4.6 Article

Force Plate-Derived Countermovement Jump Normative Data and Benchmarks for Professional Rugby League Players

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 22, Issue 22, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22228669

Keywords

vertical jump; force platform; Z-score; reference data; benchmarking; data visualization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study is to provide normative data and objective benchmarks for countermovement jump (CMJ) in professional rugby league (RL) forwards and backs, and to facilitate data interpretation and benchmark setting using standardized T-scores and a traffic light system.
The countermovement jump (CMJ) is an important test in rugby league (RL), and the force plate is the recommended assessment device, as it permits the calculation of several variables that explain jump strategy, alongside jump height. The purpose of this study was to produce normative CMJ data and objective benchmarks for professional RL forwards and backs. Normative data for jump height, modified reactive strength index, and jump momentum are provided for 121 professional RL players (66 forwards and 55 backs) who completed CMJ testing on a portable force plate during preseason training. Standardized T-scores (scaled from 0 to 100) were calculated from the respective positional group mean and standard deviation to create CMJ performance bands that were combined with a qualitative description (ranging from extremely poor to excellent) and a traffic light system to facilitate data interpretation and objective benchmark setting by RL practitioners. The jump height and modified reactive strength index benchmarks were larger for the lighter backs, whereas the jump momentum benchmarks were larger for the heavier forwards. The presented novel approach to compiling and presenting normative data and objective benchmarks may also be applied to other data (i.e., from other tests or devices) and populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available