
romuscular testing.

during the countermovement jump to train (14,19,20,47), and readiness to Historically, many research studies
(CMJ) and drop jump (DJ) tests. How- return to training and competition after have used jump mat systems to mea-
ever, there is a risk of confusion for injury (24,25,43). Although numerous sure time-based outcome measures
practitioners, given the vast range of types of jumping exist, 2 of the most such as flight time, jump height
metrics that now seem to be on offer via common forms used in both research (based on flight time), and the reac-
analysis software when collecting data and practice are the vertical counter- tive strength index (RSI) during
from force platforms. As such, practi- movement jump (CMJ) and drop jump these tests (27,37,42). Arguments
tioners may benefit from a framework (DJ) (14,17,18,30,32,33,40,49). These 2 have been made that force platforms
that can help guide metric selection for jump tests provide an indirect, are not always accessible to practi-
commonly used jump tests, which is the performance-based assessment of neu- tioners because of cost and portabil-
primary purpose of this article. To con- romuscular capacity and reactive ity issues (8), hence why jump mat
textualize the proposed framework, we strength (i.e., coupled eccentric- systems have been so popular. How-
have provided 2 examples for how this concentric movement capacity), with ever, recent technological develop-
could work: one for the CMJ and one for a plethora of studies highlighting ments have seen the creation of
the DJ, noting that these tests are good-to-excellent reliability of jump smartphone apps (3) and reduced
commonly used by practitioners during
outcome measures (14,19,20,33,34). cost of portable force platforms sys-
Consequently, this helps to ensure that tems, thus enhancing their availabil-
routine testing across a range of sport
practitioners can interpret results with ity across a range of sport
performance and clinical settings.
confidence from the outset. From a
practical perspective, jump assessments KEY WORDS:
are simple to perform, generally, non- monitoring; sensitivity
Address correspondence to Chris Bishop, C. fatiguing and time-efficient, which are to change; profiling
[email protected]. factors that should not be overlooked

Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association 95

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 A Framework for the Countermovement and Drop Jump

performance settings, including those routine testing across a range of sport to outline the reasons why testing is
with budgetary constraints. This is a performance and clinical settings. Before needed, how it can benefit all parties
positive outcome for strength and discussing in detail, however, practi- involved, and there are no feasibility
conditioning and sport medicine tioners must first consider a few broader issues, the final question can be ad-
practitioners because it has enabled questions specific to their practice. dressed. Despite these potential
them to gather more detailed infor- challenges, the authors would sug-
mation when profiling their athletes’ THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS gest that testing at the end of each
jump ability and lower limb mechan- FOR PRACTITIONERS REGARDING mesocycle is still advised. This is so
ical muscle capacities. Furthermore, SELECTING METRICS that practitioners can determine that
an analysis of vertical jump kinetics There are principally 3 questions to the training programs have had the
(using force platform technology) consider before deciding which metric desired outcomes and so that contin-
permits a more extensive neuromus- to use as part of any performance ued feedback to the key stakeholders
cular assessment, allowing practi- monitoring tool: takes place, in an attempt to build a
tioners to move beyond solely  Is there some biological basis that theo- sustainable human-centered high-
outcome measures (e.g., jump retically links what we are aiming to performance environment (50).
height), to include measures that measure, with some desirable perfor-  What is the quality of the data being
describe jump strategy. The relevance mance outcome? For example, if jump collected, and in particular, are the data
here is that strategy metrics (e.g., height decreases (jump height being more sensitive or less accurate according
duration prior to take-off ) have been the performance outcome we are to the quality of data that is possible to
shown to be more sensitive to change aiming to measure), does that sug- collect? As a crude example, practi-
compared with outcome measures, gest the presence of high neuromus- tioners may want to measure RSI
after intense exercise (19,20), when cular fatigue? Alternatively, if jump each morning to determine whether
returning from injury (22), during height improves, does that imply their athletes have recovered from
long-term athlete development (23) the potential for better on-field per- the previous day’s training load and
and when assessing neuromuscular formance such as increased sprint whether they display sufficient read-
function across the lifespan (11). velocity? Assuming a theoretical iness for the day’s planned training
Consequently, this has led to numer- associative link exists, which has sessions (51). If having determined
ous studies acknowledging the limi- been investigated on numerous their baseline scores across 5 days
tations of outcome measures alone occasions previously (26,30,31,53), of normal activity, we establish there
and the need to concurrently monitor we move on to question 2. is a high degree of variability, the
jump strategy as well (6,13,21,37).  What is the feasibility of implementing data may not be sensitive enough
this monitoring tool or system? Without to inform practice and allow us to
Despite the advantages of moving access to an educated staff, dedicated make accurate and informed training
beyond a simple measure of jump height time for testing, finances to obtain decisions. This realization can often
and including jump strategy variables, quality equipment, and the right be a bitter pill to swallow and chal-
there is also a risk of confusion for prac- team culture or attitude, implement- lenge some deeply rooted biases we
titioners, given the vast range of poten- ing jump testing to make actionable have, especially when a theoretical
tial metrics that force platform systems decisions may not be reasonable. For link to sport performance is strong
can offer (12,19,20). Simply put, the example, small coaching staffs are (26,30,31,53), and we have invested
appropriate jump performance and jump often stretched beyond typical substantial financial and human
strategy variables to include as a part of coaching duties. Adding in daily or resources to enhance our testing pro-
athlete monitoring and neuromuscular weekly force plate assessments cess. Equally, we may be familiar
testing is often unclear. Thus, it is impor- (including data analysis, feedback with other teams that do use it and
tant for any practitioner who is using sheets, and personal communica- who do indeed plan training around
such tests and technologies to ensure tion) may pull some members away it. However, it is important to
that the selected metrics help to inform from other fundamental practices. At remember that the accuracy of the
practice. As such, practitioners may ben- that point, practitioners may likely data is based on numerous contex-
efit from a system or framework that can lose more than they gain from im- tual factors such as the performance
help guide metric selection for com- plementing jump testing on force level of the athletes, the skills of the
monly used jump tests and this is the platforms. Equally, some players testers, the equipment, and the envi-
primary purpose of this article. To con- may not “buy-in” or have an interest ronment (52). Therefore, what
textualize the proposed framework, we in participating in testing. Perhaps works for one team may not work
have provided 2 examples for how this most importantly, would the head for another. With this in mind, prac-
could work: one for the CMJ and one for coach support and encourage this titioners are encouraged to compute
the DJ, noting that these tests are com- practice among the athletes? Assum- their own benchmarking and reli-
monly used by practitioners during ing that practitioners have attempted ability analysis to ensure that they

