VERTICAL JUMPING TESTS IN VOLLEYBALL:
RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, AND PLAYING-POSITION
SPECIFICS
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
TINE SATTLER,1 DAMIR SEKULIC,2 VEDRAN HADZIC,1 OGNJEN ULJEVIC,2
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 06/10/2024
1
Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; and 2Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, Split, Croatia
ABSTRACT
Sattler, T, Sekulic, D, Hadzic, V, Uljevic, O, and Dervisevic, E.
Vertical jumping tests in volleyball: reliability, validity, and playing-
position specifics. J Strength Cond Res 26(6): 1532–1538,
2012—Vertical jumping is known to be important in volleyball, and
jumping performance tests are frequently studied for their
reliability and validity. However, most studies concerning jumping
in volleyball have dealt with standard rather than sport-specific
jumping procedures and tests. The aims of this study, therefore,
were (a) to determine the reliability and factorial validity of
2 volleyball-specific jumping tests, the block jump (BJ) test and
the attack jump (AJ) test, relative to 2 frequently used and
systematically validated jumping tests, the countermovement
jump test and the squat jump test and (b) to establish volleyball
position–specific differences in the jumping tests and simple
anthropometric indices (body height [BH], body weight, and
body mass index [BMI]). The BJ was performed from a defensive
volleyball position, with the hands positioned in front of the chest.
During an AJ, the players used a 2- to 3-step approach and
performed a drop jump with an arm swing followed by a quick
vertical jump. A total of 95 high-level volleyball players (all men)
participated in this study. The reliability of the jumping tests
ranged from 0.97 to 0.99 for Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, from
0.93 to 0.97 for interitem correlation coefficients and from 2.1 to
2.8 for coefficients of variation. The highest reliability was found
for the specific jumping tests. The factor analysis extracted one
significant component, and all of the tests were highly
intercorrelated. The analysis of variance with post hoc analysis
showed significant differences between 5 playing positions in
some of the jumping tests. In general, receivers had a greater
jumping capacity, followed by libero players. The differences in
jumping capacities should be emphasized vis-a-vis differences in
the anthropometric measures of players, where middle hitters
Address correspondence to Damir Sekulic, dado@pmfst.hr.
26(6)/1532–1538
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1532 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND EDVIN DERVISEVIC1
had higher BH and body weight, followed by opposite hitters and
receivers, with no differences in the BMI between positions.
KEY WORDS test construction, reproducibility, jumping abilities,
position differences
INTRODUCTION
V
olleyball is one of the most popular team sports in
the world. The game is characterized by short,
explosive movement patterns, quick, agile posi-
tioning, jumps, and blocks. Although a match may
last for up to 3 hours, volleyball is considered an anaerobic
sport, with metabolic demands met mainly by phosphagen
energy processes (15). Along with a technical and tactical
knowledge, appropriate morphological features (e.g., a lean
body with greater height), speed and agility, and jumping
ability are the key elements for success in volleyball for both
sexes (1,16), because game play is oriented around a net
whose top height is set at 2.43 m (men) and 2.24 m (women).
Consequently, athletes and coaches in volleyball should pay
special attention to testing and developing characteristic
vertical jumping abilities (16) that will allow the player to
compete at a more advanced level. A volleyball team consists
of 12 players in the following positions: opposite hitter,
middle hitter, libero, setter, and receiver. Given the
specialized role and tasks players are involved in (7), it is
generally accepted that different morphological (11), fitness
(18) and physiological (23) are associated with the different
playing positions. However, the specific jumping abilities
required by the different volleyball positions have rarely been
studied. In short, Marques et al. (18) found no significant
differences between the playing positions in terms of jumping
ability when measured using the countermovement jump
(CMJ), whereas Duncan et al. (5) found no differences in
vertical jumping capacity between playing positions among
elite junior players.
Vertical jumping performance can be assessed using
a variety of tools, ranging from sophisticated electronic
measuring instruments (e.g., force platforms, contact mats, or
photocells) to popular field-testing procedures (e.g., the
Sargent jump test or the Abalakov test). In such assessments,
different types of jumps may be performed (e.g., squat jumps

