Edited by Foxit Reader

Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008

For Evaluation Only.
Evaluation of Power Prediction Equations:
Peak Vertical Jumping Power in Women
PAUL K. CANAVAN' and JASON D. VESCOVI2
'School of Allied Health, Northeastern University, Boston, MA; and 2 Human Performance Laboratory, Department of
Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

ABSTRACT
CANAVAN, P. K., and J. D. VESCOVI. Evaluation of Power Prediction Equations: Peak Vertical Jumping Power in Women. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 1589-1593, 2004. Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to: I) compare actual peak
power (PPac,ua1) to estimated values (PP,,,) derived from three different prediction equations (Sayers and Harman), 2) determine the
ability of the prediction formulas to monitor change following 6 wk of plyometric training, and 3) generate a new regression model.
Methods: Twenty college females (age = 20.1 ± 1.6 yr; body mass = 65.9 ± 8.9 kg) were randomly assigned to a control or
intervention group. Pre- and posttest countermovement jump (CMJ) height and PP_tu, were determined simultaneously on a force
platform. Body mass and maximal CMJ height were used to predict peak power. Results: All three PP,,, were significantly correlated
to PPac,u,a and to each other on pre (r = 0.84-0.99) and post (r = 0.88-0.99) tests. PPal (2425.4 ± 372.4 W) was significantly less
than PP,,, (Sayers: SJ = 2920.8 ± 482.6 W; CMJ = 2925.1 ± 473.0 W) but was not different from PP.., (Harman: 2585.0 ± 409.7
W). Posttests revealed similar differences between PP,,,.. and PPs, for the intervention group, however no significant differences were
observed for the control group. Mean differences from pre and posttests did not differ within or between PP,,,. Regression analysis
determined the formula: PP,,, = 65.1 X (jump height) + 25.8 X (body mass) - 1413.1 (R2 = 0.92; SEE = 120.8), which slightly
underestimated (0.77%) peak power compared with PP_,ttut,, in our cross-validation sample (N = 7). Conclusions: Changes in peak
power is accurate using any of the regression equations; however, the new prediction formula and that of Harman seem to more
precisely estimate peak power. Strict jumping technique along with simultaneous measurement of power and jump height should be
used as the standard for comparison. Key Words: PEAK POWER, PLYOMETRICS, COUNTERMOVEMENT JUMP, CROSS-
VALIDATION

P ower is
considered an essential element for successful
athletic performance (14,15,18), as well as for carry-
ing out daily activities and occupational tasks (14).
The assessment of power can be used to track performance
improvements or decrements over time and subsequently
determine the efficacy of a training program (13). Whereas
a force platform is ideal for directly and precisely measuring
power, this method is expensive and not easily accessible
outside the laboratory setting. The use of vertical jump
height has been widely used by sports performance profes-
sionals as an alternative to direct assessment of power
(7,9,17). Typically prediction equations have been used to
estimate peak and average power from jump height. The
Lewis formula (7) was commonly used but deemed inaccu-
rate by Harman et al. (9), who reported the formula did not
measure the peak power from jumping but rather estimated
it indirectly based on calculation of the average power
Address for correspondence: Paul K. Canavan, Department of Physical
Therapy, Northeastern University, 6 Robinson Hall, Boston, MA 02115:
Email: p.canavan@neu.edu.
Submitted for publication October 2003.
Accepted for publication April 2004.
0195-9131/04/3609-1589
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE®
Copyright C 2004 by the American College of Sports Medicine
DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000139802.96395.AC
1589
gravity exerts on the falling body. Consequently, Harman et
al. (9) determined a regression equation from a sample of
college men (N = 17) that was later cross-validated by
Sayers et al. (17) in a larger sample of men and women. The
equations generated from each study are listed in Table 1;
however, examination of these formulas is needed due to
several limitations.
First, both studies used separate tests to determine vertical
jump height and peak power instead of pairing these two
variables from the same jump. Power output was measured
on a force plate, whereas jump height was determined from
a jump and reach test. Performing the jump and reach test
against a wall may impede jumping technique and therefore
effect jumping ability compared with jumping on a force
plate. Second, the cross-validation study by Sayers et al.
(17) included an extremely heterogeneous group of men and
women as well as a combination of athletes and nonathletes.
It could be argued differences in vertical jump technique
and/or coordination may exist between genders and between
athletes and nonathletes (5,10). Lastly, specificity would
commonly dictate the use of a countermovement jump
(CMJ) compared with a static squat jump (SJ) when assess-
ing athletes. A squat jump begins from a paused crouched
position before jumping vertically, whereas CMJ begins
from an erect position and uses a quick crouching action
followed immediately by a vertical jump. Harman et al. (9)
used squat jump height in their regression model, whereas
Sayers et al. (17) reported the prediction equation derived