96 VOLUME 44 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2022

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 have useable data and can establish picture of an athlete’s neuromuscular force plate assessments is vast
thresholds that are sensitive enough capacities, during jump profiling and (12,19,20). Because of this, it is suggested
to detect meaningful changes in per- ongoing monitoring. Where possible, that only a few key metrics are moni-
formance. In closing then, there will the key here is for the metrics to be tored, otherwise, it can be difficult to
be some circumstances whereby the supported by empirical research and a use this information to inform training
error or variability in a test, irrespec- documented history of acceptable valid- when multiple data from the same test
tive of how well it meets questions 1 ity and reliability for sport performance are monitored concurrently.
and 2, is so large, that it will be inef- and clinical applications. Where validity
fective to inform decision making is concerned, this relates to the degree to COUNTERMOVEMENT JUMP
and practice. Figure 1 provides a which the test measures what it is sup- Recent literature has shown a huge rise in
schematic overview of these 3 pri- posed to measure, supporting practi- popularity for RSI modified (RSI-Mod)
mary questions for practitioners to tioners to determine the use of a given (4,17,21,47), which can be calculated by
consider before embarking on select- set of outcome measures (15). The use of dividing jump height by time to take-off
ing a given metric. any test will largely be determined by a and is likely to be considered an outcome
needs analysis of the sport or athlete in measure. It is important to recognize that
SELECTING METRICS FROM THE question, and with team or court-sport this metric is a ratio which is a single value
COUNTERMOVEMENT AND DROP athletes often requiring ballistic force made up of 2 components that can make it
JUMP TESTS production in as short a time as possible, harder to generate meaningful interpreta-
Assuming the above 3 questions have jump testing is often a popular choice for tions (1). This is supported in recent
been considered by practitioners, we practitioners. Once validity is established, research on interlimb asymmetry, which
can consider an example of how to select reliability and the associated measure- showed the data to be “noisier” than the
our metrics from the CMJ and DJ tests. It ment error should then be determined. individual components (6,7,9). This is likely
is important to note at this point, the In doing so, and assuming the results are to hold true for RSI-Mod, which is also
forthcoming examples represent sugges- deemed acceptable, practitioners can born out of 2 other metrics (i.e., jump
tions only and additional metrics com- have greater confidence that the data will height and time to take-off). Thus, practi-
monly used in the literature such as be useable for continued monitoring pur- tioners are advised that any changes in
power (19,20,32), may still have their poses (52). In addition, any observed RSI-Mod may be hard to comprehend,
place. However, readers should also note changes from a training intervention without concurrently monitoring the indi-
that jump strategy can be altered increas- should also be interpreted relative to vidual components that create it. Thus, our
ing power output, but with a concurrent the measurement error, to determine second and third suggested metrics are
reduction in jump height because it is whether such changes are “real” or jump height (ideally determined from
propulsive net impulse that determines within the error of the test (discussed take-off velocity) and time to take-off.
jump height, not power (36,39,45). Thus, later) (4,52). Although acceptable reli- Despite the challenges that often accom-
the purpose of this framework is to dem- ability is open to interpretation (and a pany ratio data, readers should note that in
onstrate how the example metrics chosen bit like drawing a line in the sand), pre- this instance, an increase in RSI-Mod can-
“fit together” and consequently, may vious suggestions for intraclass correla- not occur without an improvement in one
make using the data in practice easier tion coefficients would be a lower of the component parts (i.e., increased
to help inform decision-making. bound 95% confidence interval . 0.75 jump height or reduced time to take-
As previously mentioned, a concurrent (28) and , 10% for the coefficient of off), and vice versa. For example, if an
focus on the outcome measure and jump variation (CV) (14). As a final point, athlete jumps 0.4 m and time to take-off
strategy may provide a more holistic the volume of metrics available from is 0.8 seconds, RSI-Mod will equal 0.5 (0.4

