Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 September;42(3) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 September;42(3):300-3

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS

A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology


Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111


eTOC

 

Original articles  EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS


The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 September;42(3):300-3

language: English

Jump evaluation of elite volleyball players using two methods: jump power equations and force platform

Hertogh C., Hue O.

From the Laboratoire ­ACTE, UFR-­STAPS Université des Antilles et de la Guyane Campus de Fouillole, Pointe à Pitre, France (Guadeloupe)


PDF  


Background. The aim of the ­present ­study was to deter­mine the ­best ­jump pow­er equa­tion in the eval­u­a­tion of ­elite vol­ley­ball ­players ­using ­both the ­force plat­form and ­peak pow­er equa­tions.
Methods. Nine ­elite vol­ley­ball ­players and ­nine sed­en­tary sub­jects per­formed coun­ter-move­ment ­jump ­tests on a ­force plat­form.
Results. Peak pow­er and ­height ­were great­er in the vol­ley­ball ­players ­than in the sed­en­tary sub­jects, what­ev­er the meth­od ­used.
The ­results dem­on­strat­ed ­that the ­peak pow­er val­ues ­obtained on the ­force plat­form and ­those ­scored ­from the equa­tions of Lewis, Harman and Sayers et al. ­were cor­re­lat­ed ­when the ­whole sam­ple was tak­en ­into ­account. However, a sig­nif­i­cant equa­tion × lev­el inter­ac­tion (p<10-4) indi­cat­ed dif­fer­ent beha­vi­our as a func­tion of per­for­mance lev­el. In sed­en­tary sub­jects, ­peak pow­er was sig­nif­i­cant­ly under­es­ti­mat­ed ­using the Lewis equa­tion (943±162 W; p<10-4) and did not dif­fer ­using ­both the Harman (3004±563 W) and Sayers (3400±604 W) equa­tions ­when com­pared to the ­peak pow­er not­ed ­with the ­force plat­form (3372±532 W). In con­trast, in vol­ley­ball ­players, ­peak pow­er was under­es­ti­mat­ed ­using the ­three equa­tions (1246±78 W, p<10-4; 4314±216 W, p<0.001; 4607±251, p<0.005; for the Lewis, Harman and Sayers equa­tions, respec­tive­ly, ver­sus 5355±522 W for the ­force plat­form).
Conclusions. The ­results of the ­present ­study dem­on­strate the dif­fi­cul­ty in choos­ing the ­most rel­e­vant equa­tion in the ­jump pow­er cal­cu­la­tion.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail