
==== Front
PeerJ
PeerJ
peerj
PeerJ
2167-8359
PeerJ Inc. San Diego, USA

17704
10.7717/peerj.17704
Kinesiology
Biomechanics
Sports Medicine
Error in jump height estimation using the flight time method: simulation of the effect of ankle position between takeoff and landing
Gonçalves Carlos carlos.goncalves@aluno.unb.br
1
Baptista Roberto 2
Tufano James 3
Blazevich Anthony J. 4
Vieira Amilton 1
1 University of Brasília, Faculty of Physical Education, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil
2 University of Brasília, Faculty of Technology, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil
3 Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
4 Centre for Human Performance, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia
Coswig Victor
30 8 2024
2024
12 e1770412 4 2024
18 6 2024
©2024 Gonçalves et al.
2024
Gonçalves et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

During vertical jump evaluations in which jump height is estimated from flight time (FT), the jumper must maintain the same body posture between vertical takeoff and landing. As maintaining identical posture is rare during takeoff and landing between different jump attempts and in different individuals, we simulated the effect of changes in ankle position from takeoff to landing in vertical jumping to determine the range of errors that might occur in real-life scenarios. Our simulations account for changes in center of mass position during takeoff and landing, changes in ankle position, different subject statures (1.44–1.98 m), and poor to above-average jump heights. Our results show that using FT to estimate jump height without controlling for ankle position (allowing dorsiflexion) during the landing phase of the vertical jump can overestimate jump height by 18% in individuals of average stature and performing an average 30 cm jump or may overestimate by ≤60% for tall individuals performing a poor 10 cm jump, which is common for individuals jumping with added load. Nevertheless, as assessing jump heights based on FT is common practice, we offer a correction equation that can be used to reduce error, improving jump height measurement validity using the FT method allowing between-subject fair comparisons.

Physical functional performance
Computer simulation
Squat jump
Countermovement jump
Edital DPI/DPG/BCE 01/2024 from the University of BrasiliaThe APC was funded by Edital DPI/DPG/BCE 01/2024 from the University of Brasilia. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Muscular fitness monitoring is common in health and sports fields, with vertical jump testing being one of the simplest, quickest, most informative, and most common tests available. Since vertical jump testing can assess the capability of the lower limbs to maximally elevate the center of mass (CoM), this test is used to quantify lower body power output, making it helpful for exercise prescription (Read et al., 2016), quantifying acute and long-term effects of exercise interventions (Kibele, 1998; Caserotti, Aagaard & Puggaard, 2008; Rivière et al., 2020) , and assessing athlete’s ability to return to sport after injury (Jordan et al., 2020; O’Malley et al., 2018). Vertical jump testing has been used to evaluate neuromuscular function in youth (Fernandez-Santos et al., 2015) and older individuals (Singh et al., 2014), as well as for monitoring disease and dysfunction (Buchan et al., 2010), people with obesity (Bellicha et al., 2020), and others. Given the widespread use of vertical jump testing, it is paramount to have a thorough understanding of all aspects of the test that could affect validity and reliability.

Force platforms are often used for jump testing and are considered to be a gold-standard for jump height measurement, with the takeoff velocity method (McMahon et al., 2018) (h = v2.(2.g)−1) demonstrated to produce valid and reliable data. However, force platforms require substantial investment, making alternative devices like jump mats, optical systems, and smartphone apps popular in sports performance and rehabilitation settings. Alternative devices typically estimate jump height using the flight time (FT) method (h = g.t2.8−1), and while a plethora of studies demonstrate high test reliability (Bogataj et al., 2020a; Bogataj et al., 2020b; Cruvinel-Cabral et al., 2018; Pueo et al., 2017), test validity has been questioned by studies reporting systematic jump height overestimation (Kibele, 1998; García-López et al., 2005; Moir, 2008; Wade, Lichtwark & Farris, 2019).

