Next Article in Journal
Hybrid Neural Network-Based Maritime Carbon Dioxide Emission Prediction: Incorporating Dynamics for Enhanced Accuracy
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Force–Velocity Profiles in Young Football Players: Effect of Competition Level and Position
Previous Article in Journal
A Low-Profile Dual-Polarized Transmitarray with Enhanced Gain and Beam Steering at Ku Band
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Sleep, Menstrual Cycles, and Training Loads on Heart Rate Variability: A Four-Year Case Study on an Elite Female Slalom Kayaker
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/app15094651
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Relationship Between Single-Leg Countermovement Jump Height, Technique, and Hip Strength in Elite Handball Players

by
Darjan Spudić
1,*,
Ažbe Ribič
1,
Nejc Šarabon
2,3 and
Primož Pori
1
1
Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, Gortanova 22, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Primorska, Polje 42, SI-6310 Izola, Slovenia
3
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Neugebäudeplatz 1, 3100 St. Pölten, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(9), 4651; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094651
Submission received: 20 March 2025 / Revised: 17 April 2025 / Accepted: 22 April 2025 / Published: 23 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applied Sports Performance Analysis)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Single-leg jumping is a fundamental movement in sports and is frequently used for performance assessment and injury risk evaluation. However, the specific kinetic and kinematic factors influencing jump performance remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the relationships between sagittal and frontal plane kinematic variables, maximal and explosive isometric hip strength, and single-leg countermovement jump (SLCMJ) performance. We assessed eighty elite handball players who performed SLCMJs on force plates, with jumps being video recorded from both the sagittal and frontal planes. Maximal and explosive hip adduction, abduction, extension, and flexion strength were assessed using an isometric dynamometer. Correlation analysis revealed significant relationships (p < 0.05) between maximal hip abductor strength and sagittal plane hip flexion angle (r = −0.23), femur inclination (r = −0.27), and shin inclination (r = 0.23). Explosive adduction strength was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) with frontal plane trunk angle (r = −0.29) and trunk inclination (r = −0.33). A significant negative correlation (p < 0.05) was also observed between femur inclination and jump height (r = −0.30). However, no significant relationship (p > 0.05) was found between hip strength variables and jump height. These findings suggest that while isometric hip strength influences movement kinematics during SLCMJs, its direct impact on jump height is limited. Based on the results of the present study, other factors likely contribute to jump performance outcomes and should be investigated further.

