Reliability of ADR Jumping Photocell: Comparison of Beam Cut at Forefoot and Midfoot

Jose M. Jimenez-Olmedo, Alfonso Penichet-Tomas (), Basilio Pueo and Lamberto Villalon-Gasch
Additional contact information
Jose M. Jimenez-Olmedo: Research Group in Health, Physical Activity, and Sports Technology (Health-Tech), Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain
Alfonso Penichet-Tomas: Research Group in Health, Physical Activity, and Sports Technology (Health-Tech), Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain
Basilio Pueo: Research Group in Health, Physical Activity, and Sports Technology (Health-Tech), Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain
Lamberto Villalon-Gasch: Research Group in Health, Physical Activity, and Sports Technology (Health-Tech), Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain

IJERPH, 2023, vol. 20, issue 11, 1-13

Abstract: The ability to detect small changes in a vertical jump is crucial when data are used by sports science specialists to monitor their athletes. This study aimed to analyze the intrasession reliability of the ADR jumping photocell and the reliability relative to the position of the transmitter when it is located facing the phalanges of the foot (forefoot) or the metatarsal area (midfoot). A total of 12 female volleyball players performed 240 countermovement jumps (CMJ), alternating both methods. The intersession reliability was higher for the forefoot method (ICC = 0.96; CCC = 0.95; SEM = 1.15 cm; CV = 4.11%) than for the midfoot method (ICC = 0.85; CCC = 0.81; SEM = 3.68 cm; CV = 8.75%). Similarly, the sensitivity values were better for the forefoot method (SWC = 0.32) than for the midfoot method (SWC = 1.04). Significant differences were found between the methods (13.5 cm, p < 0.05, ES = 2.1) with low agreement ( r s = 0.57; ICC = 0.49; CCC = 0.15; SEM = 4.7 cm) and heteroscedasticity was observed ( r 2 > 0.1). In conclusion, the ADR jumping photocell is shown to be a reliable tool for measuring CMJs. However, the reliability of the instrument can be influenced depending on the placement of the device. Comparing the two methods, the midfoot placement was less reliable as indicated by higher values of SEM and systematic error, and thus its use is not recommended.

Keywords: accuracy; consistency; sensibility; countermovement jump; error; between-methods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/11/5935/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/11/5935/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:11:p:5935-:d:1154275

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().