Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2004, 18(3), 590593

q 2004 National Strength & Conditioning Association

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF A LINEAR POSITION

TRANSDUCER FOR MEASURING JUMP PERFORMANCE
JOHN B. CRONIN,1 RAEWYN D. HING,1

AND

PETER J. MCNAIR2

Sport Performance Research Centre, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand;
Neuromuscular Research Unit, School of Physiotherapy, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,
New Zealand.
1
2

ABSTRACT. Cronin, J.B., R.D. Hing, and P.J. McNair. Reliability

and validity of a linear position transducer for measuring jump
performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(3):590593. 2004.This
study determined the reliability and validity of a linear position
transducer to measure jump performance by comparing the
mean force, peak force, and time-to-peak force measurements
with data obtained simultaneously with a force platform. Twenty-five men performed squat, countermovement, and drop jumps
with the linear transducer connected from a waist belt and base,
which were placed upon a force platform. The Pearson correlation coefficients across the 3 jumps for the mean force (r 5
0.9520.962), peak force (r 5 0.8610.934), and time-to-peak
force (r 5 0.9240.995) were high, providing evidence that the
linear-transducer and force-platform measurements were similar. The trial-to-trial reliability of the jumps measured by the
linear position transducer gave an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.9240.975 for mean force, 0.9770.982 for peak force,
and 0.7210.964 for time-to-peak force. The coefficients of variation were 2.14.5% for mean force, 2.58.4% for peak force, and
4.111.8% for time-to-peak force. Our findings showed that the
calculations derived from the linear transducer were very similar to those of the force platform and hence provided evidence
of the validity of this method. The data from the linear transducer were also shown to be reliable. Therefore, this method of
calculating force may provide a cost-effective alternative to the
force platform for measuring this variable.
KEY WORDS. force platform, validity, assessment, stretch-shorten cycle

to publications over the past 100 years, force platforms

would appear to be one of the most commonly used measuring devices in biomechanics and are hence regarded
as the gold standard in force measurement (4). However, such assessment must take place in the laboratory
and not in the field because force platforms are very sensitive to extraneous vibrations and therefore must be
mounted as specified by the manufacturers instructions
to preserve the integrity of the signal. Furthermore, the
cost of these devices and accompanying electronics places
them beyond the budget of many laboratories. Consequently, the development of portable, cost-effective equipment that allows kinematic and kinetic information to be
gathered similar to the force platform would have obvious
advantages in a field-testing situation. The purpose of
this study, therefore, was to determine whether the movement characteristics of 3 different jumping activities
(squat jump, countermovement jump, and drop jump) as
measured by a linear position transducer were similar to
the information gathered simultaneously on a force platform. A secondary purpose was to determine the reliability of the linear position transducer. If proven valid and
reliable, the linear position transducer will offer a portable, cost-effective technique for the assessment of force
and power.

METHODS
INTRODUCTION

Experimental Approach to the Problem

commonly used form of strength and power

assessment is the measurement of vertical
jump performance. The vertical jump has
many derivations that enable information to
be gathered about various neuromuscular and
performance qualities of an individual. For example, the
squat jump has been used to evaluate the concentric
strength of the leg extensors (1, 12, 14). Because of the
inclusion of an eccentric component to the jumping motion, the countermovement jump has been used to measure the reactive strength of the lower body (1, 12, 14,
15). Because of the long duration (.250 milliseconds) of
the eccentric-concentric contraction (stretch-shorten cycle, or SSC), this jump is also thought to be a measure of
slow SSC ability (7, 14). Drop jumps, on the other hand,
are thought to be measures of fast SSC performance and
give a measure of stretch-load tolerance when used across
different heights (1, 3, 7, 1416).
Many different protocols and devices have been used
to assess jump performance. These include the use of Vertecs or yardsticks, contact mats, optical encoders, rotary
encoders, accelerometers, and force platforms. According

The reliability and validity of a linear position transducer

to measure jump performance was determined by comparing the mean force, peak force, and time-to-peak force
measurements with data obtained simultaneously with a
force platform.

