Physical Therapy in Sport 6 (2005) 7482

www.elsevier.com/locate/yptsp

Original research

Horizontal and vertical jump assessment: reliability, symmetry,

discriminative and predictive ability
Peter Maulder*, John Cronin
New Zealand Institute of Sport and Recreation Research, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1020, New Zealand
Received 26 July 2004; revised 4 January 2005; accepted 17 January 2005

Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to: (1) establish the reliability of a new unilateral concentric only horizontal jump assessment
(HSJ) then compare the reliability of this test to other types of unilateral vertical and horizontal jumps; (2) compare the tests to whether they
differ in their ability to determine limb asymmetries; and (3) investigate the relationship between these jumps and sprint running.
Methods: Eighteen sportsmen performed unilateral jump assessments involving the horizontal squat jump, horizontal countermovement
jump, horizontal repetitive jump, vertical squat jump, vertical countermovement jump, and vertical repetitive jump.
Results: Reliability for the new test was found to be the equal if not better than the other more established tests of leg power, with the
within trial variation (CVZ1.11.9%) and testretest reliability (ICCZ0.890.90). None of the tests were found to have greater
discriminative ability in determining limb asymmetries. Stretch shorten cycle enhancement was greater in the vertical tests (12.1%)
compared to the horizontal tests (1.3%). Horizontal jump assessments (rZK0.73 to K0.86) were found better predictors of 20-m sprint
performance than the vertical assessments (rZK0.52 to K0.73), with the horizontal cyclic assessment being the best predictor (rZK0.86).
Conclusion: Horizontal leg power assessment appears an inexpensive, easy to administer, reliable and valid method to assess unilateral
leg power.
q 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: SSC; Concentric only; Sprint performance; Acyclic; Cyclic

1. Introduction
Human movement is made possible by force development
in muscles acting across the levers of the skeletal system. The
force or torque a muscle or muscle group can generate is
referred to as strength whereas power has been defined as the
rate of performing work or the product of force and velocity
(Komi, 1992; Sale, 1991). The application of strength and
power usually occur under conditions delimited by posture,
contraction type and movement pattern (Harman, 1993;
Komi, 1992; Sale, 1991). Such a definition implies that
strength or power has many manifestations, is very specific
and should be measured within a functional context. In terms
of measuring functional power of the lower body the single

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C64 9 917 9999x7119; fax: C64 9 917

9960.
E-mail address: peter.maulder@aut.ac.nz (P. Maulder).
1466-853X/$ - see front matter q 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2005.01.001

hop for distance (Bandy, Rusche, & Tekulve, 1994; Barber

et al., 1990; Bolgla & Keskula, 1997; Clark, Gumbrell, Rana,
Traole, & Morrissey, 2002; Paterno & Greenberger, 1996),
triple hop for distance (Bandy et al., 1994; Bolgla & Keskula,
1997; Clark et al., 2002; Risberg, Holm, & Ekeland, 1995),
6-m timed hop (Barber et al., 1990; Bolgla & Keskula, 1997;
Clark et al., 2002; Hopper et al., 2002), crossover hop (Bandy
et al., 1994; Bolgla & Keskula, 1997; Clark et al., 2002;
Hopper et al., 2002), single leg vertical jump (Bandy et al.,
1994; Barber et al., 1990; Cordova & Armstrong, 1996;
Hopper et al., 2002; Risberg et al., 1995), vertical squat jump
(Arteaga, Dorado, Chavarren, & Calbet, 2000; Cornwell,
Nelson, Heise, & Sidaway, 2001; Cornwell, Nelson, &
Sidaway, 2002; Knudson, Bennett, Corn, Leick, & Smith,
2001; Young, 1995; Young & Elliot, 2001), vertical
countermovement jump (Arteaga et al., 2000; Cornwell
et al., 2001, 2002; Hunter & Marshall, 2002; Knudson et al.,
2001; Young, 1995), and the drop jump (Arteaga et al., 2000;

