Vertical Jumps Performance Analysis: Implementation of Novel
Complex of Jumps
Anna Zakharova
a
and Kamiliia Mekhdieva
b
Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, 19 Mira Street, Yekaterinburg, Russia
Keywords: Vertical Jumps Performance Analysis, Female Athletes, Fitness Control, Motor Asymmetry.
Abstract: The proposed study was focused on justification of complex of vertical jumping tests analysis for practical
applications of athletes’ enhancement. Eighteen national level female athletes aged from 18 to 25 (13
basketball-players and 5 biathletes) underwent anthropometric measurements and set of vertical jumping tests
on the force plate. To obtain comprehensive data on jumps performance and motor assymetry classic
countermovement and squat jumps were supplemented by countermovent jump with arms swinging and
single-leg jumps (on the right and left leg separately). Descriptive and comparative analysis were applied for
further statistical data processing. We found that: (i) mean values of body composition variables were within
the norm in both groups, meanwhile, biathletes had significantly higher relative body and leg muscle mass;
(ii) there were no significant differences in countermovement jump performance between basketball players
and biathletes except longer duration of squat and take-off phases in biathletes; (iii) squat jump performance
analysis revealed significantly higher strength of knee extensors in female biathletes; (iv) jump height in
countermovement jump with arms swinging was significantly higher in biathletes’ group; (v) motor
asymmetry of lower extremities was more evident in basketball players. The proposed set of different vertical
jumps provides with valuable information on fitness level in athletes.
1 INTRODUCTION
Vertical jumping tests are widely used in the sports
science and practice for evaluation of muscular
strength and motor coordination (Lara, 2006, Van
Hooren, 2017, Zakharova, 2017). These types of tests
have been introduced since the beginning of XX
century (Petrigna, 2019). A number of studies showed
high informative value and comprehensive outcome
data from this testing, as well as simplicity of its
carrying-out (Newton, 2006). Due to these facts, in
the modern era vertical jump tests are frequently used
by coaches and strength and conditioning
professionals to obtain valuable information for
correct trainings planning.
Initially, jump tests were used without specific
equipement and the only available information was
the jump itself. Along with technical development in
sport science new devices were implemented: force
plates, photoelectric cell systems, contact mats,
contact platforms, jump mats, accelerometer-based
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8170-2316
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2967-2655
systems, linear position transducers, digital cameras
with sensors placement for motion analysis etc.
(Petrigna, 2019). These hi-tech instruments are
widely used nowadays for obtaining comprehensive
information not only on height of the jumps, but also
on biomechanics (Ashley, 1994) and motor assymetry
of lower extremities (Yanci, 2014).
Although, progressive development provided
with valuable equipment for high quality research, we
should keep in mind that a number of issues
concerning reliability and feasibility still remains
unsetteled.
One of the mentioned above problems is a lack of
standartization in jump phases identification, which
may affect interpretation of jump phases duration,
time to peak force reaching and rate of force
development (Petrigna, 2019). Among other issues is
the high cost of force plates and motion analysis
devises.
Numerous studies are devoted to performance
analysis of vertical jumps. Biomechanical kinetic and
90
Zakharova, A. and Mekhdieva, K.
Vertical Jumps Performance Analysis: Implementation of Novel Complex of Jumps.
DOI: 10.5220/0010145400900097
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support (icSPORTS 2020), pages 90-97
ISBN: 978-989-758-481-7
Copyright
c
2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
kinematic variables (force, velocity, displacement,
etc) are under consideration, nevertheless there is still
a gap in practical applications of valueable
information.
The aim of the proposed research was to justify
the complex of vertical jump test analysis for
practical applications of athletes’ enhancement.
2 ORGANIZATION AND
METHODS
The study was conducted in the laboratory
“Functional Testing and Complex Control in Sports”
of the Institute of Physical Education, Sports and
Youth Policy, Ural Federal University
(Yekaterinburg, Russia).
Eighteen qualified female athletes were recruited
for the study: 13 professional basketball players
(mean age – 19.5±2 years, height – 181.7±7.4 cm,
weight – 72.5±10.4 kg) and 5 biathletes (mean age –
20.8±2.3 years, height – 166.8±5.5 cm, weight –
57.8±5.6 kg). Both basketball-players as well as
biathletes had more than 7 years of training and
competitive experience and were national leaders in
their kind of sport among athletes of their age. All
tested subjects had no acute traumas or injuries, were
free of any neurological or muscular-skeletal
disorders and were admitted to perform the proposed
tests by the team medical staff. The investigation
conforms to the principles of the Declaration of
Helsinki of the World Medical Association. Subjects
involved in the study had been provided with
comprehensive information on the procedures,
methods, benefits and possible risks before their
written consent was obtained. The study protocol was
approved by the Ural Federal University Ethics
Committee (#05-2020).