[SJs], CMJs, or repeated jumps). In volleyball, there are
some specific movement patterns associated with jumping,
namely, a block jump (BJ) and an attack or spike jump (AJ).
When performing a defensive BJ, a player starts from the
characteristic stable position, with the knees slightly bent and
arms in front of the chest. When performing a BJ, the athlete
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
must jump as quickly as possible, meaning that he or she does
not have time to perform a classic CMJ but instead uses
a somewhat shortened version of the CMJ technique. In
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 06/10/2024
addition because the hands must be positioned in front of the
chest to perform the block, there is no time for a full arm
swing. A full countermovement and arm swing would almost
certainly result in a jump of greater height, but the blocking
would be delayed, and consequently, the defense would be
unsuccessful. The AJ is a combination of a drop jump and
a CMJ with an arm swing. The player generally uses a 2- to
3-step approach, performing a half-drop jump (sometimes
referred to as a ’’bounce drop jump" [3]) followed by a
countermovement arm swing and an eccentric contraction
that exploits the stretch-shortening cycle of the activated
muscles (13). The movement finishes with a maximal vertical
jump accompanied by a forceful backward arm swing to
enable a subsequent spike. The pattern of this final movement
probably has a slight negative influence on jumping
performance (i.e., the maximum jump height would probably
be more higher if the strong backward arm swing were not
performed), but as stated above, such movement patterns are
characteristic of volleyball. It is absolutely crucial, therefore,
that they be included in any volleyball-specific testing
procedure.
Standard vertical jumping test procedures have been
validated extensively for a variety of purposes (4,17,19,24).
However, we have found no studies that deal with the
reliability and validity of volleyball-specific jumping perfor-
mance or volleyball-specific jumping tests. Additionally,
studies that have dealt with volleyball playing positions (5,18)
and their jumping abilities have used standard (i.e., CMJ) and
not volleyball-specific (i.e., AJ or BJ) jumping procedures.
The sample of subjects in these studies was also smaller than
our sample (see Discussion), which possibly influenced their
results and conclusions.
The aims of this study were (a) to determine the reliability
and factorial validity of 2 volleyball-specific jumping tests, the
block jump test and the attack jump test, relative to
2 frequently used and systematically validated jumping tests,
the CMJ and SJ tests and (b) to determine position-specific
differences in jumping abilities among high-level male
volleyball players and their anthropometric characteristics.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
In our professional experience, we have observed the
measurement of jumping abilities as an index of the
performance status in volleyball. This is especially true for
volleyball-specific jumping techniques that, to the best of our
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
knowledge, have not been studied for the reliability and
validity of their respective tests. Additionally, studies focusing
on volleyball have heretofore rarely noted positional differ-
ences with respect to jumping capacities. We hypothesized
that systematic training and specific game performance
would lead to significant differences between playing
positions regarding the players’ jumping performance. At
the same time, selection processes would probably lead to
differences in the anthropometric measures between playing
positions. As a result, this study consists of 2 separate
methodologies. The first part of this study focuses on the
reliability and validity of the jumping tests (see Statistical
Analyses). The second part of the study seeks to determine
the differences in jumping tests and anthropometric measures
(dependent variables) between different playing positions in
volleyball (independent variable).
Subjects
A total of 95 high-level volleyball players participated in this
study. The subjects were all men between the ages of 18 and 30
years. The subjects’ heights ranged from 177 to 207 cm (mean
189.1 cm), and their body weights ranged from 57.2 to 128.6 kg
(mean 85.1 kg). All the participants were members of the teams
that competed in the Slovenian National Championship (first
and second Divisions) during the 2008–2009 season. Testing
included 96% of all the players participating in the highest
level of the National competition and 12 members of the
National team. Thus, one-third of the subjects were interna-
tional-level players who played in the European Championship
and the European League. All the subjects underwent a pre-
season preparation period of at least 1 month before the testing
was performed. Only the subjects who had no injuries and
illnesses for 30 days before the experiment were included in this
investigation (based on a health history questionnaire completed
before testing). None of the players were taking exogenous
anabolic-androgenic steroids or other substances that might be
expected to affect their physical performance during the course
of the study. The players were categorized as opposite hitters
(OPPOSITE, n = 15); middle blockers (MIDDLE, n = 26);
liberos (LIBERO, n = 11); setters (SETTER, n = 19); and
outside receivers (RECEIVER, n = 24).
All the participants were fully informed about the nature
and demands of the study and the possible health risks.
Written information and oral instructions were given to each
participant before the testing, and all the participants gave oral
consent to participate. The Institutional Ethical Board was
introduced to the testing methods and the complete
experiment and gave written consent for the investigation.
Training History
All the subjects had been playing volleyball for at least 5 years.
Apart from standard technical and tactical practice sessions (1–4
hours per day) and competitions, the subjects were involved in
upper-lower body resistance training programs in the gymna-
sium (1–3 sessions per week), plyometric and medicine ball
training (1–3 sessions per week), and proprioceptive balance