P. Maulder, J. Cronin / Physical Therapy in Sport 6 (2005) 7482

Golomer & Fery, 2002; Hunter & Marshall, 2002; Young,

1995; Young & Elliot, 2001) seem the assessment methods
most widely used. Other jump assessments that have been
used to measure lower body power include the stair hop
(Hopper et al., 2002), adapted crossover hop (Clark et al.,
2002), side hop (Itoh, Kurosaka, Yoshiya, Ichihashi, &
Mizuno, 1998) and repeated vertical jumps (Tkac, Hamar,
Komadel, & Kuthanova, 1990).
It would seem that a variety of jumps are available to
measure leg power, the issue would seem, therefore, which
jump/s may be of better prognostic or diagnostic value to the
clinician or conditioner. Obviously issues of validity and
reliability need to be addressed and should guide jump
assessment selection. The use of unilateral assessment
appears to have an advantage over bilateral assessment, as
differences in limb symmetry can be identified and also
measurements of the non-injured limb can serve as the
biological baseline to which the injured limb should return
(Hopper et al., 2002). Also in terms of specificity many
activities require unilateral propulsion either in the vertical
or horizontal directions, therefore, unilateral assessment
would appear to better represent the power specific to these
movement patterns. Given this information it is puzzling
why the majority of research uses bilateral jump assessment
as the representative measure of leg power.
Another issue determining selection may be that most
activities require cyclic expressions of force, therefore, the
use of multiple jumps would intuitively make sense.
However, much of the jump assessment reported in the
literature is acyclic in nature (Barber et al., 1990; Cornwell
et al., 2001, 2002; Hopper et al., 2002; Itoh et al., 1998;
Mero, Luhtanen, & Komi, 1983; Young, 1995; Young &
Elliot, 2001). Also, most functional activities are the result
of a combination of horizontal, mediolateral and/or vertical
ground reaction forces. Matching the type of jump in terms
of movement pattern would seem fundamental to selection.
The predilection in the literature to use the vertical jump as
the preferred method of power assessment seems questionable in this context.
The preoccupation of research to use the derivatives
of the vertical jump as measures of leg power, may be
attributed to the notion that more information can be
gained from this type of assessment. For example, some
vertical jumps are thought to measure different strength
qualities. The squat jump (SJ) has been described as a
measure of leg explosiveness under concentric only
conditions. Whereas the countermovement jump (CMJ)
assessed leg power under slow-stretch shorten cycle
(SSC) and low stretch load conditions. The drop jump is
thought to be a measure of fast SSC behaviour and the
stretch load tolerance of the musculotendinous unit
(Young, 1995). Having jump assessments that not only
give a global sense of function but also have the ability
to differentiate between different types of muscle
function (concentric or slow and fast SSC behaviour),
would be of greater prognostic and diagnostic value to

75

health professionals by assisting to better shape rehabilitation and conditioning interventions. Whether vertical
jumps do this to better effect than horizontal jumps
though needs investigation.
There is a paucity of published research into the
relationship of strength and power measures to functional
performance. Abernethy, Wilson, and Lopgan (1995)
believed this to be reflective of the low priority given to
publishing research of this nature by editors and researchers.
However, it is argued that such research is important as it
allows predictors of functional performance to be identified,
which aid talent identification, diagnosis, prognosis,
program development and may provide direction for
mechanistic research. Research that has investigated the
relationship between leg power and functional performance
(e.g. running and sprinting) has mostly used bilateral
vertical jumps and their derivatives as the assessment
method of choice (Golomer & Fery, 2002; Mero et al., 1983;
Nesser, Latin, Berg, & Prentice, 1996; Young, 1995). The
use of bilateral vertical assessment to predict these activities
is puzzling. Intuitively it would seem that horizontal jump
assessment, which involves both vertical and horizontal
propulsive forces, would better predict those activities that
involve horizontal linear motion. However, very few studies
(Nesser et al., 1996) have used horizontal jump assessment
to determine relationships with functional performance of a
horizontal nature. Once more, the prevalence in the research
is to use acyclic type movements (e.g. squat, countermovement jumps, vertical jumps and drop jumps) to predict
cyclic activities. This may in turn explain why only
moderate relationships (rZK0.46 to K0.77) are reported
between acyclic (vertical jumps) and cyclic (sprinting) tasks
(Kukolj, Ropret, Ugarkovic, & Jaric, 1999; Nesser et al.,
1996; Young, 1995).
Given all this information, the question of interest is why
the predilection of research to use acyclic vertical jump
assessments to measure leg power. Is it that bilateral vertical
jump assessments are easier to administer and more reliable
than horizontal jump techniques? Do they have greater
prognostic/diagnostic value than the horizontal jump
assessments? Is it that the vertical jumps can delineate
between concentric and SSC function whereas there is no
test known to these authors of horizontal concentric only
function? Or is it simply that the vertical jumps do predict
performance such as walking and running to better effect
than horizontal type jumps? Answering these questions
provides the purpose for this study. First, the reliability of a
new unilateral concentric only horizontal jump assessment
will be established and the reliability of this test compared
to other types of unilateral vertical and horizontal jumps.
Second, the tests are compared to whether they differ in their
ability to determine imbalances between limbs. Third, the
relationship between these jump tests and sprint running is
investigated to determine if any of the tests are better
predictors of functional performance.

