The Countermovement Rebound Jump: Between-Session Reliability and a Comparison With the Countermovement and Drop Jump Tests

Abstract

Abstract Xu, J, Turner, A, Comyns, TM, Chavda, S, and Bishop, C. The Countermovement rebound jump: between-session reliability and a comparison with the countermovement and drop jump tests. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2023—The countermovement jump (CMJ) and drop jump (DJ) are widely used jump tests to evaluate an athlete's neuromuscular performance. Nevertheless, conducting both the CMJ and the DJ assessments during one testing session can demand a considerable time investment that practitioners or coaches might not always have available. This study investigated whether the countermovement rebound jump (CMRJ) could be considered a viable alternative to the CMJ and DJ tests, respectively. Thirty-three physically active students volunteered as subjects (age: 27.2 ± 5.9 years, height: 1.78 ± 0.8 cm, body mass: 77.5 ± 11.5 kg), with 18 jumps completed for each subject across 2 testing sessions. The jump height (JH) and strategy-based metrics (time to take-off [TTTO], countermovement depth [CM depth], and reactive strength index [RSI] modified for CMJ and the first jump of the CMRJ; leg stiffness [K leg], ground contact time [GCT], and RSI for DJ and the second jump for the CMRJ) were calculated simultaneously via the impulse-momentum, flight time, double integration, and motion capture methods. All variables were examined by repeated-measures analysis of variance, 2-way random effects model intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), and standard error of measurement, with the significance set at p ≤ 0.05. All 3 jump tests showed good-to-excellent relative reliability (ICC = 0.79–0.98) and good-to-moderate CV (≤9.83), with the only exception being K leg measured during the DJ and in the second jump of the CMRJ assessment (CV ≤ 16.01%). Of all measured metrics, significant differences were only observed regarding TTTO between jumps (p ≤ 0.027, effect size [ES] ≤ 0.49). The comparison of calculation methods indicated that the JH calculated by 4 methods were not significantly different between jump actions (p ≥ 0.254). These findings support the use of the CMRJ as a reliable alternative to the CMJ and DJ tests. However, practitioners should be mindful of using K leg as a metric, whereas practitioners are also advised to allocate sufficient familiarization trials before implementing the CMRJ into their routine test batteries.