ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2021
Reliability and Validity of the Polar V800 Sports Watch for Estimating Vertical Jump Height.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Mobile Phone Applications for Measuring Vertical Jumps in Amateur Handball Players.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Validity and reliability of Polar M400 GPS watches for measuring distances covered by team sports players.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Test-Retest and Between-Device Reliability ofSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The validity and reliability of counter movement jump height measured with the Polar Vantage V2 sports watch.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFitInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the Polar V800 to measure vertical jump height. Twenty-two physically active healthy men (age: 22.89 ± 4.23 years; body mass: 70.74 ± 8.04 kg; height: 1.74 ± 0.76 m) were recruited for the study. The reliability was evaluated by comparing measurements acquired by the Polar V800 in two identical testing sessions one week apart. Validity was assessed by comparing measurements simultaneously obtained using a force platform (gold standard), high-speed camera and the Polar V800 during squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests. In the test-retest reliability, high intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were observed (mean: 0.90, SJ and CMJ) in the Polar V800. There was no significant systematic bias ± random errors (p > 0.05) between test-retest. Low coefficients of variation (<5%) were detected in both jumps in the Polar V800. In the validity assessment, similar jump height was detected among devices (p > 0.05). There was almost perfect agreement between the Polar V800 compared to a force platform for the SJ and CMJ tests (Mean ICCs = 0.95; no systematic bias ± random errors in SJ mean: -0.38 ± 2.10 cm, p > 0.05). Mean ICC between the Polar V800 versus high-speed camera was 0.91 for the SJ and CMJ tests, however, a significant systematic bias ± random error (0.97 ± 2.60 cm; p = 0.01) was detected in CMJ test. The Polar V800 offers valid, compared to force platform, and reliable information about vertical jump height performance in physically active healthy young men.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.