Reliability and Validity of the Jumpster Accelerometer-Based App Compared to the Vertec When Completing a Countermovement Jump: An Examination of Field-Accessible Tools
The reliability and validity of the Jumpster app was assessed via a comparison to the Vertec during a countermovement jump. Using both tools simultaneously, 36 participants completed 100 total jump trials. Validity was assessed using correlation and tolerance analyses. Reliability was assessed using...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Applied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/14/7768 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The reliability and validity of the Jumpster app was assessed via a comparison to the Vertec during a countermovement jump. Using both tools simultaneously, 36 participants completed 100 total jump trials. Validity was assessed using correlation and tolerance analyses. Reliability was assessed using 95% predictive intervals (PI<sub>95</sub>) and tolerance limits (TL<sub>95</sub>) between the measures, comparing the standard error of the measure (SEM) and coefficients of variation (CVs) for each tool and by examining the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 2,K; upper and lower 95% CI) comparing both tools. The Jumpster app was weakly related to the Vertec (<i>r</i> = 0.24; <i>p</i> < 0.01). The tolerance analysis showed a moderately strong proportional bias of the Jumpster app to the Vertec (<i>r</i> = 0.45; <i>p</i> < 0.01). While all data fell within the calculated PI<sub>95</sub> ± TL<sub>95</sub>, the Jumpster app SEM (14.7 cm) and CV (40.30%) exceeded the Vertec SEM (3.57 cm) and CV (7.22%), and the ICC was 0.55 [0.79, −0.08]. These results paired with an overall app failure rate of 15.97% indicate that the Jumpster app is neither reliable nor valid for measuring the countermovement jump. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2076-3417 |