The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reliability and Factorial Validity of Squat and Countermovement Jump Tests
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to determine reliability and factorial validity of squat (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests. The secondary aim was to compare 3 popular methods for the estimation of vertical jumping height. Physical education students (n = 93) performed 7 explosive power tests: 5 different vertical jumps (Sargent jump, Abalakow's jump with arm swing and without arm swing, SJ, and CMJ) and 2 horizontal jumps (standing long jump and standing triple jump). The greatest reliability among all jumping tests (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97 and 0.98) had SJ and CMJ. The reliability alpha coefficients for other jumps were also high and varied between 0.93 and 0.96. Within-subject variation (CV) in jumping tests ranged between 2.4 and 4.6%, the values being lowest in both horizontal jumps and CMJ. Factor analysis resulted in the extraction of only 1 significant principal component, which explained 66.43% of the variance of all 7 jumping tests. Since all jumping tests had high correlation coefficients with the principal component (r = 0.76-0.87), it was interpreted as the explosive power factor. The CMJ test showed the highest relationship with the explosive power factor (r = 0.87), that is, the greatest factorial validity. Other jumping tests had lower but relatively homogeneous correlation with the explosive power factor extracted. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that CMJ and SJ, measured by means of contact mat and digital timer, are the most reliable and valid field tests for the estimation of explosive power of the lower limbs in physically active men.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The validity and reliability of an iPhone app for measuring vertical jump performance
Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Glaister, M., & Lockey, R. A. (2015) · Journal of Sports Sciences · doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.996184 · Cited by 621
Hirschberg, A. L., Elings Knutsson, J., Helge, T., Godhe, M., Ekblom, M., Bermon, S., & Ekblom, B. (2020) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-100525 · Cited by 106
Hackett, D., Davies, T., Soomro, N., & Halaki, M. (2016) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094951 · Cited by 78
The Relative Efficacy of Three Recovery Modalities After Professional Rugby League Matches
Webb, N. P., Harris, N. K., Cronin, J. B., & Walker, C. (2013) · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e31827f5253 · Cited by 50
The relationship between physical fitness and shooting accuracy of professional basketball players
Pojskić, H., Šeparović, V., Muratović, M., & Užičanin, E. (2014) · Motriz: Revista de Educação Física · doi:10.1590/s1980-65742014000400007 · Cited by 48
Picabea, J. M., Cámara, J., & Yanci, J. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18179362 · Cited by 38
Morning versus evening intake of creatine in elite female handball players
Jurado-Castro, J. M., Campos-Pérez, J., Vilches-Redondo, M. Á., Mata, F., Navarrete-Pérez, A., & Ranchal-Sanchez, A. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19010393 · Cited by 10
Althouse, D., Weeks, C., Spencer, S. B., Park, J., Thompson, B. J., & Louder, T. (2025) · Signals · doi:10.3390/signals6010011 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Markovic, G., Dizdar, D., Jukic, I., & Cardinale, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 551-555
- ISSN
- 1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2004470955
- Cited by
- 1,097
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.