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2012 | 1533
 Volleyball Jumping Tests
training (0–3 sessions per week). In general, resistance training
included free-weight and machine-based exercises that lasted
45–75 minutes on average, incorporating 10–15 minutes of
abdominal and lower back (core) exercises on the mat and Swiss
ball. The plyometric sessions consisted of loaded and unloaded
drop jumps and medicine ball throws and lasted 30–45 minutes
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
in addition to the warm-up. Most of the athletes (70%)
participated in the regular proprioceptive exercises, which lasted
15–30 minutes and included unstable wobble board, BOSU and
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 06/10/2024
AIREX mat, and Swiss ball exercises. The average training
frequency for all the subjects ranged from 4 to 10 training
sessions per week, with an average of 5–6 sessions weekly.
Procedures
The variables in this study included 4 types of vertical jump,
the CMJ; the SJ, the BJ, and the attack jump (AJ); and
2 anthropometric measures, body height (BH), and body
weight (BW).
The subjects were invited to participate through the
Slovenian National Volleyball Federation. The response rate
was .95%. The testing was conducted during June and July
2009. It was conducted in a closed, ventilated facility with
a temperature ranging from 20 to 23°C in the morning (from
10 AM to 1 PM). Before testing, the athletes were suggested
to be properly but not excessively hydrated. Each subject
underwent all the tests during 1 session. The BH and BW of
the participants were tested before the warm-up when they
were in shorts and with no shoes. For the rest of the testing,
the subjects wore volleyball shorts and shirts and their
standard playing shoes. After a 6-minute warm-up on
a stationary bicycle using progressive resistance (50–100 W)
and 1 minute of hamstring stretches, each subject
performed 3 trials for each of the 4 types of jump. The
ordering of the different types of jump was assigned
randomly for each participant. Between the testing trials
and different tests, each subject paused for a self-defined
period, which was limited to 3–5 minutes. All the jumps
were measured using the Optojump system (Microgate,
Bolzano, Italy). The Optojump is a dual-beam optical device
that measures ground contact and flight time during a jump
or series of jumps. The flight time (Tf ) and the acceleration
due to gravity (g) were used to calculate the vertical rise (h)
of the center of gravity of the body:
T2 3 g
h¼ f : official (coach and team manager).
8
There producibility of the vertical jump test results using
the Optojump device has been shown to be excellent (10), and
it has been used in other studies (20).
The CMJ test begins with the subject standing in an upright
position. A fast downward movement to about 90° knee
flexion is immediately followed by a quick upward vertical
movement as high as possible, all in one sequence. The test is
performed with a full arm swing.
The SJ test begins with the subjects in a stance with 90° knee
flexion, with the feet hip-width apart. Their hands remain on
the hips throughout. From this static position (with no
the TM
1534 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
prestretching), the subjects perform a quick upward vertical
jump as high as possible.
The BJ is performed in a defensive volleyball position. The
subjects in our study were instructed to visualize preparing for
a defensive block during a game. In this situation, the hands
are positioned in front of the chest in the most convenient
position. From this position, the participants perform a CMJ-
type technique with self-determined countermovement
depth and the amount of arm swing that is typical for their
individual volleyball technique during a game or practice. The
subject performs the vertical jump with full arm extension,
trying to reach as high as possible.
In the AJ test, the subject uses an individually determined 2- to
3-step approach, performing a bounce jump with an arm swing.
This movement is followed by a quick upward vertical jump as
high as possible, accompanied by a forceful backward arm
swing. (Note that the photocells do not include the very
beginning stage of the AJ procedure.) The subjects were
instructed to perform the jumping procedure in the way that
they found most convenient, similar to their personal technique
during a volleyball game or practice.
Because we asked the subjects to use their usual individual
procedures for performing the AJ and BJ tests, their specific
procedures were relatively nonstandardized. Because the
main intention of this investigation was to construct and
validate volleyball-specific vertical jumping tests, it was
necessary to acknowledge that each of the tested players had
characteristic individual movement patterns (length of
approach, foot positioning, arm swing, etc.). Because all
the tested subjects were high-level volleyball athletes,
further standardization would have almost certainly had
a negative influence on their jumping performance during
the AJ and BJ tests.
The BH and BW were assessed using a Seca stadiometer
and weighing scales (Seca Instruments Ltd., Hamburg,
Germany). Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as the
ratio of the BW (kilograms) and squared BH (meters).
The playing positions were self-reported using a multiple
choice questionnaire form in which the subjects were asked
to determine their primary playing position as opposite
hitters (OPPOSITE), middle blockers (MIDDLE), liberos
(LIBERO), setters (SETTER), and outside hitters/receivers
(RECEIVER). This information was verified by a team
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive statistical parameters (mean, SD, minimum, and
maximum) were calculated for each individual trial (each
item) and for the overall results (case-specific maximal
results) of all of the tests conducted. An analysis of variance
(ANOVA) for repeated measures and a Tukey post hoc test
were used to detect any systematic bias between the
individual trials (items) for each test. Average interitem
correlation coefficients (IIR) and Cronbach’s alpha re-
liability coefficients (CA) were used to determine the
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of the applied tests.*

Mean 6 SD Minimum Maximum CA IIR CV

SJtrial1 38.53 6 5.49 29.40 53.60 0.97 0.93 2.40

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

SJtrial2 38.66 6 5.70 22.50 53.70

SJtrial3 38.67 6 5.50 25.55 53.10
SJ 39.59 6 5.31 29.40 53.70
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 06/10/2024

CMJtrial1 43.62 6 5.32 27.30 54.50 0.97 0.93 2.60

CMJtrial2 43.62 6 5.09 31.60 56.50
CMJtrial3 43.61 6 5.22 29.33 55.55
CMJ 44.37 6 4.95 32.40 56.50
BJtrial1 47.71 6 5.77 32.40 58.70 0.99 0.97 2.10
BJtrial2 47.91 6 5.69 33.30 62.80
BJtrial3 47.90 6 5.69 32.77 61.10
BJ 48.38 6 5.60 33.30 61.80
AJtrial1 61.41 6 6.98 42.40 78.80 0.97 0.94 2.80
AJtrial2 62.34 6 6.78 47.70 81.20
AJtrial3 62.01 6 6.79 44.44 80.09
AJ 63.16 6 6.97 48.70 81.20
*CA = Cronbach alpha; IIR = average interitem correlation coefficient; CV = coefficient of variation; SJ = squat jump;
CMJ = countermovement jump; BJ = block jump; AJ = attack jump.

between-subject reliability of the jumping tests. The within-
subject variation for each of the tests was determined by
calculating the coefficient of variation (CV). To determine
the factorial validity of the jumping tests, the intercorrelation
matrix for the 4 tests was factorized using a principal-
components factor analysis. The number of significant
components was determined using the Kaiser-Guttman
criterion. The correlations between tests and factors were
used to determine the factorial validity of the tests.
Differences between playing positions in anthropometric
measures and jumping tests were determined using the
ANOVA with a Unequal-n post hoc test. All the coefficients
were considered significant at 95% (p # 0.05).
MIDDLE players are the tallest and heaviest, followed by
OPPOSITEs and RECEIVERs. LIBERO players are the
shortest of all and lighter than the OPPOSITEs and
MIDDLEs. No significant differences between positions
were found for BMI. The differences in jumping abilities
reached statistical significance for the SJ and CMJ, where
RECEIVERs had higher average jumps than did the
SETTERs, and for the AJ, where RECEIVERs had higher
average jumps than did the LIBEROs. Finally, LIBEROs
performed significantly better than did the SETTERs in
the BJ (Table 3).

RESULTS
The parameters of reliability for the tests (Table 1) ranged from TABLE 2. Intercorrelation matrix and factor analysis
0.97 to 0.99 for Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, from 0.93 to 0.97 results.*
for interitem correlation coefficients and from 2.1 to 2.8 CMJ BJ AJ F1
for coefficients of variation. The highest between-subject
reliability was found for the newly constructed volleyball- SJ 0.85† 0.82† 0.77† 20.93
CMJ 0.89† 0.75† 20.95
specific tests (0.97 and 0.99 for Cronbach’s alpha, 0.94 and 0.97
BJ 0.77† 20.94
for interitem correlation). We observed no systematic differ- AJ 20.88
ences between the trials for any of the tests. ExplVar 3.41
The correlations between tests were high, ranging from PrpTotl 0.85
0.75 (SJ and AJ) up to 0.89 (CMJ and BJ). Factor analysis
*SJ = squat jump; CMJ = countermovement jump;
extracted one significant component (F1) with high corre- BJ = block jump; AJ = attack jump; ExplVar = explained
lations for all the applied tests. This component accounts for variance; PrpTotl = proportion of the total variance
86% of the common variance, meaning that only 14% of the explained; F1 = correlations of the variables with principal
component of the factor analysis.
variance among the tests cannot be explained by calculated †Significant correlation coefficients.
linear combination (F1). All these results indicated the high
validity of the applied tests for this subject sample (Table 2).

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2012 | 1535

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Volleyball Jumping Tests

TABLE 3. Differences in anthropometric measures and jumping variables between volleyball playing positions.*

Opposite (n = 15) Middle (n = 26) Libero (n = 11) Setter (n = 19) Receiver (n = 24)

BH (cm) 190.35 6 5.31†‡ 194.38 6 6.9†‡ 180.21 6 3.25§k{ 184.7 6 6.26§k 189.32 6 5.13†k
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

BW (kg) 88.82 6 15.08† 89.31 6 7.9†‡ 76.65 6 10.68§k 80.47 6 8.78k 84.43 6 6.71
BMI (kgm22) 24.53 6 4.12 23.62 6 1.59 23.59 6 3.16 23.57 6 2.16 23.54 6 1.43
SJ (cm) 39.33 6 4.48 38.69 6 5.09 40.49 6 6.54 37.2 6 4.1{ 41.88 6 5.57‡
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 06/10/2024

CMJ (cm) 43.21 6 4.91 43.63 6 4.84{ 46.00 6 4.52 42.27 6 4.23{ 46.55 6 5.01‡
BJ (cm) 48.19 6 6.35 47.42 6 5.66 50.9 6 4.61‡ 46.47 6 5.18† 49.87 6 5.44
AJ (cm) 64.25 6 7.3 61.84 6 7.23 60.81 6 3.52{ 61.16 6 6.89 66.06 6 6.94†
*BH = body height; BW = body weight; SJ = squat jump; CMJ = countermovement jump; BJ = block jump; AJ = attack jump;
BMI = body mass index.
†Significantly different from Libero.
‡Significantly different from Setter.
§Significantly different from Opposite.
kSignificantly different from Middle.
{Significantly different from Receiver.

DISCUSSION these studies involved physically active individuals instead of

The CMJ data are similar to those previously reported for high-
level volleyball players (18), but the jumping abilities of our
subjects are evidently far better than those reported in previous
studies (17,24) for physically active and trained subjects
(20–25% greater for volleyball players). Our subjects achieved
the greatest heights in the AJ test (24, 31, and 40% higher than
for the BJ, CMJ and SJ tests, respectively). This finding can be
explained by the biomechanical characteristics of the AJ. In
this jump, a multistep approach results in additional
acceleration during the bounce drop jump (i.e., the eccentric
contraction) through an intensive stretch-shortening cycle
that is effectively transformed into concentric vertical jumping
performance (13). However, we believe that such superior
results on AJ tests should be expected only for experienced
athletes who are able to use all the muscular capacities relevant
to this sport-specific jumping technique (e.g., high-level
volleyball and handball players). The BJ test results are
approximately 9% higher than the results for the CMJ test
(in our case, the CMJ was performed without an arm swing,
and the BJ was performed as a CMJ with a partial arm swing).
Interestingly, previous studies noted a larger difference
between vertical jumps performed with and without arm
swing. When comparing the CMJ with and without an arm
swing, Slinde et al. (24) found a 14% difference for both men
and women. In addition, a 13% difference was found in the
Abalakov jumping test (17). We consider it probable that the
limited arm swing performed during a BJ led to the relatively
smaller difference between the BJ and the CMJ found in our
investigation.
The CMJ and SJ tests have been used extensively, and there
have been a number of studies that have checked their
reliability (2,12,17,24). However, the CMJ and BJ tests are
standard rather than sport-specific jumping tests, and most of
the TM
high-level athletes. In our study, we focused on high-level
volleyball players, and therefore, high reliability for the
jumping tests was hard to be expected. In brief, the numerical
values of the reliability coefficients rely on 2 descriptive
statistical parameters: the correlation between items (IIR)
and the difference between single-item and overall (in this
case, 3-item) variance (CA and CV). When testing high-level
athletes in a specific sport for characteristic sport-specific
achievement measures (e.g., jumping performance in volley-
ball), less single-item variance should be expected (21). This
lower variance leads to (a) lower numerical values for the
correlation coefficients (i.e., small differences between the
results for different test items are statistically penalized) and
(b) a higher possibility that the single-item variance and the
overall variance will differ significantly, which will conse-
quently decrease the CA and CV values. In view of these
considerations, we judge the reliability coefficients found in
our study to be very high. We found no significant differences
between trials of the jumping test procedures, which accords
with the findings of previous studies in which participant
familiarity with the jumps has not been discussed in relation
to tests of jumping performance (9). However, we must note
that we sampled high-level athletes; thus, their specific motor
knowledge of the types of jumps that we tested should be
considered high and stable. Additionally, the participants
were instructed to adhere to their usual routine when
performing a BJ and an AJ, which almost certainly influenced
the high stability of results. Because volleyball players are
specialized for certain positions, we hypothesized that our
tests might identify 2 separate factors for jumping perfor-
mance. However, this was not the case. In fact, the results of
the correlation analysis indicate that the volleyball-specific
tests are highly intercorrelated (Table 2). Generally, the test

1536 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

intercorrelations are notably higher than those previously
noted for nonvolleyball-specific tests. Furthermore, our
factorial validity supports the findings of previous studies
in which researchers performed factor analyses and identified
a single latent dimension for explosive power in well-trained
male subjects (17). At this time, we are not positing any
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
ranking between the tests with regard to their factorial
validity. Because of the high correlations between tests and
the extracted latent dimension, any such interpretation
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 06/10/2024
would be partially speculative.
Our results showed significant differences between playing
positions with respect to anthropometric measures and
jumping abilities, which will be discussed in parallel. In
general, RECEIVERs are superior in most of their jumping
capacities, but these findings should not be oversimplified.
Although better in jumping performance, RECEIVERs do
not jump frequently during game play because of their lower
BH (in comparison with other teammates) and because of
their tactical position in the game (relatively far from the net).
However, it is generally accepted that RECEIVERs are
technically the most advanced of all players and must
participate in diverse tactical situations during game play. It is
possible that such diversity in their training stimuli partially
explains their dominance of the jumping tests that we studied.
In short, the different actions that they are involved in during
games and training sessions ensure a wide range of training
stimuli, which allows RECEIVERS to develop superior
physical capacities to their teammates. Our finding accords
with the findings of previous studies in which authors have
demonstrated the superiority of RECEIVERs in the parallel
squat (lower body strength), although differences for CMJ in
their study did not reach statistical significance (18) (see text
given later for more details). The relationship between BH
and muscle mass is generally curvilinear and not linear. Much
the same explanation can be offered when addressing
LIBEROs’ jumping capacities (note that LIBEROs are the
second most successful of all playing positions studied behind
RECEIVERs). Because LIBEROs are the shortest of all the
groups, their jumping reach height is insufficient for
a successful jumping performance in a volleyball game.
However, their BH is probably one of the most important
reasons for their advancement in jumping tests. Previous
studies of volleyball players (22) have found that the ‘‘best’’
and the ‘‘worst’’ CMJ performers differ significantly in their
BH (e.g., the ‘‘best performers’’ are significantly shorter),
which could be explained by the fact that the relationship
between BH and muscle mass is generally curvilinear and not
linear (21) (e.g., the development of the muscle tissue as
a generator of force does not linearly follow advancement in
BH among adults). However, in volleyball, all previously
discussed should be judged by emphasizing the differences in
BH and the correlated arm length and reach height
differences (14). More precisely, MIDDLE players are by
far the most advanced in their body length dimensions (see
BH results), which certainly makes up for their average
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
results in the jumping tests that we conducted and allows
them to achieve a superior performance at the net. In light of
the relatively greater BH of MIDDLE players in comparison
with that of LIBEROs and SETTERs, one should also
observe the jumping performance of the OPPOSITE players.
The relative inferiority of the SETTERs in the jumping
performance is not surprising because this playing position is
known to be relatively more ‘‘tactical’’ than ‘‘physical’’ in
volleyball.
Most of the previous studies that have dealt with the
physical capacities of volleyball players have studied female
and junior volleyball athletes (6–8,11) and have rarely
identified .3 playing positions (e.g., MIDDLE, SETTER,
and OUTSIDE [23]). In one of the rare studies that studied
5 playing positions with respect to jumping ability, Marques
et al. (18) found no significant differences between positions
in their CMJ performance. However, the numerical differ-
ences between playing positions for the CMJ in their study
were almost identical to those we have reported here. It is
likely that the number of subjects (95 subjects in this study vs.
35 subjects in Marques et al.) should be regarded as
a significant factor in investigations that deal with positional
differences in team sports.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Based on the results studied and discussed, we emphasize
2 groups of important practical considerations.
First, this study found that all the test procedures showed
high reliability and validity. Additionally, the subjects
involved in this investigation (i.e., high-level volleyball
players) were highly consistent in their sport-specific jumping
tests (i.e., AJ and BJ) and in the standard jumping tests
(i.e., CMJ and SJ). Generally, the newly constructed tests
(AJs and BJs) showed a relatively higher between-subject
reliability than did the standard tests (CMJs and SJs).
However, the differences in reliability parameters between
the tests of standard jumping procedures and the tests of
volleyball-specific jumping procedures were very small.
Therefore, we conclude that these newly constructed
volleyball-specific tests, which simulate real-game situations
of defense and attack, captured appropriate metric character-
istics and should be used to test volleyball athletes for sport-
specific jumping abilities in the future.
Second, the data presented for the different playing
positions should be observed as the numerical norms and
achievement standards for the tests we have studied herein.
They should be used in 2 separate ways. First, they should be
used as orientation values that will allow coaches to compare
the achieved results of their players with the results presented
here and to emphasize the need for specific training. This
comparison will allow strength and conditioning specialists to
design appropriate training programs aimed at improving the
specific jumping abilities of athletes at different positions,
keeping in mind their morphological features (e.g., BH and
BW). Finally, using the results presented here, volleyball
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2012 | 1537
 Volleyball Jumping Tests
coaches will be able to place their players in the most
appropriate playing positions according to their jumping
capacities and anthropometric characteristics.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support of the Ministry of Education and Sport of Republic
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
of Slovenia (project no. v5-0233) and Ministry of Science,
Education, and Sport of Republic of Croatia (project no.
315-1773397-3407) is gratefully acknowledged. The authors
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 06/10/2024
declare that they have no conflict of interest relevant to the
content of this manuscript. The results of this study do not
constitute endorsement of the product by the authors or the
National Strength and Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Amasay, T. Static block jump techniques in volleyball: Upright versus
squat starting positions. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1242–1248, 2008.
2. Arteaga, R, Dorado, C, Chavarren, J, and Calbet, JA. Reliability of
jumping performance in active men and women under different
stretch loading conditions. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 40: 26–34, 2000.
3. Bobbert, MF. Drop jumping as a training method for jumping ability.
Sports Med 9: 7–22, 1990.
4. Caruso, JF, Daily, JS, McLagan, JR, Shepherd, CM, Olson, NM,
Marshall, MR, and Taylor, ST. Data reliability from an instrumented
vertical jump platform. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2799–2808, 2010.
5. Duncan, MJ, Woodfield, L, and al-Nakeeb, Y. Anthropometric and
physiological characteristics of junior elite volleyball players. Br J
Sports Med 40: 649–651, 2006.
6. Gabbett, T and Georgieff, B. Physiological and anthropometric
characteristics of Australian junior national, state, and novice
volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 902–908, 2007.
7. Gabbett, T, Georgieff, B, Anderson, S, Cotton, B, Savovic, D, and
Nicholson, L. Changes in skill and physical fitness following training
in talent-identified volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 20: 29–35,
2006.
8. Gabbett, T, Georgieff, B, and Domrow, N. The use of physiological,
anthropometric, and skill data to predict selection in a talent-
identified junior volleyball squad. J Sports Sci 25: 1337–1344, 2007.
9. Glaister, M, Hauck, H, Abraham, CS, Merry, KL, Beaver, D, Woods, B,
and McInnes, G. Familiarization, reliability, and comparability of
a 40-m maximal shuttle run test. J Sport Sci Med 8: 77–82, 2009.
10. Glatthorn, JF, Gouge, S, Nussbaumer, S, Stauffacher, S, Impellizzeri, FM,
and Maffiuletti, NA. Validity and reliability of Optojump photoelectric
the TM
1538 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
cells for estimating vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res 25: 556–560,
2011.
11. Grgantov, Z, Katic, R, and Jankovic, V. Morphological character-
istics, technical and situation efficacy of young female volleyball
players. Coll Antropol 30: 87–96, 2006.
12. Harman, EA, Rosenstein, MT, Frykman, PN, and Rosenstein, RM.
The effects of arms and countermovement on vertical jumping. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 22: 825–833, 1990.
13. Hof, AL and Vandenberg, J. How much energy can be stored in
human-muscle elasticity—Comment on—An alternative view of the
concept of utilization of elastic energy in human movements. Hum
Movement Sci 5: 107–114, 1986.
14. Jelicic, M, Sekulic, D, and Marinovic, M. Anthropometric charac-
teristics of high level European junior basketball players. Coll
Anthropol 26(Suppl.): 69–76, 2002.
15. Kunstlinger, U, Ludwig, HG, and Stegemann, J. Metabolic changes
during volleyball matches. Int J Sports Med 8: 315–322, 1987.
16. Lidor, R and Ziv, G. Physical and physiological attributes of female
volleyball players—A review. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1963–1973, 2010.
17. Markovic, G, Dizdar, D, Jukic, I, and Cardinale, M. Reliability and
factorial validity of squat and countermovement jump tests. J Strength
Cond Res 18: 551–555, 2004.
18. Marques, MC, van den Tillaar, R, Gabbett, TJ, Reis, VM, and
Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ. Physical fitness qualities of professional
volleyball players: Determination of positional differences. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 1106–1111, 2009.
19. Moir, G, Shastri, P, and Connaboy, C. Intersession reliability of
vertical jump height in women and men. J Strength Cond Res 22:
1779–1784, 2008.
20. Schiltz, M, Lehance, C, Maquet, D, Bury, T, Crielaard, JM, and
Croisier, JL. Explosive strength imbalances in professional basketball
players. J Athl Train 44: 39–47, 2009.
21. Sekulic, D, Zenic, N, and Markovic, G. Non linear relationships
between anthropometric and motor-endurance variables. Coll
Antropol 29: 723–730, 2005.
22. Sheppard, JM, Cronin, JB, Gabbett, TJ, McGuigan, MR, Etxebarria, N,
and Newton, RU. Relative importance of strength, power, and
anthropometric measures to jump performance of elite volleyball
players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 758–765, 2008.
23. Sheppard, JM, Gabbett, TJ, and Stanganelli, LCR. An analysis of
playing positions in elite men’s volleyball: Considerations for
competition demands and physiologic characteristics. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 1858–1866, 2009.
24. Slinde, F, Suber, C, Suber, L, Edwen, CE, and Svantesson, U. Test-
retest reliability of three different countermovement jumping tests.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 640–644, 2008.