Regardless of the well-known overestimation issue, practitioners often accept the error, assuming that the error is relatively constant among trials (i.e., the same amount of error would exist for the same athlete maintaining the same technique over time). Nevertheless, the FT method requires the precise determination of the instant of takeoff and landing, requiring high sampling rates of devices (>100 Hz). In this regard, the advances in smartphone technology have allowed jump recording at 240 Hz, making jump measurement more accessible and precise. However, the FT method requires jumpers to takeoff and land with the same body posture, which is technically challenging and makes precise analyses difficult. Even after providing a habituation (familiarization) session, researchers have observed that lower limb joints are more flexed (ankle more dorsiflexed) at landing than at takeoff (Wade, Lichtwark & Farris, 2019). While the tester can request the jumper repeat the test, this is only possible when the tester can detect the change in body posture in real time. An experienced assessor may easily detect large changes in hip and knee joint angles, but smaller changes (∼10°) at the ankle joint may be very hard to detect yet significantly affect FT. Previous studies (Yamashita, Murata & Inaba, 2020; Shu et al., 2016; Wade, Lichtwark & Farris, 2019) have consistently reported changes between 10 and 20 degrees in ankle position between takeoff and landing, and the ankle joint has been pointed out as the principal contributor to errors in jump height estimation (Yamashita, Murata & Inaba, 2020).

Important to the above arguments, many studies that have shown acceptable FT jump estimates when conducted over a short period, typically a few days to two weeks (Bogataj et al., 2020a; Bogataj et al., 2020b; Cruvinel-Cabral et al., 2018; Pueo et al., 2017; García-López et al., 2005; Gallardo-Fuentes et al., 2016). It could be speculated that the jumper has a greater chance of changing their body posture over longer periods since jump testing is used mainly by researchers in longitudinal studies to monitor training adaptations. Accounting for changes in body posture during jumping maybe even more critical when clinicians use jump test results as the criterion for athletes to return to competition since changes in movement patterns would be expected as athletes recover from injury (Jordan et al., 2020). Therefore, the present study investigated the effect of changes in ankle position from takeoff to landing in vertical jumping. To provide a robust number of possibilities, our simulations accounted for a range of human statures (from 1.44 to 1.98 m) and individuals performing “below average”, “average”, and “above average” jumps (McKay et al., 2017). In addition, we proposed a correction equation to account for individuals who might not follow the proper landing technique (e.g., people with cognitive impairment), whereby the jump data would need to be corrected. For practical reasons, this study investigated only changes at the ankle joint since the ankle seems to be the joint most poorly inspected during jump testing. However, it is essential to note that changes at other joints (e.g., knee, hip, or torso) will affect jump height estimates.

Materials & Methods

Biomechanical model

A four-segment model (torso, thigh, shank, and feet) (Winter, 2009) was created to evaluate the vertical CoM distance from the floor (Fig. 1). Additionally, the tiptoe-to-ankle (lateral malleolus) horizontal distance was set at 78.7% of the foot length (Tilley & Henry Dreyfuss Associates, 2001) (Fig. 2). The motion of the model was constrained to the sagittal plane while it stood on a single leg with doubled expected mass. The kinematic chain origin was set at the tiptoes, and a set of 2D rotational matrices (Robertson et al., 2013) was used to create the expected motion of the ankle, knee, and hip joints. The kinematic chain rotations provided the CoM position for each body segment (foot, shank, hip, and torso). The whole-body CoM was calculated from a weighted sum of the segment’s CoM position and mass, with CoM vertical displacement exclusively resulting from changes in ankle position. Therefore, the maximum change in body posture between jump takeoff and landing was set at landing with feet flat (angle joint at 0°).

10.7717/peerj.17704/fig-1 Figure 1 Center of mass displacement during jump.

A typical vertical jump of a scaled model of 1.75 m in stature with a 20° change in ankle position from takeoff (3) and landing (5). The vertical CoM distances from the floor (1 = 1.16 m, 2 = 0.89 m, 3 = 1.29 m, 4 = 1.59, and 5 = 1.27 m) were represented. Image source credit: Images from OpenSim software.

10.7717/peerj.17704/fig-2 Figure 2 Ankle height estimation with anthropometric estimates.

Anthropometric estimates derived from individual stature (H) and ankle position during jump takeoff and landing. β and α angles were used to calculate ankle height. β represent the natural foot angle relative to the ground during standing posture, while α represents the plantarflexion performed during jump takeoff and landing. Image source credit: Images from OpenSim software.

