This study aims to comprehensively assess the accuracy and precision of five different devices and by incorporating a variety of analytical approaches for measuring countermovement jump height: Qualisys motion system; Force platform; Ergojump; an Accelerometer, and self-made Abalakow jump belt. Twenty-seven male and female physical education students (23.5 ± 3.8 years; height 170 ± 9.1 cm and body mass 69.1 ± 11.4 kg) performed three countermovement jumps simultaneously measured using five

more »

... es. The 3D measured displacement obtained through the Qualisys device was considered in this study as the reference value. The best accuracy (difference from 3D measured displacement) and precision (standard deviation of differences) for countermovement jump measurement was found using the Abalakow jump belt (0.8 ± 14.7 mm); followed by the Force platform when employing a double integration method (1.5 ± 13.9 mm) and a flight-time method employed using Qualisys motion system data (6.1 ± 17.1 mm). The least accuracy was obtained for the Ergojump (−72.9 mm) employing its analytical tools and then for the accelerometer and Force platform using flight time approximations (−52.8 mm and −45.3 mm, respectively). The worst precision (±122.7 mm) was obtained through double integration of accelerometer acceleration data. This study demonstrated that jump height measurement accuracy is both device and analytical-approach-dependent and that accuracy and precision in jump height measurement are achievable with simple, inexpensive equipment such as the Abalakow jump belt.