Paulo Pires
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Paulo Pires has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Amândio Dias
Egas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health & Science, 2829-511 Caparica, Portugal
1 shared publication - André Rebelo
CIDEFES, Research Center in Sport, Physical Education, and Exercise and Health, Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal
1 shared publication - Diogo Santos Teixeira
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal; Research Center in Sport, Physical Education, and Exercise and Health (CIDEFES), Lisbon, Portugal
1 shared publication - Eduardo Jorge Da Silva
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Lusófona University, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal
1 shared publication - Fernando Jorge Santos
Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, Escola Superior de Educação, 2914-504 Setúbal, Portugal
1 shared publication - Leandro de Oliveira Sant'Ana
Postgraduate Program in Physical Education, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juíz de Fora 36036-900, Brazil
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 September 2024
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology
- Vol. 9 (3) , 155
Concurrent Validity and Reliability of a Free Smartphone Application for Evaluation of Jump Height
Background/Objectives: Jump test assessment is commonly used for physical tests, with different type of devices used for its evaluation. The purpose of the present study was to examine the validity and reliability of a freely accessible mobile application (VertVision, version 2.0.5) for measuring jump performance. Methods: With that intent, thirty-eight college age recreationally active subjects underwent test assessment after a specific warm-up, performing countermovement jumps (CMJs) and squat jumps (SJs) on a contact platform while being recorded with a smartphone camera. Jump height was the criterion variable, with the same formula being used for both methods. Data analysis was performed by two experienced observers. Results: The results showed strong correlations with the contact platform (ICC > 0.9) for both jumps. Furthermore, between-observer reliability was also high (ICC > 0.9; CV ≤ 2.19), with lower values for smallest worthwhile change (≤0.23) and typical error of measurement (≤0.14). Estimation error varied when accounting for both observers, with the SJ accounting for bigger differences (4.1–6.03%), when compared to the CMJ (0.73–3.09%). Conclusions: The study suggests that VertVision is a suitable and handy method for evaluating jump performance. However, it presents a slight estimation error when compared to the contact platform.
- 1 September 2024
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology
- Vol. 9 (3) , 155
Open AccessConcurrent Validity and Reliability of a Free Smartphone Application for Evaluation of Jump Height
Background/Objectives: Jump test assessment is commonly used for physical tests, with different type of devices used for its evaluation. The purpose of the present study was to examine the validity and reliability of a freely accessible mobile application (VertVision, version 2.0.5) for measuring jump performance. Methods: With that intent, thirty-eight college age recreationally active subjects underwent test assessment after a specific warm-up, performing countermovement jumps (CMJs) and squat jumps (SJs) on a contact platform while being recorded with a smartphone camera. Jump height was the criterion variable, with the same formula being used for both methods. Data analysis was performed by two experienced observers. Results: The results showed strong correlations with the contact platform (ICC > 0.9) for both jumps. Furthermore, between-observer reliability was also high (ICC > 0.9; CV ≤ 2.19), with lower values for smallest worthwhile change (≤0.23) and typical error of measurement (≤0.14). Estimation error varied when accounting for both observers, with the SJ accounting for bigger differences (4.1–6.03%), when compared to the CMJ (0.73–3.09%). Conclusions: The study suggests that VertVision is a suitable and handy method for evaluating jump performance. However, it presents a slight estimation error when compared to the contact platform.