The assessment of single-leg drop jump landing performance by means of ground reaction forces: A methodological study

Arnold Huurnink, Duncan P. Fransz, Idsart Kingma, Vosse A. de Boode, Jaap H.van Dieën

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Time to stabilization (TTS) and dynamic postural stability index (DPSI) are outcome measures based on ground reaction force (GRF) that are often used to quantify dynamic postural stability performance following a drop jump landing. However, their interrelations, as well as the overlap with other dynamic measures and static single-leg postural sway, are unknown. Research question: What is the relation among TTS and DPSI, how are they related to impact forces and dynamic postural sway, and how are all these dynamic measures related to static postural sway? Methods: A sample of 190 elite soccer players performed four single-leg drop jump landings. TTS in three directions (vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral), and DPSI were intercorrelated (Pearson's r), and related to impact forces and the magnitude of horizontal GRF (HGRF) from 0.4 to 2.4 s and 3.0–5.0 s following landing. All these measures were also correlated to HGRF in the static phase (i.e., 5.3–11.7 s). Results: The TTS measures were significantly interrelated (r = 0.28-0.53), but were not significantly correlated to DPSI. TTS was more strongly related to HGRF0.4–2.4 s (r = 0.54-0.75) than to HGRF3.0–5.0 s (r = 0.32-0.54) or impact forces (r=-0.28-0.36). Vertical TTS was not significantly related to impact forces. The DPSI was most strongly related to the vertical peak force (r = 0.85), and was not significantly related to HGRF of the dynamic periods. Furthermore, TTS and dynamic HGRF were significantly related to static HGRF (r = 0.34-0.80), while DPSI and impact forces were not. Significance: TTS and DPSI do not represent similar aspects of single-leg jump landing performance. The ability to stabilize posture seems to be represented by TTS and dynamic postural sway, which partly overlaps with static postural sway. In contrast, DPSI and vertical peak force mainly reflect the kinetic energy absorption during impact. The findings can help to better understand the meaning of the outcome measures, and to translate results to rehabilitation or prevention programs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)80-85
Number of pages6
JournalGait and Posture
Volume73
Early online date6 Jul 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2019

Fingerprint

Leg
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Soccer
Posture
Rehabilitation
Research

Keywords

  • Balance
  • Drop jump landing
  • Dynamic testing
  • Parameters
  • Postural stability

Cite this

@article{0e2925633f7744bca89995610654f3b8,
title = "The assessment of single-leg drop jump landing performance by means of ground reaction forces: A methodological study",
abstract = "Background: Time to stabilization (TTS) and dynamic postural stability index (DPSI) are outcome measures based on ground reaction force (GRF) that are often used to quantify dynamic postural stability performance following a drop jump landing. However, their interrelations, as well as the overlap with other dynamic measures and static single-leg postural sway, are unknown. Research question: What is the relation among TTS and DPSI, how are they related to impact forces and dynamic postural sway, and how are all these dynamic measures related to static postural sway? Methods: A sample of 190 elite soccer players performed four single-leg drop jump landings. TTS in three directions (vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral), and DPSI were intercorrelated (Pearson's r), and related to impact forces and the magnitude of horizontal GRF (HGRF) from 0.4 to 2.4 s and 3.0–5.0 s following landing. All these measures were also correlated to HGRF in the static phase (i.e., 5.3–11.7 s). Results: The TTS measures were significantly interrelated (r = 0.28-0.53), but were not significantly correlated to DPSI. TTS was more strongly related to HGRF0.4–2.4 s (r = 0.54-0.75) than to HGRF3.0–5.0 s (r = 0.32-0.54) or impact forces (r=-0.28-0.36). Vertical TTS was not significantly related to impact forces. The DPSI was most strongly related to the vertical peak force (r = 0.85), and was not significantly related to HGRF of the dynamic periods. Furthermore, TTS and dynamic HGRF were significantly related to static HGRF (r = 0.34-0.80), while DPSI and impact forces were not. Significance: TTS and DPSI do not represent similar aspects of single-leg jump landing performance. The ability to stabilize posture seems to be represented by TTS and dynamic postural sway, which partly overlaps with static postural sway. In contrast, DPSI and vertical peak force mainly reflect the kinetic energy absorption during impact. The findings can help to better understand the meaning of the outcome measures, and to translate results to rehabilitation or prevention programs.",
keywords = "Balance, Drop jump landing, Dynamic testing, Parameters, Postural stability",
author = "Arnold Huurnink and Fransz, {Duncan P.} and Idsart Kingma and {de Boode}, {Vosse A.} and Die{\"e}n, {Jaap H.van}",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.06.015",
language = "English",
volume = "73",
pages = "80--85",
journal = "Gait and Posture",
issn = "0966-6362",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

The assessment of single-leg drop jump landing performance by means of ground reaction forces : A methodological study. / Huurnink, Arnold; Fransz, Duncan P.; Kingma, Idsart; de Boode, Vosse A.; Dieën, Jaap H.van.

