•  
  •  
 

USE OF PEAK AND MEAN FORCE VALUES IN THE DETERMINATION OF INTERLIMB ASYMMETRIES DURING THE COUNTERMOVEMENT JUMP

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The countermovement jump (CMJ) is commonly used in the assessment of an individual’s neuromuscular abilities and used in the determination of force asymmetries during dynamic tasks. The increased use of the assessing force production between left and right sides appears to be based on its potential to reflect previous injuries and predicting future injuries. Previous investigations have used peak or mean force values obtained during the CMJ using dual force plate configurations prior to calculating symmetry indexes. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the agreement between the two methodologies in both identifying dominant limbs and the value of the symmetry index. METHODS: 13 collegiate male basketball players from one NCAA Division I program participated in this investigation (age 22.34 ± 1.04 years, height 187.62 ± 8.03 cm, body mass 88.99 ± 13.82 kg). Data was collected at the beginning of the fall training period. Participants completed three maximal effort trials. Each trial was separated by thirty seconds. All trials were performed on the dual force platforms sampling at 2400 Hz. Each trial was categorized as being either left or right dominant using both peak and mean propulsive force values. Additionally, the bilateral asymmetry index (BAI) was calculated for each trial. The percentage of agreement between peak and mean methods was calculated as well as the kappa coefficient across all trials. The mean BAI index for each participant was calculated using both peak and mean force. Paired sample test were then conducted to compare BAI values across methodologies. RESULTS: The two methods displayed an agreement of leg dominance in 71.79 % of trials with a kappa coefficient of 0.592 (95% CI, 0.345 to 0.839), p < 0.001 indicating moderate agreement between methods. Statistically significant differences were seen BAI values when using different methods with the mean values being greater (6.38 ± 5.11 vs 9.99 ± 8.72, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The current investigation found that though moderate agreement was present between methodologies, approximately 28% of trials had disagreement in limb dominance. Furthermore, the symmetry index calculations appear to be impacted through the use of peak or mean force values. This is critical to both practitioners and researchers when examining interlimb asymmetry values and that these two methods not be used interchangeably.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS