Group 4

 Brief details: *Subjects performed different jumping protocols *Subjects were 93 college-age men that were physically active, and had experience in explosive activities such as jumping.

 Expectations:  Hypothesis: Vertical jumping tests performed on the contact matwere the most valid ones.

 To find out the liability &factorial validity of SJ & CMJ test are measured in a large sample.  To answer what the validity of different methods for the estimation of vertical jump height.  Whether these tests were reliable &valid & which were the most valid for testing vertical jumping ability.

 Participants  University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia  Physical Education students (n=93)  Healthy college aged men  Age 19.6± 2.1 years  Body mass 77.1±7.5kg  Height 180.3±6.6cm  Body fat 10.8±1.6%  All participants were physically active  Sufficient experience in explosive activities such as jumping  All subjects were not involved in competitive activities

 Task  7 explosive power tests  5 vertical jumps, 2 horizontal jumps  Sargent Jump: standard vertical jump test utilizing a Vertec (jump and reach)  Abalakow’s Jump: squat to 90º followed by an explosive vertical jump with and without arm swing  Squat Jump: static semisquatting position without countermovement  Countermovement Jump: allowed to perform countermovement prior to jump  Standing Long Jump: standard horizontal jump for distance  Standing Triple Jump: standard triple jump for distance

 Measurement  Sargent Jump: jump and reach test utilizing a Vertec, jump height determined by subtracting standing reach height from jumping reach height  Abalokow’s Jump: measured utilizing a specially constructed belt with the measuring tape attached to the waist of the subject  Squat Jump and CMJ: measured utilizing jump mat which records flight time and contact time taking into account the acceleration of gravity  SLJ & STJ: distance from starting point to the landing point at heal contact

 Procedure  Participants were randomly assigned to 4 groups of 24  Every group tested separately between 10:00am and 1:00pm on 4 separate days  First 3 session: 2 jump tests  Last session: 1 jump test  All session performed in random order at beginning of academic year  Participants instructed to avoid any strenuous physical activity during duration of experiment and maintain dietary habits  All jumping performance preceded by 15 minute warm up  5 min run at own pace  Calisthenics  10 squats  10 heel raises  5 SJs  5 CMJs  Each test measured with 3 trials  1 minute rest interval between trails  15 minute rest interval between tests

Primary scope was to find the correlation of these tests as a representation of the population as a whole. – Subjects are generalized to healthy college age men who have sufficient experience in activities such as jumping Performed between 10am and 4pm on each day for 4 days – 1 st day: sargent jump, SLJ – 2 nd day: squat jump, STJ – 3 rd day: CMJ, abalakow vertical jump w/arm swing – 4 th day: vertical jump w/o arm swing

Is the study intended to be generalized to the population as a whole? Are the only people interested in this data college age men? Would findings generalize to women? Would findings generalize to sedentary individuals? Would findings generalize to people outside of the subjects’ age group? Does the time of day or day of week suit all subjects? Would the results generalize if the tests were all performed the same day?

 Translational ‘Face’ tests: -we want leg power, and we are jumping...seems sane SJ and CMJ are assumed to be accepted movements for testing -possibility for mechanical error in performance? -a LOT of other tests (not just SJ and CMJ) -can you 'cheat' the technology? If you could, what would you really be measuring?  Criterion-related:  - Predictive Validity  -Not really trying to ‘predict ‘anything ; we would need comparison to some other measure of leg power in order to determine predictive validity  Concurrent Validity  - none; there is no other group of physically active men’ being compared to in this study.

 Convergent/Divergent Validity  - reliability of their own calculations is thoroughly examined through use of correlation measures  -it seems they compare their numbers to other studies 'CV values lower than other authors‘ so we are assuming that they think their results are valid by comparison -they discount most of their tests themselves, then use that logic to go with SJ/CMJ  (would rather they use other outside sources/reasoning to say why these two tests are best measurement)?

 -I see no problem with how they defined their construct.  -there are multiple tests that they use, so I do not believe there is mono operation bias  - I am not sure if there is mono method bias; I am not sure exactly how they are claiming to compare to other measures of explosive leg power  -I do not believe there were any interaction threats  I think one of the larger threats looms from confounding levels of the construct; is jumping the only real measure? Is jumping just a facet of power (one particular application)

 Design  R X 7  Use of random assignment and four groups suggests only social threats; however, the tests were different each day, so not a concern if subjects talked between tests.  Testing sessions performed in random order at beginning of school year, so subjects not involved in activities yet.  There is very little evidence to suggest that internal validity is relevant.

 Among all jumping tests, the SJ and CMJ had the greatest reliability.  The SJ and CMJ tests also had the greatest AVR and ICC.  Greatest vertical jump height was the SAR test.  The lowest vertical jump height was the SJ as expected.

 The results of the fact analysis indicate that all tests have a similar measurement.