2.1 Anthropometric Measurements
Anthropometric data (height and body mass) of
involved in the study athletes were measured with the
use of WB-3000 plus Digital Physicians Scale
(Tanita, Japan).
Body composition was also estimated by means
of bioimpedance analysis with the use of MC-980MA
Plus Multi Frequency Segmental Body Composition
Monitor (TANITA, Japan) based on the advanced
FDA cleared Bioelectric Impedance Analysis (BIA)
technology. The following parameters were under
consideration: body mass (kg), body mass index
(BMI), muscle mass (kg; %), fat mass (kg; %),
segmental analysis of each leg (kg; %) and muscle
mass balance.
2.2 Performance Analysis for Vertical
Jumps
The detailed analysis of complex of four types of
jumps was performed to evaluate speed-power
abilities of lower extremities as well as motor
asymmetry and body posture control.
Vertical jumps were `carried out on a force plate
TJ4002 (Marafon-Electro, Russia) which was
mounted and carefully calibrated according to
manufacturer’s specifications. Original custom-
designed software for ongoing analysis was used for
acquisition and processing of the vertical component
of the ground reaction force.
Preinstalled TJ4002 software package allowed to
analyze the following parameters: duration of
jumping phases (squat, take-off) (t, s); jump height
(cm); maximum force for take-off (N).
Separate placement of detecting elements inside
the used device (right and left parts of the force plate)
provided with graphical information on movement of
both legs simultaneously (Figure 1). This
visualization allowed to estimate motor asymmetry of
lower extremities in studied athletes.
Figure 1: Example of graphs in classic vertical
countermovement jump: the upper graph – sum of both
legs, R – right leg, L – left leg, x-axis – time (ms), y-axis –
force (N).
Before the test each participant of the study was
familiarized with the technique of each type of jump.
After appropriate 5-7 min warm up to avoid any
injury or healthcare issues during the test athletes
were given the task to make triple jumps with short
rest time between jumps:
countermovement jumps (CMJ) with keeping
hands on the waist,
squat jumps (SJ) with hands on the waist,
single leg jumps on the right and left legs
bending hands on the waist,
CMJs with arms swinging.
Vertical Jumps Performance Analysis: Implementation of Novel Complex of Jumps
91
Athletes were allowed to have about 1 minute rest
between the consecutive set of jumps.
Each athlete was instructed to perform the jumps
with the maximum effort. It was required to jump at
the highest possible speed and to attain the highest
point as possible. Only the best attempt from the set
of three trials of each type of jumps was further taken
into consideration for the ongoing analysis.
2.2.1 Countermovement Jumps
For correct carrying out CMJ, athletes were instructed
to perform a maximal vertical jump from upright
position on the force plate with fully extended knees
and feet shoulder-width apart. It was required to have
the arms bending on the waist and avoid any release
of the hands from the initial position.
No specific instructions were given regarding the
depth of the countermovement. Athletes were
encouraged to keep the trunk as vertical as possible.
2.2.2 Squat Jumps
Before performing vertical SJ subjects were
instructed to descend into a semi-squat position with
knees flexed at about 90 degrees and hold this
position for approximately 3 seconds before takeoff,
start jumping bending arms on the waist (Van
Hooren, 2017).
It was strongly recommended to avoid any
countermovement during the jump to have just the
concentric action of the agonist muscles involved in
the movement.
2.2.3 Countermovement Jumps with Arms
Swinging
In order to perform this type of jump correctly,
athletes were encouraged to carry out a maximal
vertical jump from an upright position with both arms
swinging simultaneously. No specific instructions
were given regarding the depth of the
countermovement.
Basically, ccountermovement jump with arms
swinging (CMJAS) is used for comparison of the
obtained data with classic countermovement jumps
with keeping hands on waist (McErlain-Naylor, 2014,
Lees, 2004). Some authors strongly recommended to
pay particular attention to arms position during the
tests and precisely describe the protocol of vertical
jump (Petrigna, 2019) as the outcome data should
consider different patterns of countermovement jump
with and without arms swinging.
In our view, the best way was to include both
types of countermovement jumps as (i) jumps with
hands on the waist is a universal test, meanwhile in
team sports there are no isolated movements: the
whole body coordination for solving the game tasks
is required; (ii) the comparison of the test results
between both jumps provided with valuable
information that is extremely useful in
comprehensive interpretation of vertical jump tests in
athletes.
2.2.4 Single-leg Vertical Jumps
Single-leg vertical jumps (SLJ) were performed to
obtain information not only about power of thigh
extensors of each leg separately, but also data on
symmetry/asymmetry (motor balance or imbalance)
of lower extremities.
It was recommended to jump on right/left leg,
standing in the center of the platform for more precise
recording of the movement. It was not allowed to
release the hands from the waist.
2.3 Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed with the use of
statistic software package “SPSS Statistics 17.0”
(IBM). Descriptive analysis was applied with
calculation of mean values (M), standard deviation
(SD), minimum and maximum values of the
measured variables from anthropometric analysis and
vertical jump tests.
Normality of distribution in groups was estimated
by Shapiro Wilk test. Furthermore, obtained jump test
data between groups of athletes was compared by t-
test (Student criteria). Differences were significant at
P < 0.05.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Analysis of anthropometric data showed that
basically all studied athletes had appropriate body
composition in reference to their sports
specialization. Table 1 demonstrates descriptive data
from detailed analysis of body composition in studied
athletes and comparison of measured variables
between groups.
As one can see, there were no significant
differences between mean values of right leg muscle
mass and left leg muscles mass neither in basketball
players nor in biathletes. At the same time, it is clear,
that biathletes had higher relative muscle mass in the
whole body and in both legs in comparison with
female basketball players.
icSPORTS 2020 - 8th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support
92
Table 1: Results of detailed anthropometric analysis
(M±SD (min-max)).
Parameters Basketball-
players (n = 13)
Biathletes
(n = 5)
Height, cm 181.7±7.4
(170-192)
166.8±5.5 **
(162-174)
Body mass, kg 72.5±10.44
(58.5-98.4)
57.8±5.6 **
(52-65)
BMI, kg/m
2
21.9±1.9
(19.7-26.7)
20.1±1.1 **
(19-22)
Muscle mass,
kg
53.65±5.1
(46.7-67.7)
47.4±4.1 *
(43.6-53.4)
Muscle mass, % 74.7±4,3
(66.5-82)
82.2±2.9 **
(79-86)
Fat mass, % 21.8±4.2
(15-30)
13.5±2.9 **
(9.7-17.1)
Right leg
muscle mass, kg
8.95±0.92
(7.6-11.4)
7.84±0.52
(7.2-8.4)**
Right leg
muscle mass, %
12.4±0.7
(11-13.8)
13.54±0.73
(12.6-14.5)**
Left leg muscle
mass, kg
9.1±1.01
(7.6-11.8)
7.9±0.6
(7.3-8.5)*
Left leg muscle
mass, %
12.6±0.6
(12-14)
13.64±0.7
(12.7-14.5)**
** - P < 0.01
* - P < 0.05
Results of performance analysis for vertical jumps
revealed no significant differences in
countermovement jump performance between female
basketball players and biathletes except duration of
squat and take-off phases (Table 2).
Table 2: Results of countermovement jump test (M±SD
(min-max)).
Parameters Basketball-
players
(n = 13)
Biathletes
(n = 5)
Jump height,
cm
23.5±3.7
(19-29)
27.4±5.3
(20-33)
Maximum force
for take-off, N
1162.5±189.8
(933-1542)
1031±123.97
(904-1233)
Relative
maximum force
for take-off,
% body weight
161.5±21.5
(127.6-200.5)
180.5±16
(163.3-198.9)
Squat phase
duration, s
0.31±0.06
(0.24-0.43)
0.3±0.02 *
(0.28-0.32)
Take-off phase
duration, s
0.38±0.07
(0.27-0.48)
0.41±0.03 *
(0.37-0.44)
* - differences significant at P < 0.05
In such sport as basketball athletes require
excellent sprinting performance while the
competition in biathlon may be typing as endurance
activity. Biathletes’ tardiness in countermovement
jump performance may be explained by the typical
technique rhythm of skiing rather smooth than
propulsive. Satisfactory average values of relative
force for take-off were demonstrated by biathletes.
Although 7 basketball players developed excellent
relative force (more than 180 % body weight), the
average value was low due to its wide variation within
the group (127.6-200.5 % body weight).
Squat jump performance analysis revealed
significant differences in average relative force for
take-off. This means higher strength of knee
extensors in female biathletes (Table 3). In
comparison with countermovement jump squat jump
requires less well-developed capability to co-activate
muscles (Van Hooren, 2017) thus determines strength
of lower limbs precisely.
Table 3: Results of squat jump test (M±SD (min-max)).
Parameters Basketball-
players
(n = 13)
Biathletes
(n = 5)
Jump height,
cm
22.6±4.4
(16-29)
25.4±4.3
(21-32)
Maximum force
for take-off, N
1065.7±197
(828-1428)
967±153
(827-1182)
Relative
maximum force
for take-off,
%body weight
134.22±41.94
(118.2-166.04)
168.4±13.4 *
(154.9-190.6)
* - differences significant at P < 0.05
Jump test with arms swinging results were
contrary to expected ones: jump height by biathletes
was significantly higher than by basketball players. In
basketball tackling manoeuvre with arms swinging is
essential, so we hoped that jump height would be
better.
Table 4: Results of countermovement jump test with arms
swinging (M±SD (min-max)).
Parameters Basketball-
players
(n = 13)
Biathletes
(n = 5)
Jump height,
cm
29.3±3.8
(22-36)
34.8±5.2*
(27-39)
Maximum force
for
take-off, N
1065±147
(864-1329)
1025±58
(936-1069)
Squat phase
duration, s
0.3±0.03
(0.26-0.35)
0.29±0.03
(0.25-0.31)
Take-off phase
duration, s
0.4±0.06
(0.33-0.48)
0.39±0.06
(0.3-0.43)
* - differences significant at P < 0.05
Vertical Jumps Performance Analysis: Implementation of Novel Complex of Jumps
93
The inclusion of an arms swinging increased jump
height by approximately 8-10 cm (McErlain-Naylor,
2004). Notably, in basketball players arms swinging
increased the average jump performance only by 5.8
cm above the classic countermovement jump result
(Table 2 and Table 4).
Comparison of vertical countermovement single-
leg jump test (female basketball players vs female
biathletes) revealed statistically significant better
results in biathletes’ right single-leg jumps (height
and force) but long and smooth (Table 5) as it was
found in countermovement jumps (Table 2).
Meanwhile, results of left single-leg jump showed
the only significant difference in value of maximum
force for take-off between the groups (Table 6).
Table 5: Results of countermovement single-leg (right)
jump test (M±SD (min-max)).
Parameters Basketball-
players
(n = 13)
Biathletes
(n = 5)
Jump height, cm 13.3±3.7
(10-23)
17.2±3.1 *
(13-20)
Maximum force
for take-off, N
935±122
(731-1222)
806±72.2 *
(725-883)
Relative
maximum force
for take-off,
%body weight
120.45±76.3
(118.4-143.93)
141.14±78.4**
(131.8-151.5)
Squat phase
duration, s
0.29±0.05
(0.21-0.37)
0.34±0.07 *
(0.27-0.43)
Take-off phase
duration, s
0.42±0.08
(0.36-0.62)
0.5±0.06 *
(0.45-0.56)
* - differences significant at P < 0.05
Table 6: Results of countermovement single-leg (left) jump
test (M±SD (min-max)).
Parameters Basketball-
players
(n = 13)
Biathletes
(n = 5)
Jump height, cm 13.5±2.7
(10-21)
15.8±3.03
(13-19)
Maximum force
for take-off, N
927±118
(748-1166)
804±87.6
(703-895)*
Relative
maximum force
for take-off,
%body weight
128.65±11,15
(106.5-146.58)
140.63±90*
(127.8-153.3)
Squat phase
duration, s
0.3±0.08
(0.22-0.52)
0.32±0.05
(0.27-0.37)
Take-off phase
duration, s
0.44±0.1
(0.35-0.61)
0.53±0.11
(0.43-0.69)
* - differences significant at P < 0.05
Comparison of vertical countermovement single-
leg jump test – right leg vs left leg – revealed no
significant differences. Although, a healthy person
may jump slightly higher on one leg relative to the
other, the magnitude of the difference is assumed to
be relatively small (Lawson, 2005).
For determination of motor asymmetry in lower
extremities more attention must be paid to single-leg
jump height but not force or use different field tests:
no significant differences between the dominant and
non-dominant legs were found in the vertical jumps
tests (Newton, 2006, Yanci, 2014).
