See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318041802

A Comparison of Different Methods for Assessing

Plyometric Ability during Jumps

Conference Paper June 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 69

5 authors, including:

Gavin L Moir Hugh S Lamont

East Stroudsburg University Coastal Carolina University
79 PUBLICATIONS 898 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 577 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shala E Davis
East Stroudsburg University
68 PUBLICATIONS 260 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Effects Of Carrying A Simulated Rifle During A Backpack Load-carriage Task View project

Effects of Music on Exercise Performance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gavin L Moir on 30 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Comparison of Different Methods for Assessing Plyometric Ability during Jumps

Brandon W. Snyder1, Gavin L. Moir1, Chris Connaboy2, Hugh S. Lamont3, Shala E. Davis1,
FACSM. 1East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, East Stroudsburg, PA; 2Neuromuscular
Research Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; 3Department of Kinesiology,
Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC.

ABSTRACT
Purpose: To compare different methods for assessing plyometric ability during countermovement
(CMJ) and drop jumps (DJ) from different heights. Methods: Twelve resistance-trained men (age:
21.8 1.7 years; height: 1.81 0.06 m; mass: 85.1 8.6 kg; 1-RM squat: 162.3 27.3 kg)
performed CMJ and DJ from heights of 0.40 m, 0.60 m, and 0.80 m. Force plates recorded the
ground reaction force from which the descent (absorption phase) and ascent (propulsion phase) of
the center of mass during ground contact was determined. Jump height (JH), vertical stiffness
(VSTIFF) and normalized work (WNORM), power output (PONORM), and impulse (INORM) during the
absorption and propulsion phases were calculated. Plyometric ability was assessed using the
modified reactive strength index (RSIMOD) and four indices using propulsion time (PTI),
propulsion work (PWI), propulsion power (PPI), and propulsion impulse (PII). Analysis of
variance was used to assess the differences in the mechanical variables and the plyometric indices
across the four jump conditions. Correlations were used to assess the relationships between the
plyometric indices and JH. Results: JH (mean differences: 0.03 0.06 m; p=0.007) and VSTIFF
(mean differences: 0.69 0.93 kN/m, p<0.001) were greater during CMJ compared to the DJ
conditions. The mechanical variables during the absorption phase were greatest during the highest
DJ (WNORM mean differences: 1.6 10.0 J/kg, p<0.001; PONORM mean differences: 4.9 31.3
W/kg, p<0.001; INORM mean differences: 0.36 2.52 m/s, p<0.001), while WNORM and INORM
during the propulsive phase were greatest during the CMJ (WNORM mean differences: 0.2 1.1
J/kg, p=0.020; INORM mean differences: 0.09 0.21 m/s, p<0.001) with no differences in PONORM
(p>0.05). RSIMOD increased across the four jumps and was greatest at the highest DJ condition
(mean differences: 0.003 0.150, p<0.001). The greatest values for the other plyometric indices
were reported for the CMJ (p<0.001). The largest correlations with JH were found for PII (r =
0.958 0.993). Conclusion: RSIMOD does not reflect the changes in mechanical variables during
the ground contact phase of CMJ and DJ and may not therefore provide an accurate assessment of
the ability to utilize the stretch-shortening cycle during different jumps. Practitioners should
consider using PII as a measure of plyometric ability.

INTRODUCTION
Plyometric training has been shown to be an effective means of improving measures of
athletic ability including vertical jump, sprint running, and change of direction tasks (2, 3).
Plyometric exercise such as countermovement jumps and drop jumps incorporate the
stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) whereby the musculotendinous units are initially
lengthened prior to shortening up to takeoff (4).
Plyometric ability has typically been assessed using the reactive strength index (RSI),
defined as the ratio between jump height and ground contact time during jumping tasks (1)
Despite its widespread use, RSI may not fully reflect the plyometric capabilities of athletes
as it does not account for the mechanical factors associated with the absorption and
propulsion phases of ground contact during plyometric exercises.

PURPOSE
To compare different methods for assessing plyometric ability during countermovement (CMJ)
and drop jumps (DJ) from different heights.

METHODS
Subjects
Twelve resistance-trained men (age: 21.8 1.7 years; height: 1.81 0.06 m; mass: 85.1 8.6 kg;
1-RM squat: 162.3 27.3 kg) volunteered to participate in this study which was approved by the
Institutional Research Board of East Stroudsburg University.

Study Design
Each subject completed countermovement (CMJ) and DJ from heights of 0.40 m, 0.60 m, and 0.80
m. An arm swing was restricted during all jumps by having the subjects hold a bar across the
shoulders (CMJ) or by having the subjects place the hands on their hips (DJ). Each subject
completed two jumps under each condition and the mechanical data were averaged across the two
jumps. The order of the jumps during each session was counterbalanced across the subjects.