Figure 1. A 3-step process to determine the efficacy of selected metrics and the ability to use them in practice.

97
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 A Framework for the Countermovement and Drop Jump

divided by 0.8). However, if an athlete countermovement and take-off, which final point, practitioners should also note
exhibits a 10% improvement in jump may represent a useful strategy metric that this metric may potentially benefit
height (0.44 m), with no change in time (4,21). Simply put, if practitioners see from being normalized to standing
to take-off, RSI-Mod will improve to 0.55. reductions in time to take-off, 2 explana- height, especially when monitoring lon-
Equally, a 10% reduction in jump height tions may be evident: (a) the athlete may gitudinally in groups such as youth ath-
(0.36 m) would result in a new (and worse) not be dipping as deep (negative dis- letes (29) or in sports where large
RSI-Mod score of 0.45; with the same placement) in the countermovement anthropometric differences may be evi-
trend in scores for RSI-Mod evident if and as a result will likely generate lower dent, such as basketball (43).
changes in time to take-off occur. As such, net impulse, resulting in a reduced jump In summary, the inclusion of jump
the importance of monitoring the compo- height (45), which would be a negative height and time to take-off will help to
nent parts of any ratio should be clear here, adaptation from training or, (b) if jump simultaneously explain any changes in
noting that any changes in RSI-Mod can height remains the same, the athlete is RSI-Mod, while also providing an
only be explained by changes in jump now achieving the same outcome but in understanding of both the outcome
height and/or time to take-off. Equally, less time, which infers improved ballistic measure and jump strategy used. Finally,
in some instances, an athlete’s body mass qualities such as rate of force develop- countermovement depth may also help
may also need to be factored into the ment, which would be a positive adap- to explain why any changes in time have
monitoring process. For example, if the tation from training. Despite the occurred, noting that time is one of the
purpose of a training intervention is to usefulness of time to take-off in this constructs of RSI-Mod as well. Collec-
increase muscle mass and an athlete instance, it still may not be entirely obvi- tively, these metrics “tell a story” and
now achieves the same jump height but ous why any changes in time have complement each other, which hope-
with an increase of 2-kg in body mass, this occurred. Thus, our final suggested met- fully allows data to be effectively used
can also be seen as a positive adaptation. ric in this example is countermovement to inform decision-making. It should be
Although jump height has come under depth. For example, if time to take-off noted, of course, that this decision-
some scrutiny to detect neuromuscular was 0.8 seconds in one test session, but making process is entirely context-
readiness to train or compete (19,20), it 0.7 seconds in another; practitioners can dependent, and what may apply for
will almost always be considered relevant. see the athlete completes the movement one athlete, may not for another. This
The importance of effective knowledge before take-off in a shorter duration in framework (Figure 2) which aims to
translation of routine athlete monitoring the second test session, which based on interlink selected metrics to one another,
data, including vertical jump testing, using our aforementioned discussion, would be can also be applied to the DJ test.
athlete-appropriate language must not be desirable. However, the reason for this
change may not be obvious. With the DROP JUMP
overlooked. Although this remains anec-
dotal, we observe substantially better buy- inclusion of countermovement depth, The most common metric reported in
in from stakeholders (e.g., athletes and practitioners would be able to contextu- DJ test protocols seems to be RSI
alize changes in time to take-off, by re- (6,18,29,33,34) and would be consid-
head coach) when simplified language is
porting any discrete differences that may ered the outcome measure. This is
prioritized. Although key stakeholders
be evident in the depth of movement another ratio metric and in line with
may lack the requisite knowledge of phys-
before the jump. Thus, monitoring coun- our suggestions for the CMJ, any
iology and biomechanics to grasp a
termovement depth may help practi- changes in RSI may be hard to com-
detailed breakdown of a vertical jump
tioners to determine why any changes prehend, without concurrently moni-
kinetic analysis, a variable such as jump
in time to take-off may have occurred toring the individual components that
height is likely to be of interest to the
between test sessions. To the best of create it. Thus, our second and third
athlete (as well as understood), as this value
the authors’ knowledge, no research spe- suggested metrics are jump height
provides some confidence that they can
cifically looking at the association (again, ideally determined from take-
outperform their peers. Furthermore, the
between countermovement depth and off velocity) and ground contact time
use of feedback to the athlete, in particular,
time to take off has been published. (GCT). When aiming to understand
may be a powerful method for establishing
However, previous research has shown how the jump is performed, GCT does
better overall stability in test measures,
moderate relationships between counter- provide some understanding of strat-
which subsequently may have a positive movement depth and jump height (r 5 egy in the DJ task, especially when ex-
impact on test reliability as well. 0.60–0.67) (35). With the present article isting literature seems largely in
However, as practitioners and support focused on the use of metrics as a col- agreement about the distinction
staff, we may also be interested in what lective to inform practice, the magnitude between fast (,0.25 seconds) and slow
is driving the outcome, which is where of these relationships is likely strong (.0.25 seconds) stretch shortening
an understanding of jump strategy enough to justify the use of counter- cycle (SSC) timeframes (18,41,48).
comes in. Time to take-off provides a movement depth as a stand-alone met- Simply put, monitoring GCT may pro-
useful understanding of the duration of ric, especially when it can be used to also vide an understanding of whether ath-
time between the initiation of the inform changes in time to take-off. As a letes are using fast or slow SSC