76

P. Maulder, J. Cronin / Physical Therapy in Sport 6 (2005) 7482

2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
Eighteen male subjects volunteered to participate in this
research. The subjects were involved in a wide variety of
sports that predominantly involved the lower body. Their
age, mass and height were 25.1G4.3 years, 78.8G9.3 kg
and 176.8G5.1 cm, respectively (meanGSD). All subjects
signed an informed consent form prior to participation in
this research. The Human Subject Ethics Committee,
Auckland University of Technology, approved all the
procedures undertaken.

instructed to keep their hands placed on their hips. Tests

were performed on both the left and right legs alternating
legs between trials. A rest period of 30 s was given between
practice and test trials on the same leg. Following the jump
assessments the sprint assessments were performed. Subjects were allowed two practice trials followed by three test
trials. A rest period of up to 3 min was given between
practice and test sprints. Establishing reliability of these
procedures involved testing on two separate days with at
least 2 days but no more than 7 days separating the two
sessions. Testing took place at approximately the same time
of day in the same room at the same temperature.
2.4. Jump assessments

2.2. Equipment
2.2.1. Contact mat system
The contact mat system (Swift Performance, University of
Southern Cross, Australia) consists of a portable batterypowered computer unit, a connecting cable and a contact mat,
and was used to measure vertical single leg jump performance. The system measures jump height (cm), flight time
(ms) and ground contact time (ms). Reliability between the
contact mat system and a force platform (AMTI Force Plate
and Amplifier; Advanced Technology, Inc., Washington,
USA) revealed no significant differences between the contact
mat system and force platform for flight (intraclass
correlation coefficientZ0.95; P!0.001) or contact times
(intraclass correlation coefficientZ0.99; P!0.001).
2.2.2. Timing light system
The timing light system was a dual-beam modulated
visible red-light system with polarizing filters (Swift
Performance, University of Southern Cross, Australia).
This system was used to measure sprint performance.
2.3. Testing procedures
Testing was performed within one session, however, 10
subjects returned to repeat the jump assessments in a second
session, in order to determine the reliability of the test
procedures. Prior to data collection, the subjects age, height
and mass were recorded. Additionally subjects were asked
which leg was preferred for kicking a ball, with the
preferred leg being considered the dominant leg. Subjects
completed a standardised warm-up that consisted of 5 min
jogging at a self-selected pace followed by 3 min stretching
of muscles of the lower extremity of the subjects choice.
Each stretch was held for 20 s. Following the warm-up
participants performed three practice trials for each of the
jump assessments. After the practice trials, three test trials
were performed for each leg for each test in the following
order: vertical squat jump, vertical countermovement jump,
vertical repetitive (cyclic) jump, horizontal squat jump,
horizontal countermovement jump and horizontal repetitive
(cyclic) jump. During all jump assessments subjects were

2.4.1. Vertical squat jump (VSJ)

The subject started with the foot of the designated testing
leg on the contact mat and their hands on their hips, they
were then instructed to sink and hold a knee position
(approximately 1208 knee angle), and the experimenter then
counted out 4 s. On the count of four the subject was
instructed to then jump as high as possible. A successful
trial was one where there was no sinking or countermovement prior to the execution of the jump. With all
vertical jumps, it was recommended that at take-off, the
subject leave the mat with the knees and ankles extended
and land in a similarly extended position (Young, 1995).
2.4.2. Vertical countermovement jump (VCMJ)
The subject started with the foot of the designated testing
leg on the contact mat and their hands on their hips, they
were then instructed to sink (approximately 1208 knee
angle) as quickly as possible and then jump as high as
possible in the ensuing concentric phase.
2.4.3. Vertical repetitive (cyclic) jump (VRJ)
The subject started with the foot of the designated testing
leg on the contact mat and their hands on their hips, they
were then instructed to sink (approximately 1208 knee
angle) as quickly as possible and then jump as high as
possible for three consecutive jumps. Instructions were to
jump for maximum height and to minimise their contact
times in between jumps.
2.4.4. Horizontal squat jump (HSJ)
A chair approximately 0.69 m high was placed against a
wall, this chair height was used as it was a suitable height in
which all subjects could be in a comfortable start position
for the assessment (see Fig. 1). The subject was in a position
on the chair so that their gluteal fold was resting on the edge
of the chair, and their hands on their hips. A start line was
then marked in front of the toe where the knee was at an
angle of 1208. The subjects trunk was in a position similar
to their vertical squat jump position. Subjects were then
instructed to jump as far forward as possible and land on two
feet. For all horizontal jumps, the experimenter measured

P. Maulder, J. Cronin / Physical Therapy in Sport 6 (2005) 7482

77

Young (1995):
Countermovement jump CMJ cm K Squat jump SJ cm
Reactive strength percentage differences were calculated
using the following equation:
Phase 1
Phase 3
Phase 2
Against seat Flight phase Landing phase
against wall

Phase 4
Finish position

Fig. 1. Horizontal squat jump.