Simulated jumps and research variables

We used a continuum of 100 body heights ranging from 1.435 m (3 standard deviations (SD) below the women’s average) to 1.984 m (3 SD above the men’s average) (WHO, 2007) , which was required to estimate foot length (Winter, 2009) (15.2% of the stature) and subsequently ankle position. The simulations also accounted for jump heights of 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, and 0.40 m allowing the simulation of 16,400 jumps (100 stature × 41 angle positions × 4 jump heights). The takeoff velocity and ascending time were calculated using the constant acceleration equations. The error in jump height estimation was computed for each condition. The difference in CoM position due to a change in ankle position was defined as any difference between landing and takeoff (nomenclature definitions at Table 1): (1) hdiff=hl−hto.

10.7717/peerj.17704/table-1 Table 1 Nomenclature.

g	Gravitational acceleration (ms−2)	FT true	True flight time (s)	
H	Stature (m)	V to	Vertical velocity at takeoff (s)	
h	Simulated jump height (m)	FT	Measured flight time (s)	
h to	Center of Mass height at takeoff (m)	FT diff	Flight time difference (s)	
h l	Center of Mass height at landing (m)	h ˆ	Estimated jump height (m)	
h diff	Center of Mass height difference (m)	h ˆc	Corrected estimated jump height (m)	
t diff	Time difference due to change in body posture	h error	Percentage error in jump height estimation (%)	
β	Natural foot angle relative to the ground during standing posture	t a	Ascending time (s)	
α	Ankle position performed during jump			

The ascending time (ta) is directly related to jump height (h), the takeoff velocity (Vto), and the true flight time (FTtrue), i.e., the CoM height is the same at the takeoff and landing of the jump. Therefore,

(2) ta=2.hg,

(3) FTtrue=2.ta,

(4) Vto=g.ta.

Consequently, the measured FT when there was any change in ankle position was estimated as: (5) FT=Vto+Vto2−2.g.hdiffg.

The percentage difference in jump height estimations was defined as herror, where h ˆ is the approximation using the measured FT.

(6) h ˆ=FT2.g8,

(7) herror=h ˆ−hh.100.

When there is any change in ankle position (or any change in body posture) between takeoff and landing, the presented equations can be manipulated to obtain FTtrue from FT and tdiff (time difference due to change in body posture), as follows:

(8) FTtrue=FT−tdiff,

(9) ta=1g.g.FT2−hdiffFT,

(10) h=12.g.g.FT2−hdiffFT2.

Obtaining hdiff is challenging without a motion capture system. Therefore, we evaluated the potential of estimating hdiff (h ˆdiff) based on ankle-toe length (lat) estimated from stature (H), and ankle position: ankle angle at takeoff (αto), and landing (αland), acquired from 2D video analysis (Fig. 2).

(11) lat=0.039H2+0.152×0.787H2=0.126H,

(12) h ˆdiff=latsinαto+β−sinαland+β,

therefore, the “corrected” jump height (h ˆc) can be estimated as: (13) h ˆc=12.g.g.FT2−h ˆdiffFT2.

Results

Our results show that not controlling the ankle position (i.e., allowing dorsiflexion) during the landing phase of the vertical jump can overestimate jump height up to 59.6% using the FT method (Fig. 3). Tall individuals jumping around 0.10 m were those most affected by changes in ankle position. Still, individuals of average stature (1.71 m) performing an average jump of 0.30 m may have their jump height estimated with an error of 18.4%.

10.7717/peerj.17704/fig-3 Figure 3 Results for error in jump height estimation.

Error in jump height estimation using flight time method. Measurement error accounting for individual’s stature, changes in ankle position, and jump height.

We applied Eq. (13) to correct the simulated jump heights more prone to greater error, i.e., ≤0.20 m. As a result, we obtained a perfect relationship between h ˆc and h (F(1, 8198) = 7e + 08, p < 0.001, r2 = 1.00).

Discussion

We investigated the effect of changing ankle position from takeoff to landing during vertical jumping on jump height estimations using the FT method. We considered an extensive range of statures, small to large changes in ankle position, and “poor” to “above average” jump height performances.