Determination of motor asymmetry is onerously
or expensive. For example, vertical jump forced test
(Impellizzeri, 2007) consists of countermovement
jumps with both legs simultaneously: one on a single
force platform, the other on a leveled wooden
platform. Kistler Co ̶ the global leader in dynamic
measurement technology for measuring pressure,
force, torque and acceleration in sport science ̶
suggested to use two force platforms for the
asymmetry research. Contrary to above mentioned
options Marathon-Electro force plate TJ4002 allows
to determine three force graphs: each leg separately
and their sum (Figure 1).
Graphical data from jump tests increased the
value of the obtained results. It was possible to
compare the movement of both legs and suggest the
amendments to athletes’ trainings.
Basically, asymmetry was assessed by
determining vertical or horizontal differences
between right and left curves with respect to axes,
indicating time and space asynchrony.
Figure 2 demonstrates an optimal pattern of squat
jump – knee extensors and core muscles were
extremely efficient, no signs of imbalance were
registered.
Figure 2: Example of an optimal vertical squat jump: the
upper graph – sum of both legs, R – right leg, L – left leg,
x-axis – time (ms), y-axis – force (N).
icSPORTS 2020 - 8th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support
94
Figure 3 detected both time asynchrony in the
phase of knee extension, as well as a lower input of
the left leg in the phase of take-off. Potentially, these
may be the consequence of the previous or chronic
injury or incomplete rehabilitation in the past. Apart
from this, we may turn our attention to low peak in
the take-off phase in both legs that is the evidence of
insufficient speed-power trainings.
Figure 3: Vertical squat jump: signs of chronic knee injury
or incomplete rehabilitation: the upper graph – sum of both
legs, R – right leg, L – left leg, x-axis – time (ms), y-axis –
force (N).
Figure 4 is a typical demonstration of motor
asymmetry of knee extensors in playing sports
athletes. Despite of normal distribution of muscle
mass in both legs, neuromuscular transmission is
inefficient which results in inability to recruit all
muscle fibers of the left leg.
Figure 4: Vertical squat jump: motor asymmetry of knee
extensors: the upper graph – sum of both legs, R – right leg,
L – left leg, x-axis – time (ms), y-axis – force (N).
Figures 5 and 6 show motor asynchrony in
countermovement jump performance. Noteworthy,
Figure 5 is an illustration of asymmetry in the final of
take-off phase, while Figure 6 shows asynchrony both
in phase of knee extension, as well as take-off phase.
Figure 5: Countermovement jump: motor asymmetry in the
take-off phase: the upper graph – sum of both legs, R – right
leg, L – left leg, x-axis – time (ms), y-axis – force (N).
Figure 6: Countermovement jump: motor asymmetry in the
phase of knee extension and take-off: the upper graph – sum
of both legs, R – right leg, L – left leg, x-axis – time (ms),
y-axis – force (N).
Our numerous undertaken research with the use of
force plate allowed to define the following statements
for fitness control in athletes:
i) Relative maximum force for take-off in the
countermovement jump should be equal to 180 % of
body weight in female athletes and 200 % - in males.
ii) Countermovement jump performance should
be better than squat jump. If not, it is strongly
recommended to devote more time to high-quality
jumping, plyometric motor tasks in order to use
effectively the elastic energy of the muscles and
tendons.
iii) The arm swinging jump should be 8-10 cm
higher than countermovement jump (hands on the
waist). If not, then learn to coordinate the actions of
the arms and legs in different jumping.
iv) Height of a single-leg vertical jump on right
and left legs should be approximately equal and not
less than 60 % of the double-leg countermovement
jump height. If the countermovement jump
performance is good, but single-leg jump is poor, then
check the core muscles strength and pay more
Vertical Jumps Performance Analysis: Implementation of Novel Complex of Jumps
95
attention to the core muscles development (deep back
and abdominals).
So presented interrelations between jumps height
may reveal weaknesses in an athlete in particular case
(Table 6). For example, basketball player #1 (weight
86 kg) produced 1542 H of maximum force for take-
off in the countermovement jump. So her relative
maximum force for take-off in the countermovement
jump was equal to 179,3 % that was close to desirable
180 % of body weight in female athletes. Jumps
heights were in necessary balance between each other
(CMJ>SqJ, CMJAS > CMJ and
SLJ Right = SLJ Left)
but heights of a single-leg vertical jump on right and
left leg (12 cm) were less than 60 % of the double-leg
countermovement jump height. This may be the
evidence of poor core muscles in basketball player #1.
Table 7: Height of vertical jumps in athletes, cm.