the distance from the starting line to the subjects closest

heel.
2.4.5. Horizontal countermovement jump (HCMJ)
Subjects began by standing on the designated testing leg
with their toe in front of the starting line, and their hands on
their hips. Subjects were instructed to sink (approximately
1208 knee angle) as quickly as possible and then jump as far
forward as possible and land on two feet.
2.4.6. Horizontal repetitive (cyclic) jump (HRJ)
Subjects began by standing on the designated testing leg
with their toe in front of the starting line and hands on their
hips. Subjects were instructed to take three maximal jumps
forward as far as possible on the testing leg and land on two
legs of the final jump.
2.5. Sprint assessment
Timing lights were placed at the start and at a distance of
20 m. The starting position was standardized for all
subjects. Athletes started in a two point crouched position
with their preferred foot 50 cm from the starting line and
their other foot in line with the heel of the preferred foot.
2.6. Data analysis
All vertical jump heights were determined by the flight
time from the contact mat according to the formula of
(Young, 1995)
Jump height cm Z gt2 =8
where
gZacceleration due to gravity (9.81 m sK2).
tZflight time of the jump (s).
The symmetry index was determined by the procedures
described by Barber et al. (1990):
Non  domiant leg
!100
Dominant leg
Vertical and horizontal reactive strength values were
determined using the following formula according to

Difference % Z

CMJ K SJ
!100
CMJ

2.7. Statistical analyses

Following data collection, means and standard deviations
were calculated for all results. The three trials for each leg of
each jump assessment and sprint times were averaged for an
individual subject mean, and subject means for each
assessment were averaged to provide a group mean. The
reliability of the jump assessment procedures was calculated
using two different statistical methods. A coefficient of
variation (CV) was calculated for all test variables to
determine the stability of measurement among trials (CVZ
SD/mean!100) of 10 subjects. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to determine testretest reliability.
Paired T-tests were used to determine if any significant
differences existed between the dominant and non-dominant
legs. If no significant differences existed the data was then
averaged to make one data set for each jump assessment,
which was then used to determine relationships between
jump performance and sprint times using Pearson product
moment correlations. Significance was accepted at P! 0.05
for all statistical tests.

3. Results
It can be observed from Table 1 that there was less within
trial variation associated with the horizontal jumps (CVZ
1.12.0%) as compared to the vertical jumps (CVZ3.3
8.8%). In fact the new unilateral concentric only horizontal
jump test was most stable (CVZ1.1%) between trials. The
greatest variability between trials was found in the vertical
repetitive (cyclic) jump (CVZ8.8%). Less variability was
observed for the dominant leg compared to the nondominant for all jump assessments excluding the horizontal
triple jump (see Table 1). In terms of testretest reliability
the horizontal tests (ICCZ0.800.97) appeared more
reliable than the vertical jump tests (ICCZ0.710.95).
Interestingly the highest and lowest intraclass correlation
coefficients were found for the horizontal (ICCZ0.97) and
vertical (ICCZ0.71) cyclic jump tests. Intraclass
correlation coefficients were also greater for the dominant
leg compared to the non-dominant for all jump assessments
excluding the horizontal triple jump (see Table 1).
The mean values for both the dominant and non-dominant
limbs for all subjects are presented in Table 2. Mean
symmetry index scores were calculated, showing
very small deficits (99102) for all jump assessments.

78

P. Maulder, J. Cronin / Physical Therapy in Sport 6 (2005) 7482

Table 1
Mean and standard deviations (SD), coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for the jump assessment (10 subjects)
Variables
Horizontal squat jump
Distance (m)

Dominant leg
Non-dominant leg
Horizontal countermovement jump
Distance (m)
Dominant leg
Non-dominant leg
Horizontal repetitive jump
Distance (m)
Dominant leg
Non-dominant leg
Vertical squat jump
Height (m)
Dominant leg
Non-dominant leg
Vertical countermovement jump
Height (m)
Dominant leg
Non-dominant leg
Vertical repetitive jump
Total height (m)
Dominant leg
Non-dominant leg

MeanGSD

CV%

ICC

1.607G0.155
1.620G0.143

1.1
1.9

0.90 (0.000)
0.89 (0.000)

1.659G0.158
1.668G0.180

1.9
2.0

0.95 (0.000)
0.80 (0.002)

5.142G0.794
5.265G0.638

1.9
1.8

0.97 (0.000)
0.95 (0.000)

0.157G0.040
0.158G0.033

3.3
4.4

0.86 (0.000)
0.82 (0.001)

0.184G0.042
0.188G0.037

3.3
4.1

0.86 (0.000)
0.95 (0.000)

0.436G0.098
0.419G0.089

5.5
8.8

0.71 (0.007)
0.81 (0.001)

Table 2
Mean (SD), symmetry index and P-values of the dominant and non-dominant legs for the horizontal and vertical jumps of all subjects
Variables

Dominant

Non-dominant

Symmetry index

P value

HSJ (m)
HCMJ (m)
HRJ (m)
VSJ (m)
VCMJ (m)
VRJ (m)

1.596G0.139
1.642G0.147
5.105G0.740
0.164G0.039
0.186G0.043
0.428G0.109

1.617G0.136
1.624G0.177
5.116G0.657
0.162G0.032
0.186G0.038
0.434G0.107

101G4
99G6
101G5
100G11
101G10
102G9

0.211
0.407
0.862
0.664
0.876
0.526

HSJ, horizontal squat jump; HCMJ, horizontal countermovement jump; HRJ, horizontal repetitive jump; VSJ, vertical squat jump; VCMJ, vertical
countermovement jump; VRJ, vertical repetitive jump.

Greater inter-individual variability in limb symmetry was

noted in the vertical jump assessments (see standard
deviations). No significant differences between dominant
and non-dominant limbs were found for all jump assessments
(see Table 2).
A greater number of subjects were found to have
imbalances between the dominant and non-dominant
limbs when the vertical jumps were used to determine
limb symmetry (see Table 3). No subjects had greater than
15% difference in the jumps for distances (horizontal jumps)
whereas one to two subjects were found to have greater than
15% between limb differences for the jumps for height
(vertical jumps).
The difference between concentric only and SSC
performance in the vertical and horizontal acyclic jumps
can be observed from Table 4. The SSC enhancement was
far greater (averageZ12.1%, rangeZ1.328.6%) for the
vertical jump assessment as compared to the horizontal
assessments (averageZ1.3%, rangeZK13.4 to 10.3%). It
should be noted that there was greater inter-individual
variability (SDZ8.8 cm) associated with the horizontal
jump assessment.

The relationships between the vertical and horizontal

jumps, and 20-m sprint performance can be observed
in Table 5. It can be noted that all horizontal jump
assessments were found to have stronger relationships
(rZK0.73 to K0.86) with sprint performance than the
vertical jump assessments (rZK0.52 to K0.73). The
horizontal repetitive jump had the highest correlation with
20-m sprint performance (rZK0.86) whereas the vertical
repetitive jump had the lowest (rZK0.52). The interrelationships between horizontal and vertical jump

Table 3
The number of subjects (%) exhibiting different levels of limb asymmetry
Limb symmetry (%)

HSJ
(m) (%)

HCMJ
(m) (%)

HRJ
(m) (%)

VSJ
(m) (%)

VCMJ
(m) (%)

VRJ
(m) (%)

O90
O85
!85

94.4
100
0

83.3
100
0

94.4
100
0

72.2
88.9
11.1

72.2
94.4
5.6

61.1
94.4
5.6

Limb symmetry values denote the common variance between limbs, i.e.
O90% means that the non-dominant leg was at least 90% of the dominant
leg in terms of the jump measure being assessed or vice versa.

P. Maulder, J. Cronin / Physical Therapy in Sport 6 (2005) 7482

Table 4
Differences in concentric and SSC performance (%) between vertical and
horizontal jumps
Variables

Raw difference (cm)

(meanGSD)

Horizontal SSC enhancement

HCMJ-HSJ
2.6G8.8
Vertical SSC enhancement
VCMJ-VSJ
2.3G1.8

Difference (%)

1.3
12.1

assessments mostly ranged between rZ0.66 and 0.76 with

the exception of two comparisons.

4. Discussion
4.1. Reliability
One aim of the research was to determine the reliability
of a new unilateral concentric only horizontal jump
assessment and thereafter compare the reliability of this
test to other types of unilateral vertical and horizontal
jumps. In terms of the new test the within trial variation
(CVZ1.11.9%) and testretest reliability (ICCZ0.89
0.90) was found to be the equal if not better of other more
established tests of leg power. Interestingly the horizontal
tests were found to have greater stability within trials (CVZ
1.12.0%) and across testing occasions (ICCZ0.800.97)
than the vertical tests. Thus the original speculation that the
preoccupation of research to use vertical jump assessment
was based on greater reliability with this type of assessment
seems unfounded. Similar results have been reported in the
literature. For example, Risberg and co-workers (1995)
reported CV values of 2.0 and 2.4% for the non-dominant
and dominant legs, respectively, for the horizontal repetitive
jump. Arteaga and colleagues (2000) have reported CV
values of 5.4 and 6.3% for the vertical squat jump and
vertical countermovement jump, respectively, in their study
performed on active males and females, however, their jump
assessments were performed bilaterally. The ICCs found in
this study appear similar to those reported by Ross,
Langford, and Whelan (2002) for the horizontal repetitive
jump (ICCZ0.97), and Risberg et al. (1995) for the HRJ
(ICCZ0.92). ICCs of 0.920.96 have been reported by
(Bandy et al., 1994; Bolgla & Keskula, 1997; Paterno &

79

Greenberger, 1996; Ross et al., 2002) for the horizontal

countermovement jump performed on the dominant leg,
which are also consistent with the findings of the present
study.
The jump assessment that showed the greatest variability
was the vertical repetitive jump (VRJ) performed on both
the dominant leg and non-dominant leg (CVZ5.5 and 8.8%,
respectively). A possible reason for the VRJ assessment
resulting in higher variability could be attributed to the
difficulty subjects had repeating three jumps whilst staying
on the mat. That is, there was substantial horizontal and
lateral displacement that occurred during the flight phase of
the jumps, which caused the subjects to land in a different
position on the contact mat, which may in turn have affected
jump height. Three practice trials were given for the VRJ
assessment, however, it may be possible that a longer
familiarisation period is required for less variability to
occur.
4.2. Limb symmetry
A secondary aim was to compare the jump assessments
as to whether they differ in their ability to determine
imbalances between limbs. The symmetry index calculated
for all jump assessments was found to show very little
difference between dominant and non-dominant legs in
healthy subjects with no previous history of lower limb
pathology. Also no significant differences were found
between legs using Paired t-tests. With respect to the
symmetry index scores it could be suggested that no one
jump assessment had the ability to determine limb
asymmetries more so than the other for individuals with
no history of lower limb pathology. Similar symmetry index
scores and differences have been reported in the literature.
For example, Barber and colleagues (1990) reported a
similar symmetry index (100G13) for the horizontal
countermovement jump when calculated for healthy subjects. However, Itoh et al. (1998), found that healthy male
subjects were significantly different in horizontal countermovement jump performance between the dominant
(1.93G0.19 m) and non-dominant leg (1.84G0.18 m).
If the symmetry index scores are interpreted in terms of
the percent of subjects falling within certain bands of limb
asymmetry (see Table 3), a greater appreciation of
the potential diagnostic value of the tests may be gained

Table 5
Intercorrelation matrix [r (P value)] between jump assessments and sprint performance
Variables

HSJ (m)

HCMJ (m)

HRJ (m)

VSJ (m)

VCMJ (m)

VRJ (m)

HSJ (m)
HCMJ (m)
HTJ (m)
VSJ (m)
VCMJ (m)
VTJ (m)
S 20 (s)

1.0
0.83 (0.000)
0.83 (0.000)
0.66 (0.003)
0.66 (0.003)
0.44 (0.067)
K0.73 (0.001)

1.0
0.93 (0.000)
0.71 (0.001)
0.79 (0.000)
0.69 (0.002)
K0.74 (0.000)

1.0
0.76 (0.000)
0.86 (0.000)
0.69 (0.002)
K0.86 (0.000)

1.0
0.90 (0.000)
0.76 (0.000)
K0.56 (0.015)

1.0
0.88 (0.000)
K0.73 (0.001)

1.0
K0.52 (0.026)

S 20 (s)

1.0

80

P. Maulder, J. Cronin / Physical Therapy in Sport 6 (2005) 7482

(Barber et al., 1990; Risberg et al., 1995). It would seem that

the vertical jump measures might be more sensitive to limb
asymmetry than the horizontal tests. That is, a larger
percentage of the population were found to have limb
asymmetries greater than 90%. However, it may also
indicate that limb symmetry is movement specific and that
limb asymmetries may exist in the vertical and not in the
mediolateral or anterioposterior directions. More research is
needed to establish the merits of such a contention.
However, until this occurs the clinician/conditioner needs
to be cognizant of these findings and their implications.
4.3. SSC enhancementreactive strength
The augmentation of concentric muscle action from a
pre-stretch is typically attributed to: the storage and
re-utilisation of elastic energy stored in the series
elastic component (SEC) of the musculotendinous system
(Asmussen & Bonde-Petersen, 1974; Komi & Bosco, 1978);
spinal reflexes (Dietz & Schmidtbleicher, 1981) as well as
long latency responses (Melvill-Jones & Watt, 1971) that
increase muscle stimulation, allowing the muscle to reach
maximum activation before the onset of the concentric
muscle action (van Ingen Schenau, 1984) It can be
calculated as CMJKsquat jump or as a percentage
[(CMJKSJ/CMJ)!100]. The SSC enhancement for the
vertical jumps of this study was 2.3 cm or 12.1% and is
consistent to those reported previously (2.5 cm) (Young,
1995) and similar to the pre-stretch augmentation (1020%)
found by Asmussen and Bonde-Petersen (1974). Interestingly this pre-stretch augmentation was much less in the
horizontal plane. That is, the difference between the
horizontal squat and countermovement jumps was 1.3%. It
would seem that the vertical loading of the musculotendinous unit provides a greater stretch-load (SSC) stimulus
than that provided by the horizontal jump. As a result
greater elastic energy is stored and utilised in the ensuing
concentric contraction. If so, this has interesting implications for the training of reactive or SSC type motion
Furthermore, the findings would also suggest that the
vertical jump assessments would be best used if an
individuals SSC ability was being assessed.
4.4. Relationships between jump and sprint performance
The final aim of the study was to investigate the
relationship between the jump tests and sprint running,
then determine if any of the jump tests were better
predictors of sprint performance. Significant correlations
were found between all jump assessments and sprint
performance. Previous studies (Golomer & Fery, 2002;
Kukolj et al., 1999; Mero et al., 1983; Nesser et al.,
1996; Young, 1995) have reported significant correlations
(rZK0.46 to K0.81) between sprint performance
measures and various jump assessments. An interesting
finding from this study was that the horizontal jump