98 VOLUME 44 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2022

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 can also be implemented from the data
gathered using a jump mat or smart-
phone app. However, it is worth noting
that the usefulness of leg stiffness as an
additional metric may be questioned, if
GCT is . 0.25 seconds, noting that
times above this threshold are indicative
of poor fast SSC mechanics, which are
typically a key requirement in the DJ
task (33,34,41). Thus, perhaps the use
of leg stiffness is reserved for interpret-
ing changes in GCT, that remain below
the suggested 0.25 seconds threshold
for fast SSC mechanics.
In summary, with the DJ being a mea-
sure of reactive strength, RSI is likely to
be a metric of interest. However, given
it is a ratio, the component parts of
jump height and GCT should also be
monitored. Finally, leg stiffness would
Figure 2. Schematic outlining metrics chosen in the countermovement jump test. complement GCT, by enabling practi-
tioners to understand why changes
have occurred over time, during the
mechanics during the DJ, which may standardized. This is supported in
amortization phase. Similar to the
subsequently inform programming rec- empirical research by Arampatzis
CMJ, this framework (Figure 3) aims
ommendations when related to the et al. (2), which reported strong rela-
to link the selected metrics together
needs of the athlete. In a similar notion tionships between leg stiffness and
so that a concurrent focus of outcome
to time to take-off in the CMJ, it can be GCT during the DJ at 20-cm (r 5 measures and jump strategy can be used
hard to comprehend why changes in 20.82) and 40-cm (r 5 20.89) in to inform decision-making, during the
GCT have occurred between test ses- female athletes. Although these corre- ongoing monitoring process.
sions, without an additional strategy lations can be deemed “strong,” they
metric. Thus, our fourth suggested provide r2 values of 20.67 and 20.79, PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS:
metric in this framework could be leg respectively. This shows that 33 and TESTING THEIR USE IN PRACTICE
stiffness. This refers to the resistance of 21% of the variance for GCT cannot Once metrics have been selected for
deformation in the lower extremity be explained by leg stiffness, which the CMJ and DJ tests, the key is to test
joints relative to the force placed on may indicate that both metrics can be the hypothesis that they are both reli-
it and can be calculated as peak ground used together, without directly infer- able between test-sessions and sensi-
reaction force divided by displacement ring the same information. tive to change. Tables 1 and 2
of the leg spring (10). For example, if provide hypothetical data for our pre-
GCTdata were 0.23 seconds in one test Some additional information should viously identified CMJ and DJ metrics,
session, but 0.28 seconds in another; also be considered for DJ testing and pre and post an 8-week training inter-
practitioners can clearly see the athlete monitoring. First, practitioners should vention—although a previous publica-
is spending less time on the ground in try to standardize the fall height when tion was used to ensure that the
the first test session (which is typically stepping off the platform each time suggested values are realistic, but not
desirable). However, the reason may they conduct the test. Not doing so will the same (4). Both tables show mean
not be obvious. With the inclusion of affect impact and take-off velocity and data, pre-intervention absolute reliabil-
leg stiffness, we would likely see a ultimately, the outcome measures. This ity (using the CV), percentage change,
reduction in stiffness in test session 2, can be accommodated using a single and magnitude of difference (effect sizes
meaning greater flexion of the lower force platform using the new methods [d]) between test sessions. At this point,
extremity joints, resulting in the athlete proposed by McMahon et al. (38). Sec- readers should note 2 key points i) when
spending longer on the ground. Thus, ond, if practitioners do not have access interpreting percentage change relative
monitoring leg stiffness may help prac- to a force platform, an equation devel- to the CV, the baseline or pre-
titioners to determine why any oped by Dalleau et al. (16) has validated intervention CV is used (not pooled val-
changes in GCT may have occurred leg stiffness against the aforementioned ues) because “change” is always inter-
between test sessions, assuming aspects method using flight time, GCT, and preted relative to where it originated
such as drop height have been body mass (r 5 0.94), meaning this (i.e., baseline) (4) and ii) given this is a