Type of
jump
Basket
ball-
player #1
Basket
ball-
player #2
Biathlete
# 1
Biathlete
# 2
CMJ 24 19 32 27
SqJ 22 17 32 27
CMJAS 32 22 39 39
SLJ R 12 10 18 15
SLJ L 12 13 19 13
Basketball player #2 (weight 74 kg) produced
1109 H of maximum force in the countermovement
jump. Relative maximum force for take-off in the
countermovement jump was only 150 % of body
weight, that was lower than necessary in female
athletes. Jumps heights were in necessary balance
between each other (CMJ>SqJ, CMJAS > CMJ) but
arm swinging doesn’t prolong the height for 8-10 cm.
So different exercises must be included in training to
coordinate the actions of the arms and legs in jumping
or other mutual movements. There was also
asymmetry in legs as SLJ Right was not equal to SLJ
Left leg.
Biathlete #1 (weight 49 kg) demonstrated good
leg strength with relative power for take-off 200 % of
body weight. The only problem in her fitness was an
inaptitude to use the elastic energy of the muscles and
tendons as her countermovement jump height was
equal to squat jump. Plyometrics was recommended
for improvement.
As the biathlete #2 is concerned there were
following aspects for fitness enhancement: legs
strength, elastic energy utilization, asymmetry in legs
(left leg was weaker than right one) and core muscles.
For more detailed information or in case of doubt
it is recommended to review the vertical jumps
graphs.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The detailed analysis of proposed set of different
vertical jumps provides with valuable information on
fitness level in athletes. It is essential to follow the
correct technical requirements when performing each
type of jump (countermovement jump, squat jump,
single-leg jumps and countermovement jump with
arm swinging) for reliable data collecting. Inclusion
of this set of jumps on the whole could be useful for
sports professionals and coaches in assessing the
speed-power abilities of lower extremities, strength of
the core muscles, posture and motor balance.
Information on inter- and intramuscular coordination
of lower extremities is available from analysis and
comparison of movement graphs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work was supported by Act 211 Government of
the Russian Federation, contract № 02.A03.21.0006
REFERENCES
Ashley, C.D., & Weiss, L.W., 1994. Vertical jump
performance and selected physiological characteristics
of women. In Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 8, 5-11
Impellizzeri, F.M., Rampinini, E., Maffiuletti, N., &
Marcora, S.M., 2007. A vertical jump force test for
assessing bilateral strength asymmetry in athletes.
In Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(11),
2044-2050.
Lara, A. Abián, J. Alegre, L.M., Jiménez, L., Aguado, X.,
2006. Jump tests on a force platform for applicants to a
sports science degree. In Journal of Human Movement
Studies, 50(2), 133-147.
Lawson, B. R., 2005. Bilateral asymmetries in max effort
single-leg vertical jumps. In Biomedical sciences
instrumentation, 41, 317-322.
Lees, A., Vanrenterghem, J., & De Clercq, D., 2004.
Understanding how an arm swing enhances
performance in the vertical jump. In Journal of
biomechanics, 37(12), 1929–1940.
McErlain-Naylor, S., King, M., Pain, M., 2014.
Determinants of countermovement jump performance:
a kinetic and kinematic analysis. In Journal of Sports
Sciences, 32, 1805-1812.
Newton, R. U., Gerber, A., Nimphius, S., & Shim, J. K.,
2006. Determination of functional strength imbalance
of the lower extremities. In Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 20(4), 971.
Petrigna, L., Karsten, B., Marcolin, G., Paoli, A.,
D’Antona, G., Palma, A. & Bianco, A., 2019. A Review
icSPORTS 2020 - 8th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support
96
of Countermovement and Squat Jump Testing Methods
in the Context of Public Health Examination in
Adolescence: Reliability and Feasibility of Current
Testing Procedures. In Frontiers in Physiology, 10,
1384.
Van Hooren, B., Zolotarjova, J., 2017. The Difference
between Countermovement and Squat Jump
Performances: A Review of Underlying Mechanisms
with Practical Applications. In Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 31(7), 2011-2020.
Yanci, J., Los Arcos, A., Mendiguchia, J., &Brughelli, M.,
2014. Relationships between sprinting, agility, one-and
two-leg vertical and horizontal jump in soccer players.
In Kineziologija, 46(2), 194-201.
Zakharova A., Mekhdieva K., Berdnikova A., 2017.
Comprehensive Fitness Control in Young Soccer
Players - Comparison of Laboratory and Field Testing
Indicators. In: icSPORTS 2017: Proceedings of the 5th
International Congress on Sport Sciences Research and
Technology Support, 25-32.
Vertical Jumps Performance Analysis: Implementation of Novel Complex of Jumps
97