590

Subjects

The subjects were 25 male volunteers who all had training histories in a variety of individual or team sports.
Their mean (6SD) age, mass, and height were 23.4 6 4.6
years, 76.8 6 10.6 kg, and 176 6 8.6 cm. The Human
Subject Ethics Committee of the Auckland University of
Technology approved all the procedures undertaken, and
all subjects signed an informed consent before their participation in the research.
Equipment

A linear position transducer (P-80A, Unimeasure, Corvallis, ORaverage sensitivity 0.499 mVV21mm21, linearity 0.05% full scale) was countersunk into a custommade base. The wire from the transducer was attached
to a waist harness on the subject and measured vertical

LINEAR POSITION TRANSDUCER

AND JUMP

PERFORMANCE 591

Statistical Analyses

FIGURE 1. Linear position transducer attached to a waist

harness on top a force platform.

displacement relative to the base with an accuracy of 0.1

cm. The transducer and base were placed upon the force
platform (see Figure 1). This arrangement allowed simultaneous data collection from the linear position transducer and the force platform. The linear position transducer was calibrated to a known distance before testing.
A force platform (AMTI Force Plate and Amplifier, Advanced Technology Inc., Watertown, MA) was used for the
jump assessment. The force plate was calibrated to a
known mass before testing.
Each subject performed a warm-up that included cycling and static stretching of the legs. Subjects were instructed regarding the performance of each jump and
were able to familiarize themselves before the jump assessment. Three types of jump were performed: a squat
jump, a countermovement jump, and a drop jump. The
subjects kept their hands on their hips for all jumps. Before the jump assessment, a linear position transducer
was attached by harness to each subject. For the squat
and countermovement jumps, the subjects began on top
of the custom-made base. The squat jump (concentric
only) involved flexing the knee joint to an angle of approximately 908, maintaining that position for 4 seconds,
and thereafter extending the knee joint (1, 11, 14). Countermovement jumps were performed under the same conditions as the squat jump but involved flexion of the knee
joint (eccentric contraction) followed immediately by extension of the legs. For the drop jump assessment, subjects began on top of a wooden box 30 cm above the force
platform. The drop jump involved stepping off the box
from an erect standing position, and upon ground contact
the subjects attempted to minimize contact time and
jump for maximum height (1, 11, 14). Drop jump heights
of 3040 cm have been recommended previously and are
thought to be safe heights for such assessments (14).
Three trials for each jump were collected, and a rest period of 1 minute was implemented between trials. Trials
2 and 3 of each jump assessment were used for analysis.

The variables of interest in this study were calculated

from the mass-displacement characteristics of the linear
position transducer and the force data from the force platform.
The displacement and force signals were sampled simultaneously (1,000 Hz) and transmitted to a computer
(MacIntosh G4 Computer, Cupertino, CA) via a 12-bit A/
D converter card (Instrunet, GW Instruments, Boston,
MA) for the force platform and the linear transducer. The
signals were digitally filtered with a low-pass Hamming
filter with a cutoff frequency of 10 Hz and a zero phase
lag. An analysis program (Superscope Version 3, GW Instruments) was used to calculate the mean force, peak
force, and time-to-peak force for both devices.
Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS for windows Version 10.0 (Chicago, IL). Data are presented as
mean values and SDs. Paired Students t-tests were carried out between variables (mean force, peak force, and
time-to-peak force) to determine whether differences existed within trials and between means. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to examine the validity of the mean force, peak force, and timeto-peak force as measured by the linear position transducer and force platform. Reliability was tested according
to procedures outlined by Atkinson and Nevill (2). The
relative reliability is the degree to which individuals
maintain their position in a sample with repeated measures and is best measured by a correlation coefficient.
The relative reliability of the linear position transducer
was tested by assessing the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the mean force, peak force, and timeto-peak force of the 2 trials measured with this device.
These ICCs were compared with the same variables as
calculated from the force platform data. The ICCs were
calculated with a 2-way mixed effect (people effect random, measure effect fixed)-consistency definition model,
and the single-measure ICC is reported. Absolute reliability refers to the degree which repeated measures vary
for individuals and can be described by the coefficient of
variation (CV). The CV was calculated (CV 5 SD/Mean
3 100) for each single case, and then the mean CV was
determined for the sample (6). Statistical significance was
determined by a probability level of p # 0.05.

RESULTS
The mean values and SDs for mean force, peak force, and
time-to-peak force (n 5 25) and the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient for each of the jumps as assessed by the linear position transducer and force platform can be observed in Table 1. Pearson correlation coefficients across the 3 jumps for the mean force (r 5 0.95
0.96), peak force (r 5 0.860.93), and time-to-peak force
(r 5 0.920.99) were high. The only significant difference
in means between the linear position transducer and the
force platform data was the peak force of the drop jump
(t 5 23.702, p 5 0.001).
The trial-to-trial reliability of mean force, peak force,
and time-to-peak force for the 2 devices across the various
jump techniques can be observed in Table 1. The trial-totrial reliability of the jumps measured by the linear position transducer gave an ICC of 0.920.97 for mean force,
0.970.98 for peak force, and 0.720.96 for time-to-peak
force. Similar ICCs of 0.920.97 for mean force, 0.860.97

592

CRONIN, HING,

AND

MCNAIR

TABLE 1. Values of mean force, peak force, and time-to-peak force as measured by the linear transducer and force platform for
squat. countermovement, and drop jumps. Pearson correlation coefficients (r), paired sample Students t-test; and probability values
(p-value) are also presented.
Linear transducer
mean (SD)

Force platform
mean (SD)

Pearson correlation
r (p-value)

Students t-test
t (p-value)

Mean force
Squat jump

1,493 (344)

1,492 (339)

Countermovement jump

1,509 (282)

1,515 (301)

Drop jump

1,927 (410)

1,933 (436)

0.952
(0.000)
0.959
(0.000)
0.962)
(0.000)

20.016
(0.987)
20.297
(0.769)
20.244
(0.809)

Peak force
Squat jump

1,948 (388)

1,874 (360)

Countermovement jump

1,836 (371)

1,778 (407)

Drop jump

2,455 (667)

2,666 (777)

0.897
(0.000)
0.861
(0.000)
0.934
(0.000)

1.902
(0.056)
1.369
(0.184)
23.702
(0.001)

Time-to-Peak force
Squat jump

0.964 (0.564)

0.956 (0.542)

Countermovement jump

1.425 (0.448)

1.395 (0.496)

Drop jump

1.514 (0.387)

1.504 (0.384)

0.995
(0.000)
0.924
(0.000)
0.925
(0.000)

0.700
(0.491)
0.752
(0.459)
0.198
(0.845)

TABLE 2. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV%) for the squat, countermovement, and drop
jumps as measured by the linear transducer and force platform.
Mean force (N)

Peak force (N)

Time-to-peak force (s)

ICC

CV%

ICC

CV%

ICC

CV%

Squat jump
Linear transducer
Force platform

0.972
0.977

2.8
2.8

0.982
0.908

2.5
3.2

0.891
0.884

11.7
11.8

Countermovement jump
Linear transducer
Force platform

0.975
0.964

2.1
2.2

0.979
0.972

2.9
2.8

0.964
0.925

4.1
7.4

Drop jump
Linear transducer
Force platform

0.924
0.929

4.2
4.5

0.977
0.864

2.9
8.4

0.721
0.771

10.8
9.1

for peak force, and 0.770.92 for time-to-peak force were

also observed for the force platform (see Table 2). The CVs
were 2.14.5% for mean force, 2.58.4% for peak force,
and 4.111.8% for time-to-peak force. The ICCs and CVs
were similar to those calculated for the force platform.
Once more, similar CVs can be observed for the force platform (see Table 2).

DISCUSSION
To determine the measurement error associated with calculating the force variables with the linear position transducer, relative (ICC) and absolute (CV) reliability measures were calculated. Such an approach is common in
the literature (8, 10, 13). Although there are no preset
standards for acceptable reliability measures, it has been
suggested that ICC values above 0.75 may be considered
reliable and this index should be at least 0.90 for most
clinical applications (9). As can be observed in Table 2,
the ICCs for the force measures assessed by the linear

position transducer across the 3 jumps meet these requirements, with the exception of time-to-peak force for
the drop jump condition (ICC 5 0.72). However, a similar
correlation coefficient for the force platform (ICC 5 0.77)
suggests that the reliability of this measure is questionable.
Some scientists have arbitrarily chosen an analytical
goal of the CV being 10% or below, but the merits of this
value are the source of conjecture (2). Nonetheless, only
2 measures from the linear position transducer were
found to lie outside these suggested limits, both of which
were associated with time-to-peak force (CV 5 10.8
11.7%). For the majority of the variables measured from
the linear transducer data, the CVs were less than 5%.
Similar CVs were found with the force platform. The CVs
and ICCs for time-to-peak force, in particular for the drop
jump, suggest that this measure should be interpreted
with caution.
Both the ICC and CV were calculated from trials 2