We demonstrated that jump height might be overestimated by 59.6% for a tall person (1.98 m) landing with the ankle completely flat (real jump height of 10 cm, while the estimated was 15.96 cm) using the FT method. However, even a person with an average stature (1.71 m) with an average jump performance of 30 cm can present a significant error in their jump height estimation of 8.1 or 13.0%, changing the ankle position in 20°or 30°, respectively. Yet smaller changes from 10°to 20°, as average changes previously reported (Yamashita, Murata & Inaba, 2020; Shu et al., 2016; Wade, Lichtwark & Farris, 2019), can significantly (∼6.5%) affect jump height accuracy making the measurement error probably greater than the observed improvement in jump height (∼2.1%) following weeks of exercise training (Lindberg et al., 2023). We subsequently propose a “correction equation” to deal with individuals who might inadvertently change ankle position during vertical jump testing since small changes in ankle position (∼10°) will probably be present (Wade, Lichtwark & Farris, 2019) but may not the detectable to the human eye.

Our results corroborate previous experimental data (Kibele, 1998; Moir, 2008; Aragón, 2000) reporting that FT method tends to overestimate jump height (up to ∼4 cm) compared to criterion measures (e.g., impulse-momentum method), suggesting that participants landed with some part of their bodies partially flexed. Changes in any body joint between takeoff to landing can turn CoM closer to the floor and artificially increase the flight time. A study (Yamashita, Murata & Inaba, 2020) with participants performing countermovement jumps with arm swing demonstrated that the changes in foot position were the major source of error (2.5 of 5.3 cm change in CoM). Surprisingly, this error was greater than the error caused by changes in arm position (1.7 cm), which is another well-known source of error in jump height estimation using the FT method. Other studies reported differences of ∼10° in ankle position from jump takeoff to landing, which might be similar (Kibele, 1998) or even smaller (Wade, Lichtwark & Farris, 2019) than changes in knee position. However, changes in knee position are probably easier to observe in real-time than changes at the ankle joint.

The current study demonstrated that individuals with greater foot length performing a “below average” jump are more prone to their jump height being estimated poorly. Therefore, it could be speculated that taller individuals are more inclined to have their jump overestimated since they usually have longer feet and possibly greater body mass, which in turn makes the jump performance more challenging, contributing to poor jump height. In addition, lower jump height would be expected for those performing overloaded jump testing, which has become popular in testing batteries for force profiling with participants jumping as low as 10 cm (Samozino et al., 2013). On the other hand, as jump height was increased in the models used in the present study, the error in jump height estimation decreased (Fig. 3).

We have also demonstrated that Eq. (13) corrects the poorer estimated jump heights, making measured jump heights similar to their true values. It is important to note that Eq. (13) requires only an estimate of the change in ankle position (e.g., 10°), stature or foot length, or ideally, ankle-toe distance. Therefore, this procedure could be helpful for those using smartphone applications (Vieira et al., 2023) or any device using the FT method to estimate jump height. In addition, researchers or practitioners may use Eqs. (9) and (10) to evaluate the jump height error where the difference in CoM position between the takeoff and landing is measurable since flexion at any joint (torso, hip, and knee) on landing would decrease the distance from vertical CoM position and the foot contact area to the floor. It should be noted that the benefit of jump height correction must be greater than the cost of implementing a joint angle measurement. We might assume that researchers requiring greater internal validity can find that benefit overcomes this cost. We also judge that the proposed correction should be applied to make comparisons between subjects fair.

It is important to note that we focused on variations in ankle position (i.e., ankle flexion angle) and did not simulate all sources of accuracy disturbances using the FT method. Besides the effect of changes in body posture between takeoff and landing, the time measurement resolution is an additional source of error. These error components should be simulated in future research proposing average confidence intervals for jump height estimates that use the FT method, especially in smaller jumps performed by taller individuals. Additionally, our simulations were generated with individual statures, and caution should be taken using the results of a per-user evaluation. Direct measurements should give more accurate results.

Complementary, we know that estimating jump height from flight time (or any other outcome metric from biological systems) will inherently be affected by natural biological variability or error from any source (e.g., equipment). While variability or error cannot be entirely eradicated, testing familiarization can improve accuracy. In this study, we are alerting for the proper landing technique and our results should encourage future data acquisition from individuals with diverse anthropometrics and performance characteristics. It also needs to determine whether jump familiarization or verbal command (e.g., “land on the balls of your feet”) might affect the accuracy of jump height estimations.

Auxiliary tool

Using this calculator https://www.lptf.unb.br/calculadora the estimated jump can be automatically corrected by inserting (1) a change in ankle position and (2) stature or foot length or, ideally, ankle-toe distance. For changes in ankle position at landing, we have provided information for setting up the recording device (e.g., smartphone) and video processing using the freely available Kinovea software (https://www.kinovea.org/). The dataset used for this research is also available for consulting.

