Average Power Estimation in the 15 s Repeated Jump Test: A Comparison of the Bosco, MG, and MGM-15 Models with an Exploratory BikeErg Benchmark.
6 affiliations
- 1Doctoral School of Sport Science and Physical Education, Pitesti University Center, National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, 110040 Pitesti, Romania.
- 2Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad, 310025 Arad, Romania.
- 3Research Center for Physical Activities, Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad, 310330 Arad, Romania.
- 4Neuromotrica-Information for Sport and Human Performance Ltd., 021323 Bucharest, Romania.
- 5Department of Motric Performance, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Mountain, Transylvania University of Brasov, 600115 Brașov, Romania.
- 6Department of Physical Education, Sport and Kinesitherapy, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Spiru Haret University, 030045 Bucharest, Romania.
Abstract
Background: Average power in repeated vertical jump tests is commonly estimated rather than directly measured, and the equation chosen may substantially affect interpretation. This quasi-experimental within-subject study compared Bosco, MG, and MGM-15 estimates from identical 15 s repeated-jump kinematic data and, as a supplementary exploratory component, quantified their differences relative to power from a separate 20 s Concept2 BikeErg trial. Methods: Fifty-one physically active male participants performed a 15 s repeated vertical jump test with arm swing on OptoJump. Raw kinematic data were converted to average power using the Bosco, MG, and MGM-15 equations. Average power was also recorded during a 20 s maximal BikeErg trial. Repeated-measures ANOVA, Pearson correlations, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analyses quantified between-method and cross-task differences. Results: Mean power differed markedly across models: 40.79 ± 7.65 W/kg (Bosco), 21.60 ± 5.13 W/kg (MG), and 4.20 ± 0.54 W/kg (MGM-15), versus 7.83 ± 0.94 W/kg for BikeErg (F(1.03, 51.29) = 1082.05, p < 0.001, η²p = 0.956). MGM-15 correlated strongly with Bosco (r = 0.977) but produced substantially lower estimates. Bland-Altman mean differences relative to BikeErg were +32.96 W/kg (95% LoA: 18.69 to 47.22) for Bosco, +13.77 W/kg (4.34 to 23.20) for MG, and -3.63 W/kg (-5.27 to -2.00) for MGM-15; proportional bias was confirmed for all three models (all p < 0.001). Conclusions: Average power values from this test are strongly model dependent. Bosco, MG, and MGM-15 values are not interchangeable, even if they come from the same kinematic dataset. MGM-15 yielded estimates nearer to BikeErg power than either Bosco or MG. However, since cycling and jumping are biomechanically different activities performed over different time spans, this indicates only exploratory numerical convergence, not criterion validity.
Related
- Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 Viral Dynamics Parameters in Favipiravir-Treated Cynomolgus Macaques: Comparison of Individual and Group Average Model Fitting.
- Physician Communication, Repeated Healthcare Encounters, and Diagnostic Delay in Endometriosis: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Analysis.
- Accuracy of Visual Estimation of Active Shoulder Elevation Among Orthopedic Physicians: An Exploratory Video-Based Study
- Anterior Capsule Contrast and Capsulorhexis Geometry Across Visualization Systems in Cataract Surgery: An Exploratory Image-Based Comparison
- CT Radiomics and Machine Learning for Three-Class Bone Density Classification: An Exploratory Comparison Across Lumbar Vertebral Levels
BibTeX
@article{geanta2026average,
title = {{Average Power Estimation in the 15 s Repeated Jump Test: A Comparison of the Bosco, MG, and MGM-15 Models with an Exploratory BikeErg Benchmark.}},
author = {Vlad Adrian Geantă and Pierre Joseph de Hillerin and Anca Ionescu and Alexandra Reta Iacobini},
journal = {Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.3390/jfmk11040379},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42924658},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Average Power Estimation in the 15 s Repeated Jump Test: A Comparison of the Bosco, MG, and MGM-15 Models with an Exploratory BikeErg Benchmark.
AU - Vlad Adrian Geantă
AU - Pierre Joseph de Hillerin
AU - Anca Ionescu
AU - Alexandra Reta Iacobini
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/23
JO - Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology
DO - 10.3390/jfmk11040379
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42924658
AB - Background: Average power in repeated vertical jump tests is commonly estimated rather than directly measured, and the equation chosen may substantially affect interpretation. This quasi-experimental within-subject study compared Bosco, MG, and MGM-15 estimates from identical 15 s repeated-jump kinematic data and, as a supplementary exploratory component, quantified their differences relative to power from a separate 20 s Concept2 BikeErg trial. Methods: Fifty-one physically active male participants performed a 15 s repeated vertical jump test with arm swing on OptoJump. Raw kinematic data were converted to average power using the Bosco, MG, and MGM-15 equations. Average power was also recorded during a 20 s maximal BikeErg trial. Repeated-measures ANOVA, Pearson correlations, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analyses quantified between-method and cross-task differences. Results: Mean power differed markedly across models: 40.79 ± 7.65 W/kg (Bosco), 21.60 ± 5.13 W/kg (MG), and 4.20 ± 0.54 W/kg (MGM-15), versus 7.83 ± 0.94 W/kg for BikeErg (F(1.03, 51.29) = 1082.05, p < 0.001, η²p = 0.956). MGM-15 correlated strongly with Bosco (r = 0.977) but produced substantially lower estimates. Bland-Altman mean differences relative to BikeErg were +32.96 W/kg (95% LoA: 18.69 to 47.22) for Bosco, +13.77 W/kg (4.34 to 23.20) for MG, and -3.63 W/kg (-5.27 to -2.00) for MGM-15; proportional bias was confirmed for all three models (all p < 0.001). Conclusions: Average power values from this test are strongly model dependent. Bosco, MG, and MGM-15 values are not interchangeable, even if they come from the same kinematic dataset. MGM-15 yielded estimates nearer to BikeErg power than either Bosco or MG. However, since cycling and jumping are biomechanically different activities performed over different time spans, this indicates only exploratory numerical convergence, not criterion validity.
SN - 2411-5142
ER -