99
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 A Framework for the Countermovement and Drop Jump

represent largely the same impulse being

applied over a shorter timeframe. This is
supported by the large reduction in coun-
termovement depth (d 5 21.08), which
may help to explain the changes seen in
time to take-off. Finally, with our strategy
metrics also showing acceptable reliabil-
ity, practitioners can also see that the per-
centage changes are this time, greater
than the associated variance in the test,
thus exhibiting real change at the group
level. At this point, it is important to note
that this scenario relates to group mean
data. However, given every athlete gets
their own scores, percentage change rel-
ative to the baseline CV can also be com-
puted on an individual basis, which has
been reported in a recent study using Pre-
mier league academy soccer players (4).
In Table 2, hypothetical metrics show CV
Figure 3. Schematic outlining metrics chosen in the drop jump test. values , 10%, which means practitioners
can be confident in acceptable reliability
of the chosen metrics. Similar to the
hypothetical scenario, any discussion are also , the CV. Thus, our conclusion in
CMJ, the magnitude of difference varies
around the specifics of the training inter- this instance is that these metrics are reli-
between metrics though. Jump height
vention would be out of place in this able, but not overly sensitive to change
shows only a small improvement (d 5
article. However, practitioners should post-training intervention. However, our
0.35), although GCT has exhibited a
consider the efficacy of their training strategy metrics (time to take-off and coun- moderate (d 5 20.75) and statistically
programs within the context of the over- termovement depth) show much larger significant improvement. Unsurprisingly,
all aim of the training phase and the changes (d 5 20.83 to 21.08). Specifi- the effect size for RSI is somewhere in the
metrics being monitored. cally, these athletes have reduced their middle (d 5 0.57), noting that RSI is a
In Table 1, hypothetical metrics for RSI- time to take-off, essentially resulting in a ratio that is constructed by dividing jump
Mod and jump height show only trivial faster movement. As discussed earlier, height by GCT (48). Finally, although
changes (d # 0.18). Although these met- jump height has largely remained the these greater improvements in GCT (rel-
rics seem reliable (CV , 10%), the per- same, but now the movement is quicker ative to jump height and RSI) are desir-
centage change values (which have been before take-off. As such, practitioners are able, this is reinforced by large
included to differentiate between change able to infer greater improvements in rate improvements in leg stiffness (d 5
i.e., real and that inside the error of the test) of force development qualities, which will 0.81). Thus, the inclusion of leg stiffness

Table 1 (Example data)

Mean 6 SD data for the countermovement jump test in 20 adult male athletes pretraining and post-training
intervention, with absolute reliability (coefficient of variation—CV), percentage change, and effect size differences (d)
with 95% confidence intervals (CI)
Metric Pre-intervention Postintervention Pre-intervention CV (%) % Change Effect size d (95% CI)

RSI-modified 0.47 6 0.12 0.49 6 0.13 6.7 4.3 0.16 (20.36 to 0.68)
Jump height (m) 0.41 6 0.06 0.42 6 0.05 3.3 2.4 0.18 (20.34 to 0.70)
Time to take-off (s) 0.88 6 0.06 0.83 6 0.06 5.0 6.0 20.83 (21.36 to 20.28)
CM depth (m) 0.44 6 0.05 0.39 6 0.04 8.9 12.8 21.08 (21.64 to 20.53)
Effect size values in bold represent statistically significant (p , 0.05) changes.

Effect size scale: , 0.25 5 trivial; 0.25–0.50 5 small; 0.51–1.0 5 moderate; . 1.0 5 large (45).