Conclusions

Changes in ankle position from takeoff to landing in vertical jumping can overestimate jump height by up to 60% using the flight time method. Tall individuals with low jump heights are likely more prone to larger errors. However, even individuals of average stature performing an average jump height may have their jump poorly estimated, with a 18% error, according to the present data. On the other hand, using the simple calculator provided in this study can reduce the error and improve jump height validity.

Supplemental Information

10.7717/peerj.17704/supp-1 Data S1 Raw data

10.7717/peerj.17704/supp-2 Supplemental Information 2 Jupyter script

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

Author Contributions

Data Availability

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Carlos Gonçalves conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Roberto Baptista analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

James Tufano analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Anthony J. Blazevich analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Amilton Vieira conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data and Jupyter scripts are available in the Supplemental Files.
==== Refs
References

Aragón (2000) Aragón LF 2000 Evaluation of four vertical jump tests: methodology, reliability, validity, and accuracy Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 4 215 228 10.1207/s15327841mpee0404_2
Bellicha et al. (2020) Bellicha A Giroux C Ciangura C Menoux D Thoumie P Oppert J-M Portero P 2020 Vertical jump on a force plate for assessing muscle strength and power in women with severe obesity: reliability, validity, and relations with body composition Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 36 75 81 10.1519/jsc.0000000000003432
Bogataj et al. (2020a) Bogataj Š Pajek M Andrašić S Trajković N 2020a Concurrent validity and reliability of My Jump 2 app for measuring vertical jump height in recreationally active adults Applied Sciences 10 11 3805 10.3390/app10113805
Bogataj et al. (2020b) Bogataj Š Pajek M Hadžić V Andrašić S Padulo J Trajković N 2020b Validity, reliability, and usefulness of My Jump 2 app for measuring vertical jump in primary school children International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 10 3708 10.3390/ijerph17103708 32466091
Buchan et al. (2010) Buchan DS Ollis S Thomas NE Baker JS 2010 The influence of a high intensity physical activity intervention on a selection of health related outcomes: an ecological approach BMC Public Health 10 8 10.1186/1471-2458-10-8 20064208
Caserotti, Aagaard & Puggaard (2008) Caserotti P Aagaard P Puggaard L 2008 Changes in power and force generation during coupled eccentric–concentric versus concentric muscle contraction with training and aging European Journal of Applied Physiology 103 151 161 10.1007/s00421-008-0678-x 18214519
Cruvinel-Cabral et al. (2018) Cruvinel-Cabral RM Oliveira-Silva I Medeiros AR Claudino JG Jiménez-Reyes P Boullosa DA 2018 The validity and reliability of the My Jump App for measuring jump height of the elderly PeerJ 6 e5804 10.7717/peerj.5804 30356977
Fernandez-Santos et al. (2015) Fernandez-Santos JR Ruiz JR Cohen DD Gonzalez-Montesinos JL Castro-Piñero J 2015 Reliability and validity of tests to assess lower-body muscular power in children Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 29 2277 2285 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000864 25647647
Gallardo-Fuentes et al. (2016) Gallardo-Fuentes F Gallardo-Fuentes J Ramírez-Campillo R Balsalobre-Fernández C Martínez C Caniuqueo A Cañas R Banzer W Loturco I Nakamura FY Izquierdo M 2016 Intersession and intrasession reliability and validity of the My Jump App for measuring different jump actions in trained male and female athletes Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 30 2049 2056 10.1519/jsc.0000000000001304 27328276
García-López et al. (2005) García-López J Peleteiro J Rodgríguez-Marroyo JA Morante JC Herrero JA Villa JG 2005 The validation of a new method that measures contact and flight times during vertical jump International Journal of Sports Medicine 26 294 302 10.1055/s-2004-820962 15795814
Jordan et al. (2020) Jordan MJ Challis G Morris N Lane M Barnert J Herzog W 2020 Assessing vertical jump force-time asymmetries in athletes with anterior cruciate ligament injury Aspetar Sports Medicine Journal 4 24 32
