Comparison of Start Detection Methods for the Countermovement Vertical Jump with Arm Swing

Start detection methods for force-time data analyses of the countermovement vertical jump with arms akimbo (CMJ) have been applied to the CMJ with an arm swing (CMJ-AS). However, little is known regarding the implications of different start detection methods on derived CMJ-AS outcome measures. We compared CMJ-AS start locations that were identified by four detection methods: 1) (body weight [BW] ± 5 standard deviations [5SD]), 2) (maximum [max] BW + 5SD or minimum [min] BW – 5SD), 3) (BW ± 2.5%), and 4) (max BW + 2.5% or min BW – 2.5%). Twenty-two collegiate male basketball players (20.23 ± 2.00 yr, 1.99 ± 0.07 m, 93.79 ± 8.48 kg) performed 3 CMJ-AS trials while vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) data was recorded. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA (α ≤ 0.05) supplemented by Cohen’s d effect sizes compared time to takeoff (TTT), unloading phase metrics, and CMJ-AS start vGRF value amongst the methods. TTT was longer for method 1 (0.99 ± 0.16 s) than methods 2 (0.94 ± 0.17 s, p < 0.01, d = 0.29) and 4 (0.92 ± 0.19 s, p = 0.01, d = 0.43). Unloading time was longer for method 1 than methods 2 (p < 0.01, d = 0.16) and 4 (p < 0.01, d = 0.22) and longer for method 3 than method 4 (p = 0.02, d = 0.21). Unloading force and rate of force development were different between methods 1 and 2 (p ≤ 0.01, d = 0.17) and methods 3 and 4 (p ≤ 0.01, d = 0.21-0.22). There was no difference amongst methods in CMJ-AS start vGRF value. Erroneous start identification rate was lowest for method 4 (3.03%). When analyzing the CMJ-AS, max BW + 2.5% or min BW – 2.5% is recommended to improve start detection and avoid compromised unloading phase metrics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Published
2025-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.47206/ijsc.v5i1.472
Primary Topic
Sports Performance and Training
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Start Detection Methods for the Countermovement Vertical Jump with Arm Swing

Sunny Park, John R. Harry, Michael Stewart
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Sports Performance and Training
article

Comparison of Start Detection Methods for the Countermovement Vertical Jump with Arm Swing

Sunny Park, John R. Harry, Michael Stewart
article en

Abstract

Start detection methods for force-time data analyses of the countermovement vertical jump with arms akimbo (CMJ) have been applied to the CMJ with an arm swing (CMJ-AS). However, little is known regarding the implications of different start detection methods on derived CMJ-AS outcome measures. We compared CMJ-AS start locations that were identified by four detection methods: 1) (body weight [BW] ± 5 standard deviations [5SD]), 2) (maximum [max] BW + 5SD or minimum [min] BW – 5SD), 3) (BW ± 2.5%), and 4) (max BW + 2.5% or min BW – 2.5%). Twenty-two collegiate male basketball players (20.23 ± 2.00 yr, 1.99 ± 0.07 m, 93.79 ± 8.48 kg) performed 3 CMJ-AS trials while vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) data was recorded. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA (α ≤ 0.05) supplemented by Cohen’s d effect sizes compared time to takeoff (TTT), unloading phase metrics, and CMJ-AS start vGRF value amongst the methods. TTT was longer for method 1 (0.99 ± 0.16 s) than methods 2 (0.94 ± 0.17 s, p < 0.01, d = 0.29) and 4 (0.92 ± 0.19 s, p = 0.01, d = 0.43). Unloading time was longer for method 1 than methods 2 (p < 0.01, d = 0.16) and 4 (p < 0.01, d = 0.22) and longer for method 3 than method 4 (p = 0.02, d = 0.21). Unloading force and rate of force development were different between methods 1 and 2 (p ≤ 0.01, d = 0.17) and methods 3 and 4 (p ≤ 0.01, d = 0.21-0.22). There was no difference amongst methods in CMJ-AS start vGRF value. Erroneous start identification rate was lowest for method 4 (3.03%). When analyzing the CMJ-AS, max BW + 2.5% or min BW – 2.5% is recommended to improve start detection and avoid compromised unloading phase metrics.

International Journal of Strength and ConditioningVol. 5(1)
Texas Tech University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Sports Performance and Training
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.