CM 5 countermovement; Ns 5 Newton seconds; RSI 5 reactive strength index.

100 VOLUME 44 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2022

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 2 (Example data)
Mean 6 SD data for the drop jump test in 20 adult male athletes pre and post training intervention, with absolute
reliability (coefficient of variation—CV), percentage change and effect size differences (d) with 95% confidence
intervals (CI)
Metric Pre-intervention Post-intervention Pre-intervention CV (%) % Change Effect size d (95% CI)

Reactive strength index 2.85 6 0.32 3.06 6 0.41 7.6 7.4 0.57 (0.03 to 1.09)
Jump height (m) 0.35 6 0.11 0.39 6 0.12 3.9 11.4 0.35 (20.18 to 0.86)
GCT (s) 0.24 6 0.04 0.21 6 0.04 6.2 12.5 20.75 (21.27 to 20.20)
21
Leg stiffness (kN$m ) 58.81 6 8.90 66.41 6 9.90 9.6 12.9 0.81 (0.25 to 1.33)
Effect size values in bold represent statistically significant (p , 0.05) changes.

Effect size scale: , 0.25 5 trivial; 0.25–0.50 5 small; 0.51–1.0 5 moderate; . 1.0 5 large (45).

GCT 5 ground contact time; kN$m21 5 leg stiffness in Newtons multiplied by meters per second.

as a metric reinforces our understanding suggesting that these are the only metrics
Anthony
of the improvements seen for GCT. to be monitored in these tests. Merely,
Turner is an
Although hypothetical, hopefully, readers our aim here was to demonstrate in these
associate profes-
can comprehend how the selection of examples, that the chosen metrics can
sor in Strength
these metrics for the CMJ and DJ tests, help complement each other by helping
and Conditioning
helps to inform each other. In addition, to explain why any changes in scores
at the London
this section in particular highlights that i) may be evident. Although a plethora of
Sport Institute,
not all metrics will be sensitive to change metrics from jump testing exists in the
Middlesex
after training interventions; thus, some will literature to date, it is the final step in
University.
inform decision-making better than others, the puzzle—testing their use in practice,
ii) not all metrics will elicit the same level which should drive whether they have
of reliability and thus, practitioners may any continued use for monitoring. This
Matt Jordan is
wish to implement standardized familiar- should help to aid whether their inclusion
the director of
ization sessions before any formal data col- is warranted or not, alongside more com-
Sport Science for
lection to improve reliability and monly used outcome measures, such as
the Canadian
determine a threshold for meaningful jump height.
Sport Institute,
change and, iii) if metrics are chosen that Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: Calgary.
do not relate to others that are being mon- The authors report no conflicts of interest
itored, it may not always be obvious why and no source of funding.
some have been selected and why some
changes are evident between test sessions.
Chris Bishop is
a senior lecturer John Harry is an
CONCLUSION in Strength and assistant profes-
This article aims to encourage practi- Conditioning at sor of Biome-
tioners to consider the metrics they select the London Sport chanics at Texas
from CMJ and DJ tests, so that the infor- Institute, Mid- Tech University,
mation obtained helps to explain the dlesex Univer- where he is the
findings of other chosen metrics and sity, where he is Director of the
guide decision-making in practice. the program Human Perfor-
Although examples have been provided leader for the mance and Bio-
for both the CMJ and DJ tests, readers MSc Strength and Conditioning mechanics
should note that we are not solely program. Laboratory.

101
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 A Framework for the Countermovement and Drop Jump

