Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Sports Science›Counter-Movement Jump
Hypothesis testPower & Plyometrics

Counter-Movement Jump

Counter-Movement Jump and Lower Body Power Assessment · Also known as: CMJ, jump height, explosive power

The counter-movement jump (CMJ) is a simple, field-friendly test of lower-body explosive power in which the athlete stands on a force plate, descends into a shallow squat (counter-movement phase), and explosively extends to jump as high as possible. Pioneered by Bosco and Komi (1983), the CMJ captures the integrated function of strength, rate of force development, and elastic energy utilization. Jump height (measured via flight time from force plate or motion capture) and peak power are reported. The CMJ is among the most widely used tests in sports science, athlete monitoring, and research due to simplicity, objectivity, and relevance to explosive power in nearly all sports.

ScholarGate
  1. Hypothesis test
  2. v1
  3. 3 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Counter-Movement Jump
Force-Velocity ProfileRate of Force DevelopmentReactive Strength Index1RM EstimationCenter of Pressure Postu…Electromechanical DelayIsokinetic DynamometryLink Segment Inverse Dyn…

When to use it

CMJ testing is applicable across sports requiring lower-body power (virtually all). The test is quick (30 seconds per trial), requires minimal setup, and is field-accessible if a portable force plate is available. CMJ is particularly useful for routine monitoring (weekly or monthly) due to sensitivity to training changes and low fatigue cost. Assumes proper technique and understanding of instructions.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Simple, quick, and objective measure of lower-body power; gold-standard field test
  • Highly relevant to athletic performance; jumping or jump-like extensions appear in nearly all sports
  • Force plate provides detailed data: peak force, peak power, rate of force development, landing forces
  • Sensitive to training adaptation; CMJ improves reliably with plyometric or power-focused training
  • Non-invasive, low-cost once force plate is acquired; minimal injury risk
Limitations
  • Requires force plate for accurate measurement; video-based jump height estimates are less accurate (±5-10 cm error)
  • Peak power depends on technique, leg stiffness, and body composition; same height can reflect different mechanisms
  • Individual variation in counter-movement depth and arm swing confound between-subject comparisons; standardization is critical
  • Fatigue state affects jump height; testing timing must be standardized (morning, rested, same time of day)
  • CMJ does not directly assess sport-specific demands (lateral explosiveness, multi-directional changes, sustained power)

Frequently asked

Should I use jump height or peak power?

Both are informative. Jump height (centimeters) is simple and intuitive; peak power (watts) accounts for body weight and force production. For comparing individuals, relative power (W/kg) is most relevant. Track both: height for practical athlete feedback; power/power ratio for detailed training response.

How should counter-movement depth be controlled?

Deep squats produce different mechanics than shallow squats. Standardize depth (common: 90° knee flexion) via visual cue or limit mechanism. Alternatively, allow natural depth (10-15 cm typical) and document it; consistency within athlete matters more than absolute depth across athletes.

Can CMJ height be measured without a force plate?

Yes, using high-speed video (measure vertical displacement from hip markers) or timing gates (flight time). However, these methods introduce 5-10% error compared to force plate. For research or important decisions, force plate is preferred. For routine athlete feedback, video or jump mat is acceptable.

How often should I test CMJ?

Weekly testing is appropriate for tracking fatigue and training response. Testing more frequently (daily) adds noise; less frequently (monthly) misses week-to-week adaptation. After significant training stimulus, expect 2-5% fluctuation in CMJ; distinguish true adaptation from noise via trending.

Does CMJ predict vertical jump performance in sports?

CMJ correlates well with maximal vertical jump (sport-specific version without force plate) but correlates only modestly with sport-specific explosive movements (acceleration, direction changes, jump-related sport performance). Use CMJ as one indicator of power capacity alongside sport-specific testing.

Sources

  1. Bosco, C., Luhtanen, P., & Komi, P. V. (1983). A simple method for measurement of mechanical power in jumping. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 50(2), 273-282. DOI: 10.1007/BF00422166 ↗
  2. Linthorne, N. P. (2001). Analysis of standing vertical jumps using a force platform. American Journal of Physics, 69(11), 1198-1204. DOI: 10.1119/1.1397460 ↗
  3. Cormie, P., McBride, J. M., & McCaulley, G. O. (2010). Validation of power measurement techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 23(2), 103-118. DOI: 10.1123/jab.23.2.103 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Counter-Movement Jump and Lower Body Power Assessment. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/sports-science/counter-movement-jump

Related methods

Force-Velocity ProfileRate of Force DevelopmentReactive Strength Index

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Force-Velocity ProfileSports Science↔ compare
  • Rate of Force DevelopmentSports Science↔ compare
  • Reactive Strength IndexSports Science↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

1RM EstimationCenter of Pressure PosturographyElectromechanical DelayForce-Velocity ProfileIsokinetic DynamometryLink Segment Inverse DynamicsRate of Force DevelopmentReactive Strength Index

Similar methods

Reactive Strength IndexForce-Velocity ProfileRate of Force DevelopmentIsokinetic DynamometryElectromechanical DelayTime-Motion GPS1RM EstimationCritical Power (Monod)

Related reference concepts

Force-Velocity and Power RelationshipsNutritional Assessment in Athletes and Active IndividualsOxygen Consumption and Aerobic CapacityResistance Training PrinciplesBioenergetics and ATP Production SystemsMuscle Strength Testing

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Counter-Movement Jump (Counter-Movement Jump and Lower Body Power Assessment). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/sports-science/counter-movement-jump · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Paavo Komi
Subfamily
Power & Plyometrics
Year
1983
Type
jumping test
Related methods
Force-Velocity ProfileRate of Force DevelopmentReactive Strength Index
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account