| Comparing the Sensitivity of Simple and Cognitive Tuck Jump Tests in Detecting Functional Errors among Healthy Volleyball Athletes: A Cross-Sectional Study |
| Paper ID : 1730-SPORTCONGRESS |
| Authors |
|
Farzaneh Ramezani *1, Farzaneh Saki2, Mohammadreza Zoghipaydar3 1Department of Exercise Rehabilitation, Faculty of Sports Science, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran 2Department of Psychology, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran 3Department of Psychology, Faculty of Economic and Social Science, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran |
| Abstract |
| Introduction: Assessing motor control deficits in athletes is essential for preventing musculoskeletal injuries, especially in the lower extremities. The tuck jump test is a common, cost-effective screening tool typically performed under simple conditions. However, actual competition involves cognitive demands that may affect motor control. Volleyball athletes, due to frequent jumping and landing, are at high risk for such injuries. Functional errors may remain hidden unless tested under dual-task conditions. This study compared the sensitivity of simple and cognitive versions of the tuck jump test in detecting functional errors among healthy female volleyball athletes. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 80 healthy female volleyball athletes performed two versions of the tuck jump test. In the simple version, participants performed continuous jumps for 10 seconds. In the cognitive version, they simultaneously memorized five random single-digit numbers shown at 2-second intervals and recalled them afterward. All tests were video recorded and scored based on 10 binary criteria, including lower extremity valgus, thigh alignment, foot spacing and positioning, landing technique, and plyometric decline. Paired t-tests compared total errors, and McNemar tests assessed specific error frequencies (p=0.05). Results: The cognitive test yielded significantly more errors (6.25±1.74) than the simple test (3.75±1.73) (p<0.001, Cohen’s d=2.15). Cognitive load increased errors in valgus, thigh asymmetry, foot spacing, positioning, contact symmetry, technique decline, and landing footprint (p<0.05). Errors like landing noise and jump pauses were unaffected. Conclusion: Cognitive load enhances the sensitivity of the tuck jump test by revealing hidden motor control deficits. The cognitive version better simulates competition demands and is recommended for more accurate screening and targeted injury prevention in athletes. |
| Keywords |
| Dual-task, Motor control, Female athletes, Injury prevention. |
| Status: Abstract Accepted (Poster Presentation) |