5. Bishop C, Brashill C, Abbott W, et al. 17. Ebben W, Petushek E. Using the reactive
Irineu Loturco Jumping asymmetries are associated with strength index modified to evaluate
is the director of speed, change of direction speed, and plyometric performance. J Strength Cond
Sports Sciences jump performance in elite academy soccer Res 24: 1983–1987, 2010.
and Research players. J Strength Cond Res 35: 1841– 18. Flanagan E, Ebben W, Randall J. Reliability
Leader at the 1847, 2021. of the reactive strength index and time to
Nucleus of High 6. Bishop C, Read P, Chavda S, et al. stabilization during depth jumps. J Strength
Performance in Magnitude or direction? Seasonal variation Cond Res 22: 1677–1682, 2008.
Sport (NAR). of inter-limb asymmetry in elite academy 19. Gathercole R, Sporer B, Stellingwerff T,
soccer players. J Strength Cond Res [Epub Sleivert G. Alternative countermovement-
ahead of print]. jump analysis to quantify acute
7. Bishop C, Read P, Stern D, Turner A. neuromuscular fatigue. Int J Sports Physiol
Effects of soccer match-play on unilateral Perform 10: 84–92, 2015.
Jason Lake is a
jumping and interlimb asymmetry: A 20. Gathercole R, Sporer B, Stellingwerff T,
reader in Sports repeated measures design. J Strength Sleivert G. Comparison of the capacity of
Biomechanics at Cond Res [Epub ahead of print]. different jump and sprint field tests to
the Chichester 8. Bishop C, Turner A, Jarvis P, Chavda S, detect neuromuscular fatigue. J Strength
Institute of Sport, Read P. Considerations for selecting Cond Res 29: 2522–2531, 2015.
University of field-based strength and power fitness 21. Harry J, Barker L, Tinsley G, et al.
Chichester. tests to measure asymmetries. Relationships among countermovement
J Strength Cond Res 31: 2635–2644, vertical jump performance metrics, strategy
2017. variables, and inter-limb asymmetry in
9. Bishop C, Weldon A, Hughes J, et al. females. Sports Biomech [Epub ahead of
Seasonal variation of physical performance print].
Paul Comfort is and inter-limb asymmetry in professional 22. Hart L, Cohen D, Patterson S, Springham
cricket athletes. J Strength Cond Res 35:
a reader in M, Reynolds J, Read P. Previous injury is
941–948, 2021. associated with heightened
Strength and
10. Brazier J, Maloney S, Bishop C, Read P, countermovement jump force-time
Conditioning at
Turner A. Lower extremity stiffness: asymmetries in professional soccer players
the University of Considerations for testing, performance even after return to play. Transl Sport Med
Salford. enhancement, and injury risk. J Strength 2: 256–262, 2019.
Cond Res 33: 1156–1166, 2019. 23. Jordan M, Aagaard P, Herzog W. A
11. Caserotti P, Aagaard P, Puggaard L. comparison of lower limb stiffness and
Changes in power and force generation mechanical muscle function in ACL-
during coupled eccentric-concentric reconstructed, elite, and adolescent alpine
versus concentric muscle contraction with ski racers/ski cross athletes. J Sport Heal
training and aging. Eur J Appl Physiol 103: Sci 7: 416–424, 2018.
151–161, 2008. 24. Jordan M, Aagaard P, Herzog W. Lower
12. Chavda S, Bromley T, Jarvis P, et al. Force- limb asymmetry in mechanical muscle
REFERENCES
time characteristics of the function: A comparison between ski racers
1. Allison D, Paultre F, Goran M, Poehlman E,
countermovement jump: Analyzing the with and without ACL reconstruction.
Heymsfield S. Statistical considerations
curve in excel. Strength Cond J 40: 67–77, Scand J Med Sci Sports 25: e301–309,
regarding the use of ratios to adjust data.
2018. 2015.
Int J Obes Rel Metab Disord 19: 644–652,
1995. 13. Cohen D, Burton A, Wells C, et al. Single 25. Jordan M, Morris N, Lane M, et al.
vs double leg countermovement jumps: Monitoring the return to sport transition
2. Arampatzis A, Bruggemann G-P, Klapsing
Not half an apple! Aspetar Sports Med J after ACL injury: An alpine ski racing case
G. Leg stiffness and mechanical energetic
34–41, 2020. study. Front Sport Act Living 2: 1–16,
processes during jumping on a sprung
14. Cormack S, Newton R, McGuigan M, 2020.
surface. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 923–
931, 2001. Doyle T. Reliability of measures obtained 26. Kale M, Alper A, Bayrak C, Acikada C.
during single and repeated Relationships among jumping
3. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Glaister M,
countermovement jumps. Int J Sports performances and sprint parameters during
Lockey R. The validity and reliability of an
Physiol Perform 3: 131–144, 2008. maximum speed phase in sprinters.
iPhone app for measuring vertical jump
15. Currell K, Jeukendrup A. Validity, reliability J Strength Cond Res 23: 2272–2279,
performance. J Sports Sci 33: 1574–
and sensitivity of measures of sporting 2009.
1579, 2015.
performance. Sports Med 38: 297–316, 27. Kenny I, Caireallain A, Comyns T. Validation
4. Bishop C, Abbott W, Brashill C, et al.
2008. of an electronic jump mat to assess stretch-
Effects of pre-season strength training on
16. Dalleau G, Belli A, Viale F, Lacour J-R, shortening cycle function. J Strength Cond
bilateral and unilateral jump performance,
and the bilateral deficit in premier league Bourdin M. A simple method for field Res 26: 1601–1608, 2012.
academy soccer players. Prof Strength measurements of leg stiffness in hopping. 28. Koo T, Li M. A guideline of selecting and
Cond J In Press. Int J Sports Med 25: 170–176, 2004. reporting intraclass correlation coefficients