assessments (rZK0.73 to K0.86) were found to have

stronger relationships with sprint performance than all
the vertical jump (rZK0.52 to K0.73) assessments (see
Table 5). It seems that the horizontal jump assessments are
better predictors of sprint performance than vertical jump
assessments. It is not surprising that the horizontal
assessments had the stronger relationships as sprinting is
made up of a strong horizontal component, which the
vertical jumps fail to assess. What is of further interest is the
finding that the horizontal cyclic jump was the best predictor
of sprint performance (rZK0.86), which begs the question
as to why use assessments that are vertical and/or acyclic in
nature to predict sprint performance?
The findings of this study are similar to those reported
previously. Mero and co-workers (1983) for example,
reported significant correlations between the vertical squat
jump (rZ0.65) and vertical countermovement jump (rZ
0.70) and the acceleration phase (10 m) velocity of male
sprinters. Similarly, Young and colleagues (1995) reported a
significant correlation between sprint performance (fastest
10 m segment) and VCMJ (rZK0.77), which is similar
to the correlation found between VCMJ and 20-m
sprint performance (rZK0.73) in this study. Nesser and
colleagues (1996) using a five-step horizontal jump reported
a strong relationship (rZK0.81) with 40-m sprint performance, which is consistent with the findings of the present
study. During the five-step jump rapid stretching and high
velocity contractions of the lower extremity occur (Nesser
et al., 1996), which is very similar to that which occurs
during sprinting. However, Mero and co-workers (1983)
reported a low relationship (rZ0.66) between the HRJ and
acceleration phase (10 m) velocity. This difference could
most probably be attributed to the contention that the
beginning phases of a sprint are predominantly concentric or
slow SSC in nature. Therefore, a test such as the repetitive
horizontal jump may not be as specific to this phase as the
later maximum speed phase.
An interesting finding in the present study was the low to
moderate relationships observed between horizontal and
vertical jump assessments. One would assume that as both
the vertical and horizontal jump assessments are measuring
leg power, the common variance (R2) between tests would
be greater than 50%. The common variance between the
horizontal and vertical tests ranged between 19.3 and
73.9%, with the majority of tests sharing less than 50%
common variance. This would indicate that the vertical and
horizontal tests are measuring different leg power qualities
and should not be used interchangeably.

5. Conclusion
Presently the functional performance tests used for
rehabilitation or for performance assessment give a global
sense of function. For example, one limb is less powerful
(distance, height) than the other. Such information is of little

P. Maulder, J. Cronin / Physical Therapy in Sport 6 (2005) 7482

diagnostic value. Having a battery of tests that not only give

a global sense of function but also have the ability to
differentiate between acyclic concentric, acyclic stretch
shorten cycle (SSC) and cyclic SSC function, would be of
greater prognostic and diagnostic value to the clinician and
conditioner alike. Concerns regarding reliability, validity,
expense, ease of administration and portability should
determine selection of the test/s used to assess the functional
ability of an athlete. It should be realised that the results of
this study have been based on a relatively small sample of
athletes from a wide variety of sports. Whether these results
are similar to other populations needs further study.
Nonetheless, the results of this study indicate high stability
between trials and sessions for the majority of the single leg
jump assessments in particular the horizontal jump assessments investigated in this study. The new horizontal squat
jump assessment was amongst the most reliable of
measures. If one leg is to be assessed it is suggested that
the dominant leg be used due to greater variability
associated with the non-dominant leg for most assessments.
In terms of determining limb asymmetry both horizontal and
vertical tests appear of similar discriminative ability.
Vertical assessments appear to have greater discriminative
ability than horizontal assessments for identifying the
contribution of muscle pre-stretch, when comparing a
jump of SSC nature to that of a concentric only jump
assessment. All horizontal jump assessments investigated in
this study were found to have stronger correlations with
sprint performance than the vertical jump assessments, the
cyclic horizontal repetitive jump was found to have the
highest correlation with sprint performance. For these
reasons the clinician, conditioner and or sports practitioner
should feel reassured in the knowledge that horizontal jump
assessment can give reliable information similar if not better
to vertical jump assessment. It should be realized, however,
that no single strength/power measure or assessment
protocol can hope to explain all the variance associated
with a performance measure. The challenge therefore is to
develop assessment batteries that provide insights into the
determinants of functional performance.

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the New Zealand Institute of
Sport & Recreation Research Summer Studentship through
the Auckland University of Technology.

References
Abernethy, P., Wilson, G., & Logan, P. (1995). Strength and power
assessment: issues, controversies and challenges. Sports Medicine,
19(6), 41417.