TABLE 1. Previous power prediction equations in the literature.
Harman
Sayers-SJ
Sayers-CMJ
Harman et al. (9)and Sayers et al. (17).
from SJ was more accurate than the formula from CMJ.
These factors may add to the variability of their regression
models, which would subsequently affect the accuracy of
peak power prediction.
Many females are participating in high-intensity sports
(i.e., soccer, lacrosse, volleyball, tennis) and training pro-
tocols (i.e., resistance and plyometric training) that require
high power output from the lower extremities. Monitoring
changes in performance over time is standard practice for
sports performance professionals. To date, no research has
examined the ability of prediction equations to track alter-
ations in performance. It would be beneficial to have a
procedure to assess and monitor changes in lower-extremity
power for female athletes that is time efficient, accurate, and
reliable. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to
compare actual peak power (PPactual) with estimated peak
power (PPest) determined by the aforementioned formulas
(9,17) with a sample of college females. A secondary pur-
pose was to assess the prediction formulas' ability to mon-
itor changes after a 6-wk plyometric program. A cross-
validated regression formula was developed, which may be
more accurate and possibly gender specific.
METHODS
Experimental approach to the problem. A longi-
tudinal study design with a training intervention was used to
assess the predictive ability and accuracy of power predic-
tion formulas. Twenty college females volunteered to par-
ticipate and were randomly assigned to either an interven-
tion (plyometric training) or control group for 6 wk. Before
and after the 6-wk intervention, PPac,uai and maximal CMJ
height were assessed on a Quattro Jump Portable Force Plate
System (Kistler, Amherst, NY). Trials were measured in
triplicate with the best jump height and associated peak
power used for analysis. Body mass (kg) and maximal CMJ
height (cm) were used as the predictors and peak power as
the criterion variable in the regression analysis.
Subjects. Twenty recreationally trained college women
(age = 20.1 ± 1.6 yr; body mass = 65.9 ± 8.9 kg)
volunteered to participate in this investigation. Subjects
participated in regular exercise and intramural sports and
had a minimum of 3 yr of organized basketball experience.
Written informed consent was obtained before beginning
the study in accordance with the university's Institutional
Review Board.
Peak power assessment. PPa,tua, and maximal CMJ
height was assessed using a Quattro Jump Portable Force
Plate System (Kistler, Amherst. NY) at a sampling rate of
500 Hz. Subjects were instructed to begin from a standing
position and perform a crouching action immediately fol-
lowed by a jump for maximal height. Subject's hands re-
1590 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine
Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008
For Evaluation Only.
Power (W) = 61.9 x jump height (cm) + 36.0 x body mass (kg) -1822
Power (W) = 60.7 x jump height (cm) + 45.3 x body mass (kg) - 2055
Power (W)= 51.9 x jump height (cm) + 48.9 x body mass (kg) - 2007
mained on the hips for the entire movement to eliminate any
influence of arm swing (4). Jump technique was demon-
strated to each subject, followed by two submaximal at-
tempts. Three maximal jumps, separated by ample rest, were
then completed. Test-retest reliability was high (r = 0.95-
0.97) for vertical jump height.
Plyometric training intervention. Plyometric train-
ing was performed 3 d.wk- for 6 wk. Each session lasted
approximately 45-60 min and included a standardized
warm-up, followed by the jump exercises and concluded
with a cool-down. A variety of exercises were used includ-
ing, squat jumps, broad jumps, bounds, and lateral jumps.
The intensity was increased over the 6-wk period by in-
creasing the duration of exercise (e.g., 10-25 s) or the
distance jumped (e.g., broad jumps). A detailed description
of the entire program and progression is provided by Hewett
et al. (11,12). All subjects completed an orientation session
to become familiar with the different jumps before the initial
training session but after pretesting.
Statistical analysis. Statistics were performed using
SPSS Version 11.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Pearson prod-
uct correlations were used to assess the relationship between
PPes,t and PpactuaI. A repeated measures ANOVA was used
to compare the pre- (entire sample) and posttest (separate
groups) peak power values with subsequent Tukey's post
hoc analysis when appropriate. Paired t-tests were used to
examine changes pre to post for the intervention and control
groups. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine
a new prediction equation and cross-validated using a 2/3
split of the sample. Values reported are means + SD.
Statistical significance was accepted at P < 0.05.
RESULTS
Table 2 shows the correlation matrix between PPactuaI and
Ppes,. All three prediction models (9,17) were highly cor-
related wvith PPactua, for the pretest (r Ž 0.84) and posttest (r
Ž 0.88) data (P < 0.01). There was also a high correlation
between each of the regression equations from Harman and
Sayers (r = 0.97-0.99, P < 0.01).
Multiple regression analysis was used to predict peak
power output (W) from CMJ height (cm) and body mass
(kg). Results indicated that the two predictor variables ac-
counted for a significant amount of peak power variability,
R2 0.92, F(2,10) = 61.35, P < 0.000. Furthermore, the
regression model (PPes, = 65.1 X (jump height) + 25.8 x
(body mass) - 1413.1) showed minimal error, SEE =
120.8. CMJ height (t = 9.62, P < 0.000) and body mass (t
= 5.94, P < 0.000) each contributed significantly to the
model and uniquely accounted for approximately 70% and
27% of the variance in peak power, respectively.
http:Hwww.ac:sm-msse.org
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008
TABLE 2. Correlation matrix for peak power. For Evaluation Only.
Actual Harman Sayer-SJ Sayer-CMJ
Pretest (N= 20)
Actual 1.0 0.897 0.872 0.840
Harman 1.0 0.992 0.974
Sayer-SJ 1.0 0.994
Sayer-CMJ 1.0
Posttest (N = 20)
Actual 1.0 0.925 0.884 0.909
Harman 1.0 0.976 0.993
Sayer-SJ 1.0 0.995
Sayer-CMJ 1.0
All correlations are significant (P < 0.01).
Harman et al. (9) and Sayers et al. (17).

Cross-validation (N = 7) of the current prediction equa-
tion indicated no significant difference (P > 0.05) between
PPactual and PPest. The mean difference of 17.5 + 229.1 W
corresponds to an underestimation of 0.77% by the regres-
sion model.
PPaCtual and PPest for the pretest are displayed in Figure 1.
Both equations from Sayers et al. (17) significantly overes-
timated PPactual by approximately 20%. On the other hand.
the Harman et al. equation (9) overestimated Ppactual by only
6% (NS).
Figures 2A and 2B show the differences in peak power
after the 6-wk training period for the intervention and con-
trol groups, respectively. No differences were observed be-
tween pre- and posttest scores for any of the prediction
equations. Significant overestimations still existed between
PPeSt (Sayers) and PPactual for the intervention group (P <
0.000) on the posttest scores; however, no differences were
observed within the control group (P = 0.178).
Because Harman et al. (9) also used the SJ technique to
determine their regression formula, it is surprising to have
found this discrepancy. It is interesting because the subject
characteristics are vastly different between the current in-
vestigation and Harman et al. (9), yet Sayers and colleagues
(17) reported that investigating a larger more heterogeneous
group would provide more accurate results. A plausible
explanation for the overestimation of previously developed
equations compared with the current study could be the use
of the jump and reach test, whereby subjects place a mark on
the wall with their fingers (e.g., chalk). An individual's
unique flexibility in shoulder elevation combined with side
bending of the trunk may not precisely measure the change
4000

DISCUSSION
This investigation found significant differences between
Ppactual and PPes, on the pretest (Fig. 1). Regardless of which
Sayers formula was used (SJ or CMJ), there was a signifi-
cant overestimation of peak power. There was also a non-
significant overestimation of PP,,t by the Sayers formula
(17) compared with Harman PPes, of approximately 13%.
1000

3000 * Pre 0 Post

X 2500 _J
2000

1000 - ACTUAL HARMAN SAYER-SJ SAYER-CMJ

ACTUAL HARMAN SAYER-CMJ SAYER4SJ
FIGURE 2-Comparison of pre- and posttest peak power for inter-
FIGURE 1-PPa,,tua and PPe, 5 from pretest (N = 20). *Significantly vention (A) and control (B) groups. *Significantly different from ac-
different from actual. Values are mean ± SD. tual. Values are mean ± SD.