102 VOLUME 44 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2022

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 for reliability research. J Chiro Med 15: 37. McMahon J, Jones P, Comfort P. A correction 46. Suchomel T, Bailey C, Sole C, Grazer J,
155–163, 2016. equation for jump height measured using the Beckham G. Using reactive strength index-
29. Lloyd R, Oliver J, Hughes M, Williams C. just jump system. Int J Sports Physiol Perform modified as an explosive performance
Reliability and validity of field-based 11: 555–557, 2016. measurement tool in division 1 athletes.
measures of leg stiffness and reactive 38. McMahon J, Lake J, Stratford C, Comfort P. J Strength Cond Res 29: 899–904, 2015.
strength index in youths. J Sports Sci 27: A proposed method for evaluating drop 47. Thorlund J, Michalsik L, Madsen K, Aagaard
1565–1573, 2009. jump performance with one force platform. P. Acute fatigue-induced changes in
30. Loturco I, D’Angelo R, Fernandes V, et al. Biomech 1: 178–189, 2021. muscle mechanical properties and
Relationship between sprint ability and 39. Morin J-B, Jimenez-Reyes P, Brughelli M, neuromuscular activity in elite handball
loaded/unloaded jump tests in elite sprinters. Samozino P. When jump height is not a players following a handball match. Scand
J Strength Cond Res 29: 758–764, 2015. good indicator of lower limb maximal power J Med Sci Sport 18: 462–472, 2008.
31. Loturco I, Fernandes V, Boullosa D, et al. output: Theoretical demonstration, 48. Turner A, Jeffreys I. The stretch-shortening
Correlations between jump measures and experimental evidence and practical cycle: Proposed mechanisms and methods
competitive performance remain stable solutions. Sports Med 49: 999–1006, for enhancement. Strength Cond J 32: 87–
over time in top level sprinters. J Sports 2019. 99, 2010.
Med Phys Fit [Epub ahead of print].
40. Newton R, Gerber A, Nimphius S, et al.
49. Turner A, Bishop C, Chavda S, et al.
32. Loturco I, Pereira L, Reis V, et al. Power Determination of functional strength
Physical characteristics underpinning
training in elite young soccer players: imbalance of the lower extremities.
lunging and change of direction speed in
Effects of using loads above or below the J Strength Cond Res 20: 971–977, 2006.
optimum power zone. J Sports Sci 38: fencing. J Strength Cond Res 30: 2235–
41. Pedley J, Lloyd R, Read P, Moore I, Oliver J. 2241, 2016.
1416–1422, 2020.
Drop jump: A technical model for scientific
33. Maloney S, Fletcher I, Richards J. A application. Strength Cond J 39: 36–44, 50. Turner A, Bishop C, Cree J, et al. Building a
comparison of methods to determine 2017. high-performance model for sport: A
bilateral asymmetries in vertical leg human development-centered approach.
42. Pueo B, Lipinska B, Jiminez-Olmedo J,
stiffness. J Sports Sci 34: 829–835, 2016. Strength Cond J 41: 100–107, 2019.
Zmijewski P, Hopkins W. Accuracy of
34. Maloney S, Richards J, Nixon D, Harvey L, jump-mat systems for measuring jump 51. Turner A, Bishop C, Springham M, Stewart
Fletcher I. Do stiffness and asymmetries height. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 12: P. Identifying readiness to train: When to
predict change of direction performance?. push and when to pull. Prof Strength Cond
959–963, 2017.
J Sports Sci 35: 547–556, 2017. J 42: 9–14, 2016.
43. Read P, Hughes J, Stewart P, et al. A needs
35. Mandic R, Jakovljevic S, Jaric S. Effects of
analysis and field-based testing for basketball. 52. Turner A, Brazier J, Bishop C, et al. Data
countermovement depth on kinematic and
Strength Cond J 36: 13–20, 2014. analysis for strength and conditioning
kinetic patterns of maximum vertical jumps.
44. Rhea M. Determining the magnitude of coaches: Using excel to analyze reliability,
J Electromyog Kinesiol 25: 265–272, 2015.
treatment effects in strength training differences, and relationships. Strength
36. McBride J, Kirby T, Haines T, Skinner J. Cond J 37: 76–83, 2015.
research through the use of the effect size.
Relationship between relative net vertical
J Strength Cond Res 18: 918–920, 2004. 53. Vescovi J, McGuigan M. Relationships
impulse and jump height in jump squats
performed to various squat depths and with 45. Ruddock A, Winter E. Jumping depends on between sprinting, agility, and jump ability
various loads. Int J Sports Physiol Perform impulse not power. J Sports Sci 34: 584– in female athletes. J Sports Sci 26: 97–
5: 484–496, 2010. 585, 2015. 107, 2008.

103
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.