81

Arteaga, R., Dorado, C., Chavarren, J., & Calbet, J. A. L. (2000). Reliability
of jumping performance in active men and women under different
stretch loading conditions. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical
Fitness, 40(1), 2634.
Asmussen, E., & Bonde-Petersen, F. (1974). Apparent efficiency and
storage of elastic energy in human muscles during exercise. Acta
Physiologica Scandinavica, 92, 537545.
Bandy, W. D., Rusche, K. R., & Tekulve, Y. (1994). Reliability and limb
symmetry for five unilateral functional tests of the lower extremities.
Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 4(3), 108111.
Barber, S., Frank, B., Noyes, F., Mangine, R., McCloskey, J., & Hartman,
W. (1990). Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal
and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Clinical Orthopaedic
and Related Research, 255, 204214.
Bolgla, L., & Keskula, D. (1997). Reliability of lower extremity functional
performance tests. Journal of Sports and Physical Therapy, 26(3),
138142.
Clark, N. C., Gumbrell, C. J., Rana, S., Traole, C. M., & Morrissey, M. C.
(2002). Intratester reliability and measurement error of the adapted
crossover hop for distance. Physical Therapy in Sport, 3, 143151.
Cordova, M. L., & Armstrong, C. W. (1996). Reliability of ground reaction
forces during a vertical jump: implications for functional strength
assessment. Journal of Athletic Training, 31(4), 342345.
Cornwell, A., Nelson, A. G., Heise, G. D., & Sidaway, B. (2001). Acute
effects of passive muscle stretching on vertical jump performance.
Journal of Human Movement Studies, 40, 307324.
Cornwell, A., Nelson, A. G., & Sidaway, B. (2002). Acute effects of
stretching on the neuromechanical properties of the triceps surae muscle
complex. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 86, 428434.
Dietz, G. J. N., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (1981). Interaction between
preactivity and stretch reflex in human triceps brachii during landing
from forward falls. Journal of Physiology, 311, 113125.
Golomer, E., & Fery, Y. A. (2002). Unilateral jump behaviour in young
professional female ballet dancers. Journal of Dance Medicine and
Science, 6(3), 98.
Harman, E. (1993). Strength and power: a definition of terms. National
Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 15(6), 1820.
Hopper, D., Goh, S., Wentworth, L., Chan, D., Chau, J., Wooton, G., et al.
(2002). Testretest reliability of knee rating scales and functional hop
tests one year following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Physical Therapy in Sport, 3, 1018.
Hunter, J. P., & Marshall, R. N. (2002). Effects of power and flexibility
training on vertical jump prefomance. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 34(3), 478486.
Itoh, H., Kurosaka, M., Yoshiya, S., Ichihashi, N., & Mizuno, K. (1998).
Evaluation of functional deficits determined by four different hop test in
patients with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency. Knee Surgery,
Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 6, 241245.
Knudson, D., Bennett, K., Corn, R., Leick, D., & Smith, C. (2001). Acute
effects of stretching are not evident in the kinematics of the vertical
jump. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(1), 98101.
Komi, P. V. (Ed.). (1992). Strength and power in sport. Oxford: Blackwell
Scientific Publications.
Komi, P. V., & Bosco, C. (1978). Utilisation of stored elastic energy in leg
extensor muscles by men and women. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 10(4), 261265.
Kukolj, M., Ropret, R., Ugarkovic, D., & Jaric, S. (1999). Anthropometric,
strength and power predictors of sprinting performance. Journal of
Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 39(2), 120122.
Melvill-Jones, G., & Watt, D. G. D. (1971). Muscular control of landing
from unexpected falls. Journal of Physiology, 219, 729737.
Mero, A., Luhtanen, P., & Komi, P. V. (1983). A biomechanical study of
the sprint start. Scandinavian Journal of Sports Science, 5(1), 2028.
Nesser, T. W., Latin, R. W., Berg, K., & Prentice, E. (1996). Physiological
determinants of 40-meter sprint performance in young male athletes.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10(4), 263267.

82

P. Maulder, J. Cronin / Physical Therapy in Sport 6 (2005) 7482

Paterno, M., & Greenberger, H. (1996). The testretest reliability of a one

legged hop for distance in young adults with and without ACL
reconstuction. Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 6, 16.
Risberg, M., Holm, I., & Ekeland, A. (1995). Reliability of functional knee
tests in normal atheletes. Scandanavian Journal of Medicine and
Science in Sports, 5, 2428.
Ross, M. D., Langford, B., & Whelan, P. J. (2002). Testretest reliability of
4 single-leg horizontal hop tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 16(4), 617622.
Sale, D. G. (1991). Testing strength and power. In J. D. Mac Dougall, H. A.
Wenger, & H. J. Green (Eds.), Physiological testing of the high
performance athlete (pp. 21106). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
21106.

Tkac, M., Hamar, D., Komadel, L., & Kuthanova, O. (1990). Measurement
of anaerobic power of the lower limb by a method of repeated vertical
jumps. Sports Training, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1, 317325.
van Ingen Schenau, G. J. (1984). An alternative view of the concept
of elastic energy in human movements. Human Movement Studies, 3,
301336.
Young, W. (1995). A simple method for evaluating the strength qualities of
the leg extensor muscles and jumping abilities. Strength and
Conditioning Coach, 2(4), 58.
Young, W., & Elliot, S. (2001). Acute effects of static stretching,
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching, and maximum
voluntary contractions on explosive force production and jumping
performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(3), 273279.