In: Gait and Posture, Vol. 73, 01.09.2019, p. 80-85.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The assessment of single-leg drop jump landing performance by means of ground reaction forces

T2 - A methodological study

AU - Huurnink, Arnold

AU - Fransz, Duncan P.

AU - Kingma, Idsart

AU - de Boode, Vosse A.

AU - Dieën, Jaap H.van

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - Background: Time to stabilization (TTS) and dynamic postural stability index (DPSI) are outcome measures based on ground reaction force (GRF) that are often used to quantify dynamic postural stability performance following a drop jump landing. However, their interrelations, as well as the overlap with other dynamic measures and static single-leg postural sway, are unknown. Research question: What is the relation among TTS and DPSI, how are they related to impact forces and dynamic postural sway, and how are all these dynamic measures related to static postural sway? Methods: A sample of 190 elite soccer players performed four single-leg drop jump landings. TTS in three directions (vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral), and DPSI were intercorrelated (Pearson's r), and related to impact forces and the magnitude of horizontal GRF (HGRF) from 0.4 to 2.4 s and 3.0–5.0 s following landing. All these measures were also correlated to HGRF in the static phase (i.e., 5.3–11.7 s). Results: The TTS measures were significantly interrelated (r = 0.28-0.53), but were not significantly correlated to DPSI. TTS was more strongly related to HGRF0.4–2.4 s (r = 0.54-0.75) than to HGRF3.0–5.0 s (r = 0.32-0.54) or impact forces (r=-0.28-0.36). Vertical TTS was not significantly related to impact forces. The DPSI was most strongly related to the vertical peak force (r = 0.85), and was not significantly related to HGRF of the dynamic periods. Furthermore, TTS and dynamic HGRF were significantly related to static HGRF (r = 0.34-0.80), while DPSI and impact forces were not. Significance: TTS and DPSI do not represent similar aspects of single-leg jump landing performance. The ability to stabilize posture seems to be represented by TTS and dynamic postural sway, which partly overlaps with static postural sway. In contrast, DPSI and vertical peak force mainly reflect the kinetic energy absorption during impact. The findings can help to better understand the meaning of the outcome measures, and to translate results to rehabilitation or prevention programs.

AB - Background: Time to stabilization (TTS) and dynamic postural stability index (DPSI) are outcome measures based on ground reaction force (GRF) that are often used to quantify dynamic postural stability performance following a drop jump landing. However, their interrelations, as well as the overlap with other dynamic measures and static single-leg postural sway, are unknown. Research question: What is the relation among TTS and DPSI, how are they related to impact forces and dynamic postural sway, and how are all these dynamic measures related to static postural sway? Methods: A sample of 190 elite soccer players performed four single-leg drop jump landings. TTS in three directions (vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral), and DPSI were intercorrelated (Pearson's r), and related to impact forces and the magnitude of horizontal GRF (HGRF) from 0.4 to 2.4 s and 3.0–5.0 s following landing. All these measures were also correlated to HGRF in the static phase (i.e., 5.3–11.7 s). Results: The TTS measures were significantly interrelated (r = 0.28-0.53), but were not significantly correlated to DPSI. TTS was more strongly related to HGRF0.4–2.4 s (r = 0.54-0.75) than to HGRF3.0–5.0 s (r = 0.32-0.54) or impact forces (r=-0.28-0.36). Vertical TTS was not significantly related to impact forces. The DPSI was most strongly related to the vertical peak force (r = 0.85), and was not significantly related to HGRF of the dynamic periods. Furthermore, TTS and dynamic HGRF were significantly related to static HGRF (r = 0.34-0.80), while DPSI and impact forces were not. Significance: TTS and DPSI do not represent similar aspects of single-leg jump landing performance. The ability to stabilize posture seems to be represented by TTS and dynamic postural sway, which partly overlaps with static postural sway. In contrast, DPSI and vertical peak force mainly reflect the kinetic energy absorption during impact. The findings can help to better understand the meaning of the outcome measures, and to translate results to rehabilitation or prevention programs.

KW - Balance

KW - Drop jump landing

KW - Dynamic testing

KW - Parameters

KW - Postural stability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068539714&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068539714&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.06.015

DO - 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.06.015

M3 - Article

VL - 73

SP - 80

EP - 85

JO - Gait and Posture

JF - Gait and Posture

SN - 0966-6362

ER -