Collection of mechanical data

Force plates (Kistler Type 9286AA; 1000 Hz) were used to record the ground reaction force (GRF)
during each jump from which the descent (absorption phase) and ascent (propulsion phase) of the
center of mass (CM) during ground contact was determined. The vertical velocity of the CM at
initial ground contact during the DJ was determined from a synchronized 3D motion analysis
system (Vicon, Oxford, UK; 200 Hz). The ground contact phase of CMJ started when the vertical
GRF fell >10 N below bodyweight and ended at takeoff when the vertical GRF <10 N. The ground
contact phase of the DJ started when the vertical GRF >10 N, with takeoff occurring when the
GRF <10 N. The following mechanical variables were calculated:

Jump height (JH) the instantaneous vertical velocity of the CM, calculated as the time integral
of the net vertical GRF using the trapezoid method, was identified at the point of takeoff. An
equation of motion was then used to calculate JH.
Vertical stiffness (VSTIFF) the instantaneous vertical displacement of the CM, calculated as the
double time integral of the net vertical GRF using the trapezoid method, was calculated during the
ground contact phase of each jump. VSTIFF was calculated as the ratio of GRF and displacement of
the CM at the occurrence of the greatest negative displacement.
Ground contact time (tGC) the time from the start to the end of the ground contact phase
represented ground contact time.
Absorption time above bodyweight (tAbBW) the time from the first instance of the vertical GRF
>bodyweight to the greatest negative displacement of the CM represented tAbBW.
Propulsion time above bodyweight (tPrBW) the time from the greatest negative displacement of
the CM to the first instance of GRF <bodyweight represented tProBW.
Work (WNORM) the work performed on the CM during the ground contact phase of each jump
was calculated as the time integral of the instantaneous power output. Work was normalized to
body mass and separated into that performed during the absorption phase (from the start of ground
contact phase until the greatest negative displacement of the CM [WAbNORM]) and that performed
during the propulsion phase (from the greatest negative displacement of the CM to takeoff
[WPrNORM]) for each jump.
Power output (PONORM) instantaneous power output was calculated as the product of the
instantaneous vertical GRF and vertical velocity of the CM. The vertical velocity of the CM was
calculated as the time integral of the normalized net vertical GRF during the ground contact phase
of each jump. The instantaneous power output was normalized to body mass and averaged across
the absorption (POAbNORM) and propulsion phases (POPrNORM) of ground contact as well as across
the entire ground contact phase (POGCNORM).
Impulse (INORM) the impulse of the vertical GRF during the ground contact phase of each jump
was calculated as the time integral of the GRF. The impulse was normalized to body mass and
separated into that generated during the absorption (IAbNORM) and propulsion phases (IPrNORM).
Five different plyometric indices were calculated from the mechanical data (Table 1).

Table 1. The calculations for the five different plyometric indices.

Plyometric index Calculation

Modified reactive strength index (RSIMOD)

Propulsion time index (PTI)

1
( ( + ))

Propulsion work index (PWI)

1
( ( + ))

Propulsion power index (PPI)

1
( ( ))

Propulsion impulse index (PII)

1
( ( + ))

Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS
version 20.0. Chicago, IL). Measures of central tendency and spread of data were represented as
means and standard deviations ( SD).
Statistical differences in the mechanical variables and the different plyometric indices across the
four different jumps were determined using a one-way ANOVA with repeated-measures. Pairwise
comparisons with Bonferroni corrections were used to establish where any significant differences
were located. The relationships between JH and the five plyometric indices were assessed using
Pearson product moment correlation coefficients. The level of statistical significance for all
analyses was set at p 0.05.

RESULTS
Table 2. The mechanical variables during the countermovement and drop jumps from different heights.
Values are means standard deviation.

Jump condition

CMJ DJ40 DJ60 DJ80

Jump height (m) 0.41 0.06 0.35 0.04 0.37 0.05 0.38 0.05

Vertical stiffness (kN/m) 4.89 0.68 4.20 0.99 4.15 1.04 3.96 0.89

Ground contact time (s) 0.85 0.08 0.59 0.08 0.59 0.07 0.61 0.07
Absorption phase

Time (s) 0.23 0.03 0.25 0.04 0.28 0.04 0.29 0.05

Normalized work (J/kg) 2.7 0.5 9.1 1.1 11.1 1.4 12.7 1.4

Normalized power (W/kg) 13.7 3.2 32.9 4.5 40.0 5.2 45.0 7.1

Normalized impulse (m/s) 1.36 0.22 3.03 0.13 3.52 0.11 3.88 0.14
Propulsion phase

Time (s) 0.28 0.03 0.26 0.04 0.28 0.03 0.29 0.04

Normalized work (J/kg) 8.9 1.1 7.8 1.0 8.4 1.0 8.7 1.0

Normalized power (W/kg) 31.5 3.1 29.6 2.8 30.3 3.3 30.3 3.9

Normalized impulse (m/s) 3.01 0.20 2.80 0.15 2.89 0.19 2.92 0.18

Note: CMJ is countermovement vertical jump; DJ40 is drop jump from 0.40 m box; DJ60 is drop jump from
0.60 m box; DJ80 is drop jump from 0.80 m box.