VERTICAL JUMP POWER PREDICTION FOR FEMALES Medicine &Science in Sports &Exercisea 1591
 Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008
For Evaluation
in height of the center of mass. Therefore, the test may
nearly impossible,
inadvertently misrepresent true vertical jump height and
consequently effect power estimates. Hertogh and Hue (10)
reported no differences between PpacuaI, Sayers, and Har-
man peak power for sedentary individuals, but the two
prediction equations significantly underestimated peak
power compared to PPwctual for volleyball players. Whereas
these findings conflict with the current study, they do lend
support to the notion of developing and using regression
models within homogeneous samples.
The similarity between Ppactual and PPest (Harman) was not
only unexpected due to the different samples examined but also
because of the difference in jump technique used. Jump height
is typically greater when using a CMJ compared with an SJ
because more work is generated during the preparatory coun-
termovement (2); however, Harman et al. (9) provided no
indication regarding the depth of squat performed or how long
of a pause was required before jumping. In addition, neither
Harman et al. (9) or Sayers et al. (17) reported what was
considered a successful SJ attempt, whereby no preparatory
countermovement was observed. Therefore, it becomes diffi-
cult to decipher whether the SJ in Harman et al. (9) could have
been more similar to the CMJ used in the current study or if the
SJ and CMJ performed in Sayers et al. (17) study had minimal
technique differences.
All of the prediction formulas were able to track perfor-
mance similarly to PPactual (Fig. 2). Whereas no significant
differences were observed between pre and posttest values,
peak power for the intervention and control groups tended to
increase and decrease, respectively. This is the first study to
examine the ability of prediction equations to assess perfor-
mance over time. These findings indicate that peak power can
be accurately monitored for the duration of a typical mesocycle
regardless of the formula chosen.
The regression equation developed from the current sam-
ple of recreationally trained college women appears highly
accurate. The SEE (120.8) is considerably less than the
values reported by Sayers et al. (17) (range: 372.9-561.5).
Sayers et al. (17) have suggested that the SJ provides a more
standardized protocol due to large variations in CMJ tech-
nique. Anecdotal evidence from our laboratory indicates
that performing a pure SJ from a static squat position is
REFERENCES
I. ADAMS, K., J. O'SHEA, K. O'SHEA, and M. CLIMSTEIN. The effect of
six weeks of squat, plyometric, and squat-plyometric training on
power production. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 6:36-41, 1992.
2. BOBBERT, M. F., K. G. GERRITSEN, M. C. LITJENS, and A. J. VAN
SOEST. Why is countermovement jump height greater than squat
jump height? Med. Sci. Sports Everc. 28:1402-1412. 1996.
3. BROWN, M. E., J. L. MAYHEW, and L. W. BOLEACH. Effect of
plyometric training on vertical jump performance in high school
basketball players. J. Sports Med. Phys Fitness 26:1-4. 1986.
4. CANAVAN, P. K.. G. E. GARRETT, and L. E. ARMSTRONG. Kinematic
and kinetic relationships between an Olympic style lift and the
vertical jump. J. Strength Cond. Res. 10:127-130, 1996.
5. CASEROT7I, P., P. AAGAARD. E. B. SIMONSEN, and L. PUGGAARD.
Contraction-specific differences in maximal muscle power during
stretch-shortening cycle movements in elderly males and females.
Eur. J. Appl Physiol. 84:206-212. 2001.
1592 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine
Only. even when the hands are placed on the
hips. It appears necessary to perform some type of counter-
movement action with the legs or torso before jumping.
Allowing arm swing to occur will also add to the variability
and more closely link the SJ to CMJ performance. This
would appear true from a closer examination of Sayers et al.
(17) data and regression equations. Just as we found no
difference (9.6 W) when inserting CMJ height in both Say-
ers equations, the results from their female subsample (Tables
6 and 7 fiom Sayers et al. (17)) indicated a difference of only
60.2 W (it was not reported whether this difference was sig-
nificant). This would seem to indicate that either a great deal of
cross talk occurred between the two jump techniques or there
is an inability of the regression equations to distinguish be-
tween them. So, although we agree that using CMJ in either
formula will produce similar results, we are in disagreement
with the rationale provided by Sayers et al. (17).
Including plyometric drills into a training program has
been shown to improve both power production (6,16) and
jumping performance (1,3,6,8,20). Whereas Gehri et al. (8)
used women as participants, they did not report gender