LINEAR POSITION TRANSDUCER

and 3 of each jump condition in an effort to minimize

measurement error, especially systematic bias. Trial 1 of
each jump assessment provided familiarization in addition to that provided in the warm-up. Paired sample Students t-tests found no statistical difference between the
2 trials for any of the variables measured, indicating that
factors such as learning effects, motivation, protocol inconsistencies, and others were not influencing the assessment. The high ICCs, low CVs, absence of any statistical
difference among trials, and similar values noted with the
force platform indicated that the linear position transducer data were reliable.
The accuracy of a new assessment tool is usually studied by comparing the new device with that of another (5,
8, 13). This study determined the validity of a linear position transducer to measure jump performance by comparing its mean force, peak force, and time-to-peak force
measurements with data obtained simultaneously with a
force platform. It is thought that if a high (r . 0.80) and
statistically significant correlation coefficient is obtained
between the 2 devices, the equipment is deemed to be
sufficiently valid (2). Pearson correlation coefficients
greater than 0.80 were found for all the force measurements across the 3 jump types. The results suggest that
the linear position transducer measurements were valid.
Kinematic and kinetic measures that have been profiled on this device include duration of contraction, mean
and peak velocity, peak acceleration, mean and peak
force, mean and peak power, instantaneous power, force
at 30 and 100 milliseconds, total impulse, and total work
done. The only measure that was found to have unacceptable reliability was force at 30 and 100 milliseconds,
and we found this to be the case with force platform measurements, too.

PERFORMANCE 593

cost-effective, versatile, and valid means for the measurement of force.

REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The high Pearson correlation coefficients, high ICCs, low
CVs, absence of any statistical difference among trials,
and similar values noted with the force platform indicate
that the linear position transducer is reliable and valid.
Furthermore, it offers information (e.g., force, impulse,
power) that is often limited to laboratory-type assessment
and hence can give much better prognostic and diagnostic
information in a field setting than can many of the other
devices described previously. The system has the added
advantage of adapting to any weightlifting apparatus.
Hence, it may also be used to assess and monitor changes
in strength and power performance. The results, therefore, suggest that the linear position transducer offers a

AND JUMP

12.

13.

14.
15.

16.

ARTEAGA, R., C. DORADO, J. CHAVARREN, AND J.A.L. CALBERT.

Reliability of jumping performance in active men and women
under different stretch loading conditions. J. Sports Med. Phys.
Fitness. 40:2634. 2000.
ATKINSON, G., AND A.M. NEVILL. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to
sports medicine. Sports Med. 26:217238. 1998.
HATZE, H. Validity and reliability of methods for testing vertical jumping performance. J. Appl. Biomech. 14:127140. 1998.
NIGG, B.M., AND W. HERZOG. Biomechanics of the MusculoSkeletal System. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
1994.
RAHMANI, A., G. DALLEAU, F. VIALE, C.A. HAUTIER, AND J.R.
LACOUR. Validity and reliability of a kinematic device for mesauring the force developed during squatting. J. Appl. Biomech.
16:2635. 2000.
SALE, D. Testing strength and power. In: Physiological Testing
of the High Performance Athlete. J.D. Mac Dougall, H.A. Wenger, and H.J. Green, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
1991. pp. 21106.
SCHMIDTBLEICHER, D. Training for power events. In: Strength
and Power in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. Boston: Blackwell Scientific
Publications, 1992. pp. 381395.
THOMPSON, C.J., AND M.G. BEMBEN. Reliability and comparability of the accelerometer as a measure of muscular power.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:897902. 1999.
WALMSLEY, R., AND T. AMELL. The application and interpretation of intraclass correlations in the assessment of reliability
in isokinetic dynamometry. Isokinetic Exerc. Sci. 6:117124.
1996.
WALSHE, A., G. WILSON, AND A.J. MURPHY. The validity and
reliability of a test of lower body musculotendinous stiffness.
Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 73:332339. 1996.
WILSON, G.J., A.D. LYTTLE, K.J. OSTROWSKI, AND A.J. MURPHY.
Assessing dynamic performance: A comparison of rate of force
development tests. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:176181. 1995.
WILSON, G.J., A.J. MURPHY, AND A. GIORGI. Weight and plyometric training: Effects on eccentric and concentric force production. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 21:301314. 1997.
WILSON, G.J., A.D. WALSHE, AND M.R. FISHER. The development of an isokinetic squat device: Reliability and relationship
to functional performance. J. Appl. Physiol. 75:455461. 1997.
YOUNG, W. Laboratory strength assessment of athletes. New
Studies in Athletics. 10:8996. 1995.
YOUNG, W. A simple method for evaluating the strength qualities of the leg extensor muscles and jumping abilities. Strength
Cond. Coach. 2:58. 1995.
YOUNG, W.B., J.F. PRYOR, AND G.J. WILSON. Effect of instructions on characteristics of countermovement and drop jump
performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:232236. 1995.