Kibele (1998) Kibele A 1998 Possibilities and limitations in the biomechanical analysis of countermovement jumps: a methodological study Journal of Applied Biomechanics 14 105 117 10.1123/jab.14.1.105
Lindberg et al. (2023) Lindberg K Bjørnsen T Vårvik F Paulsen G Joensen M Kristoffersen M Sveen O Gundersen H Slettaløkken G Brankovic R Solberg P 2023 The effects of being told you are in the intervention group on training results: a pilot study Scientific Reports 13 1 1972 10.1038/s41598-023-29141-7 36737472
McKay et al. (2017) McKay MJ Baldwin JN Ferreira P Simic M Vanicek N Burns J Quinlan K 1000 Norms Project Consortium 2017 Reference values for developing responsive functional outcome measures across the lifespan Neurology 88 1512 1519 10.1212/wnl.0000000000003847 28330961
McMahon et al. (2018) McMahon JJ Suchomel TJ Lake JP Comfort P 2018 Understanding the key phases of the countermovement jump force-time curve Strength & Conditioning Journal 40 96 106 10.1519/ssc.0000000000000375
Moir (2008) Moir GL 2008 Three different methods of calculating vertical jump height from force platform data in men and women Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 12 207 218 10.1080/10913670802349766
O’Malley et al. (2018) O’Malley E Richter C King E Strike S Moran K Franklyn-Miller A Moran R 2018 Countermovement jump and isokinetic dynamometry as measures of rehabilitation status after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Athletic Training 53 687 695 10.4085/1062-6050-480-16 30109947
Pueo et al. (2017) Pueo B Lipinska P Jiménez-Olmedo JM Zmijewski P Hopkins WG 2017 Accuracy of jump-mat systems for measuring jump height International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 12 959 963 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0511 27967279
Read et al. (2016) Read PJ Bishop C Brazier J Turner AN 2016 Performance modeling: a system-based approach to exercise selection Strength & Conditioning Journal 38 90 97 10.1519/ssc.0000000000000187
Rivière et al. (2020) Rivière JR Peyrot N Cross MR Messonnier LA Samozino P 2020 Strength-endurance: interaction between force-velocity condition and power output Frontiers in Physiology 11 576725 10.3389/fphys.2020.576725 33162900
Robertson et al. (2013) Robertson DG Caldwell GE Hamill J Kamen G Whittlesey S 2013 Research methods in biomechanics Human Kinetics Champaign, IL
Samozino et al. (2013) Samozino P Edouard P Sangnier S Brughelli M Gimenez P Morin J-B 2013 Force-velocity profile: imbalance determination and effect on lower limb ballistic performance International Journal of Sports Medicine 35 505 510 10.1055/s-0033-1354382 24227123
Shu et al. (2016) Shu Y Zhang Y Fu L Fekete G Baker J Li J Gu Y 2016 Dynamic loading and kinematics analysis of vertical jump based on different forefoot morphology SpringerPlus 5 1 1999 10.1186/s40064-016-3682-3 27933255
Singh et al. (2014) Singh H Kim D Kim E Bemben MG Anderson M Seo D-I Bemben DA 2014 Jump test performance and sarcopenia status in men and women, 55 to 75 years of age Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy 37 76 82 10.1519/jpt.0b013e3182a51b11 23959247
Tilley & Henry Dreyfuss Associates (2001) Tilley AR Henry Dreyfuss Associates 2001 The measure of man and woman: human factors in design John Wiley & Sons New York
Vieira et al. (2023) Vieira A Ribeiro GL Macedo V De Araújo Rocha Junior V Baptista RD Gonçalves C Cunha R Tufano J 2023 Evidence of validity and reliability of Jumpo 2 and MyJump 2 for estimating vertical jump variables PeerJ 11 e14558 10.7717/peerj.14558 36718456
Wade, Lichtwark & Farris (2019) Wade L Lichtwark GA Farris DJ 2019 Comparisons of laboratory-based methods to calculate jump height and improvements to the field-based flight-time method Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 30 31 37 10.1111/sms.13556 31544260
Winter (2009) Winter DA 2009 Biomechanics and motor control of human movement John Wiley & Sons Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 10.1002/9780470549148
WHO (2007) WHO 2007 Growth reference data for 5-19 years https://www.who.int/tools/growth-reference-data-for-5to19-years/indicators/height-for-age 7 April 2022
Yamashita, Murata & Inaba (2020) Yamashita D Murata M Inaba Y 2020 Effect of landing posture on jump height calculated from flight time Applied Sciences 10 3 776 10.3390/app10030776