differences because men and women were combined in their
training groups. The current investigation showed no change
in peak power after a 6-wk plyometric program (Fig. 2),
which is in agreement with Young et al. (21). They also used
a 6-wk training program with men and found no difference
in jumping ability. Research examining longer durations of
training (8-12 wk) have reported a 40% increase in peak
power (6). Therefore, a minimum of 8 wk should be con-
sidered when designing a training program to improve peak
power and/or jumping ability.
Using power (0.8) and effect size (0.92) to determine an
appropriate sample size revealed the need for approximately 25
individuals (19); therefore, our sample of 20 should be con-
sidered a limitation to this study. Nevertheless, a new regres-
sion formiula was developed that is highly accurate but needs to
be cross-validated with larger and different samples (e.g., elite
athletes). Whereas all of the equations examined track perfor-
mance with a great deal of similarity, the use of either Sayers
equation overestimated peak power by roughly 20% compared
with PPaCt.jaj. Future research should establish criteria that can
distinguish between a reliable from an unreliable SJ.
6. FATOUROS, I. G., A. Z. JAMURTAS, D. LEONTSINI, et al. Evaluation of
plyotnetric exercise training, weight training, and their combina-
tion on vertical jumping performance and leg strength. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 14:470-476, 2000.
7. Fox, E. L., and D. K. MATHEWS. The Interval Training: Conditioning
for Sports and General Fitness. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1974.
8. GEHRI, D. J.. M. D. RICARD, D. M. KLEINER, and D. T. KIRKENDALL.
A comparison of plyometric training techniques for improving
vertical jump ability and energy production. J. Strength Cond. Res.
12:85-89, 1998.
9. HARMAN, E. A., M. T. RoSENSTEIN, P. N. FRYKMAN, R. M. RoSEN-
STEIN. and W. J. KRAEMER. Estimation of human power output from
vertical jump. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 5:116-120, 1991.
10. HERTOGH, C., and 0. HUE. Jump evaluation of elite volleyball
players using two methods: jump power equations and force
platform. J. Sports Med. Phys Fitness 42:300-303, 2002.
http://www.acsm-msse.org
 11. HEWETT, T. E., T. N. LINDENFELD, J. V. RICCOBENE, and F. R. NOYES.
The effect of neuromuscular training on the incidence of knee injury
in female athletes. A prospective study. Am. J. Sports Med. 27:699-
706, 1999.
12. HEWETT, T. E., A. L. STROUPE, T. A. NANCE, and F. R. NOYES.
Plyometric training in female athletes: decreased impact forces
and increased hamstring torques. Am. J. Sports Med. 24:765-773,
1996.
13. KRAEMER. W. J., K. HAKKINEN, N. T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE. et al.
Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in
women tennis players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35:157-168,
2003.
14. KRAEMER, W. J., S. A. MAZZETTI, B. C. NINDL, et al. Effect of
resistance training on women's strength/power and occupational
performances. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33:1011-1025, 2001.
15. MASCARO, T., B. L. SEAVER, and L. SWANSON. Prediction of skating
speed with off-ice testing in professional hockey players. JOSPT
15:92-98, 1992.
VERTICAL JUMP POWER PREDICTION FOR FEMALES
16. POTTEIGER, J., R. LOCKWOOD, M. DAUB, et al. Muscle power and
fiber characteristics following 8 weeks of plyometric training.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:275-279, 1999.
17. SAYERS, S. P.. D. V. HARACKIEWICZ, E. A. HARMAN, P. N. FRYKMAN,
and M. T. ROSENSTEIN. Cross-validation of three jump power
equations. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:572-577, 1999.
18. SEILER, S., M. TAYLOR, R. DIANA, J. LAYES, P. NEWTON, and B.
BROWN. Assessing anaerobic power in collegiate football players.
J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 4:9-15, 1990.
19. THOMAS, J. R., M. R. LOCHBAUM, D. M. LANDERS, and C. HE.
Planning significant and meaningful research in exercise science:
estimating sample size. Res. Q Exerc. Sport. 68:33-43, 1997.
20. WILSON, G. J., A. J. MURPHY, and A. GIORGI. Weight and plyo-
metric training: effects on eccentric and concentric force produc-
tion. Can. J. Appi. Physiol. 21:301-315, 1996.
21. YOUNG, W. B., G. J. WILSON, and C. BYRNE. A compafison of drop
jump training methods: effects on leg extensor strength qualities
and jumping performance. Int. J. Sports Med. 20:295-303, 1999.
Medicine &Science in Sports &Exercisee 1593
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Evaluation of Power Prediction Equations: Peak Vertical

Jumping Power in Women
SOURCE: Med Sci Sports Exercise 36 no9 S 2004
WN: 0425201727019

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2004 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.