JH (mean differences: 0.03 0.06 m; p=0.007) and VSTIFF (mean differences: 0.69 0.93 kN/m,
p<0.001) were greater during CMJ compared to the DJ conditions.
The mechanical variables during the absorption phase were greatest during the highest DJ (WNORM
mean differences: 1.6 10.0 J/kg, p<0.001; PONORM mean differences: 4.9 31.3 W/kg, p<0.001;
INORM mean differences: 0.36 2.52 m/s, p<0.001), while WNORM and INORM during the propulsive
phase were greatest during the CMJ (WNORM mean differences: 0.2 1.1 J/kg, p=0.020; INORM
mean differences: 0.09 0.21 m/s, p<0.001) with no differences in PONORM (p>0.05).
Table 3. The indices of plyometric ability during the countermovement jump and the drop jumps from
different heights. Values are means standard deviations.

Plyometric Jump condition

index CMJ DJ40 DJ60 DJ80

RSIMOD 0.489 0.078 0.602 0.108 0.636 0.128 0.639 0.147

PTI 0.227 0.032 0.180 0.024 0.186 0.033 0.193 0.031

PWI 0.316 0.054 0.162 0.025 0.162 0.038 0.156 0.028

PPI 0.576 0.112 0.317 0.052 0.323 0.067 0.311 0.050

PII 0.285 0.050 0.169 0.024 0.168 0.032 0.165 0.026

Note: CMJ is countermovement vertical jump; DJ40 is drop jump from 0.40 m box; DJ60 is drop jump from
0.60 m box; DJ80 is drop jump from 0.80 m box; RSIMOD is modified reactive strength index; PTI is propulsive
time index; PWI is propulsive work index; PPI is propulsive power index; PII is propulsive impulse index.

RSIMOD increased across the four jumps and was greatest at the highest DJ condition (mean
differences: 0.003 0.150, p<0.001). The greatest values for the other plyometric indices were
reported for the CMJ (p<0.001).

Table 4. The magnitude of the relationships between jump height and the different plyometric indices during
the countermovement jump and the drop jumps from different heights.

Plyometric index Jump condition

CMJ DJ40 DJ60 DJ80

RSIMOD 0.819 0.627 0.775 0.806

PTI 0.925 0.904 0.946 0.939

PWI 0.973 0.965 0.964 0.958

PPI 0.937 0.885 0.959 0.913

PII 0.958 0.987 0.993 0.990

Note: CMJ is countermovement vertical jump; DJ40 is drop jump from 0.40 m box; DJ60 is drop jump from
0.60 m box; DJ80 is drop jump from 0.80 m box; RSIMOD is modified reactive strength index; PTI is propulsive
time index; PWI is propulsive work index; PPI is propulsive power index; PII is propulsive impulse index.
 DISCUSSION
Both JH and VSTIFF decreased across the jumps from CMJ through the DJ conditions.
The alterations in the mechanical variables during the absorption and propulsion phases
reflected a decreased ability to utilize the SSC across the jump conditions from CMJ
through the DJ conditions (e.g. net energy absorption during ground contact, greater
absorption impulses).
RSIMOD increased across the jumps from CMJ through the DJ conditions whereas all other
plyometric indices decreased across the jumps.
RSIMOD produced the lowest correlation coefficients with JH of all the plyometric indices
while PII produced the highest correlation coefficients with JH.
All jumps in the present study can be considered slow SSC activities as the times of ground
contact were >0.25 s (5) and future researchers should investigate the utility of the
plyometric indices for fast SSC activities.

CONCLUSION
RSIMOD does not reflect the changes in mechanical variables during the ground contact phase of
CMJ and DJ and may not therefore provide an accurate assessment of the ability to utilize the
stretch-shortening cycle during different jumps. Practitioners should consider using PII as a
measure of plyometric ability.

REFERENCES
1. Flanagan EP, Comyns TM. The use of contact time and the reactive strength index to optimize
fast stretch-shortening cycle training. Strength Cond J. 2008; 30: 3238.
2. Markovic G. Does plyometric training improve vertical jump height? A meta-analytical
review. British J Sports Med. 2007; 41: 349355.
3. Markovic G, Mikulic P. Neuro-musculoskeletal and performance adaptations to lower-
extremity plyometric training. Sports Med. 2010; 40: 859895.
4. Moir GL. Strength and Conditioning: A Biomechanical Approach. Burlington, (MA): Jones
& Bartlett Learning, 2015.
5. Schmidtbleicher D. Training for power events. In: Komi PV, editor. Strength and power in
sport. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 1992. p. 381-385.

View publication stats