ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2023
Analysis of the accuracy and reliability of vertical jump evaluation using a low-cost acquisition system.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A High-Frequency Wearable IMU-Based System for Countermovement Jump Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Differences in Average Power Output Values from Computational Models of Repeated Vertical Jump Tests: A Single-Group Quasi Experimental Approach.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Computational Modelling of Protected and Unprotected Head Impacts in Rugby.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Beyond Belief: Exploring the Alignment of Self-Efficacy, Self-Prediction, Self-Perception, and Actual Performance Measurement in a Squat Jump Performance-A Pilot Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe vertical jump can be analyzed based on the flight time achieved by the individual. This measurement can be obtained using a force platform or a three-dimensional infrared camera system, but such equipment is expensive and requires training for data collection and processing. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of using a smartphone and the Kinovea software compared with a force platform as a method of vertical jump analysis.
methodsFor this purpose, two independent evaluators analyzed videos of bipodal and unipodal vertical jumps by counting the variables among participants. The participants performed three consecutive jumps in bipodal and unipodal conditions with the dominant and non-dominant legs.
resultsThe intra-rater analysis for bipodal jumps was found to have excellent reproducibility (ICC = 0.903 to 0.934), whereas for unipodal jumps, the reproducibility was moderate to excellent (ICC = 0.713 to 0.902). The inter-rater analysis showed that for bipodal jumps, the reproducibility is substantial to excellent (ICC = 0.823 to 0.926), while for unipodal jumps, it is moderate (ICC = 0.554 to 0.702).
conclusionsTherefore, it can be concluded that the vertical jump evaluation can be performed using the smartphone-Kinovea system. However, the same evaluator should carry out the evaluation to maintain reliable indices.
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.