The Effect of Ankle Brace Use on a 3‐Step Volleyball Spike Jump Height
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine whether ankle brace use in university‐level varsity volleyball athletes affected their 3‐step spike jump height and whether certain types of ankle braces have a greater effect on jump height. Methods Nine male university‐level varsity volleyball athletes participated in a repeated‐measures design study in which each athlete performed three 3‐step volleyball spike jumps in 3 ankle brace conditions (soft, rigid, and no brace). Vertical jump height was measured by the Vertec device and video motion analysis at a university biomechanics research laboratory. Results Vertical jump heights were significantly lower in both brace conditions (soft, 2.3 cm, standard deviation [SD] 1.2 cm, P < .001; rigid, 1.7 cm, SD 0.9 cm, P < .003) compared with the no‐brace condition, and no differences in vertical jump height were observed between the brace conditions (0.6 cm, SD 0.3, P = .3). There was a negative correlation between body fat percentage and vertical jump height ( r = –0.075, P = .02). The Vertec device reliably measured vertical jump in all 3 conditions. The no‐brace vertical ground reaction forces during the loading phase were significantly greater than brace conditions. Ankle range of motion was greatest in the no‐brace condition. Conclusions Results from this study suggests that high‐performance athletes wearing ankle braces experience a significant decrease in vertical jump height independent of the type of ankle brace worn. Clinical Relevance Sports physicians and health care providers caring for high‐level athletes should counsel athletes on the trade‐offs of wearing protective equipment in sport, as potential decreases in sports performance can lead to increased injury prevention. Level of Evidence III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".