1. Introduction

Jumping ability, assessed through tasks such as countermovement jumps (CMJs), is widely recognized as a strong predictor of athletic performance [1,2,3,4]. These measures correlate strongly with success in various sports, highlighting their importance in evaluating lower-limb power and overall physical performance. Numerous studies have demonstrated that jump performance is influenced by strength, coordination, and the mobility of the lower extremities [5,6]. While mechanical variables, such as ground reaction peak force and power, have been extensively analyzed in double-leg jumps, research into kinematic variables—especially those influencing single-leg jump performance—remains relatively scarce. Given that unilateral movements dominate many sports-specific actions and that most sport-related jumps are executed on one leg [7,8,9,10], a deeper understanding of the factors driving single-leg jump performance is essential for practitioners to optimize training plans and performance.
Single-leg jumps introduce unique biomechanical and neuromuscular challenges compared to double-leg jumps [7,11,12]. Notably, the technical execution of single-leg jumps places greater demands on the hip and trunk musculature [13,14,15]. Studies suggest that while hip extensor strength is a key factor in general jump performance [14,16], single-leg jumps emphasize the roles of hip abductors, external rotators, and lateral trunk flexors [17]. These muscles are crucial for stabilizing the pelvis in the frontal plane, preventing pelvic drop and hip internal rotation and ensuring the proper alignment of the body during the take-off phase [18,19]. Furthermore, they contribute to effective energy transfer and enhanced jump mechanics by maintaining the alignment of body segments and preventing deviations that could compromise multi-joint force generation [18,19,20].
Research on kinetic factors also underscores the complexity of single-leg jumps. For instance, Kozinc and Šarabon (2022) [14] reported weak but statistically significant correlations between peak hip extensor torque and single-leg CMJ (SLCMJ) height, suggesting that hip extensor strength may play a role in single-leg jump performance. However, the same study also highlighted moderate correlations between hip extensor strength and double-leg CMJ height, emphasizing that double-leg and single-leg jumps may rely on different neuromuscular strategies. Similarly, studies on hip abductors and lateral trunk flexors have shown their critical role in pelvic stabilization and efficient force transmission during single-leg jumps [17]. Reduced strength in these muscle groups can lead to a shift in the body’s center of mass, dynamic knee valgus, and lower jump heights due to compromised force production during propulsion [19]. Furthermore, most studies focus on assessing the influence of knee joint strength on jump performance, while the ankle [21,22] and the hip [21,22,23] are scarcely assessed. This could be a problem, as jumps are a multi-segmental movement, where the coordination between multiple joints influences jump performance.
The most important factor for jump success is take-off velocity, which depends on the sequence of movements leading up to take-off. Maximal velocity is determined by joint angular velocities (changes in joint angles over time) and the sequence of segment movements [24]. High angular velocities and a correct, well-timed sequence of movements maximize take-off velocity relative to an individual’s abilities. Despite these biomechanical distinctions, the specific kinematic and kinetic factors influencing SLCMJ performance are not yet fully understood. For double-leg CMJs, previous research has identified critical kinematic variables such as trunk inclination (defined as trunk forward lean from the hips to the shoulders) and ankle plantarflexion angle at take-off, which, together, explain over 50% of the variance in jump height [25]. However, no comparable analyses have been conducted for single-leg jumps. This gap in the literature is significant, as single-leg jumps often demand more precise coordination and stabilization due to the unilateral load, which increases the risk of misaligned body segments and suboptimal force application.
Therefore, this study seeks to address this gap and build upon previous research. While prior studies have primarily focused on the influence of mechanical variables on jump performance, this research expands on that foundation by incorporating kinematic data to determine whether a combination of kinetic and kinematic factors can reliably predict SLCMJ performance. Specifically, it examines the relationship between kinematic variables, such as segment inclinations and joint angles, and mechanical outputs, such as hip maximal strength and rate of torque development, to better understand the factors driving single-leg jump performance. By focusing on the unique demands and execution of single-leg jumps, this study aims to provide valuable insights into optimizing performance and improving the assessment of athletic ability in sports contexts. Based on the previous literature, we hypothesized significant interrelationships among hip strength, kinematic variables (assessing movement technique), and SLCMJ jump height.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design and Participants

This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a single visit, with a total duration of approximately 45 min. Eighty elite team handball players from the first national Slovenian league, each with at least 10 years of training experience, were recruited. The participants were, on average, 21.8 (3.9) years old, 1.90 (0.06) m tall, and weighed 92.0 (9.6) kg. All players were actively engaged in regular handball training, practicing at least five times per week at their clubs over the previous five years.
The inclusion criteria required participants to be free from musculoskeletal injuries or pain syndromes within the last year, as well as any medical conditions that could be aggravated by the testing procedures. The participants were instructed to avoid strenuous activity for two days prior to the testing. Before data collection, they were fully informed about the study protocol and signed an informed consent form. They wore only tight-fitting shorts (mid-thigh length), low-ankle socks, and low-ankle training shoes of their choice to minimize any influence on the testing process. Since SLCMJs were routinely performed as part of their physical preparation in regular training, no additional familiarization session was necessary. The experimental procedures (outlined in Figure 1) were reviewed and approved by the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport Ethics Committee (reference number: 14:2023), and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Testing Procedures

Before testing, the participants completed a standardized warm-up protocol consisting of 10 min of light running, followed by 5 min of dynamic stretching and 5 min of dynamic strength exercises that simulated testing drills (lunges and jumps), led by a qualified member of the research team. After the warm-up, we attached black and white markers (unfilled circles with a 25 mm outer diameter and a 2 mm inner diameter) to nineteen anatomical points, following established procedures in the literature [26].

2.2.1. Single-Leg Countermovement Jump Assessment

All participants performed SLCMJs on piezoelectric force plates (Kistler, model 9260AA6, Winterthur, Switzerland) with MARS software (MARS, Kistler, model 4.0, Winterthur, Switzerland). Before performing the jump, the participants were instructed to execute the take-off action as quickly as possible (rapid descent and transition to a vertical jump) and jump as high as possible. The non-tested leg was slightly flexed at the knee and not allowed to touch the tested leg. Performing the swing with the non-tested leg was not allowed. Throughout the entire jump, the participants kept their hands on their hips. Three repetitions of each jump were performed only with the preferred leg, preceded by one practice attempt to minimize errors caused by the learning effect. The rest interval between individual jump repetitions was 60 s.
All measurements were recorded at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. The signals were automatically processed using the manufacturer’s software. A moving average filter with a 5 ms window was applied to force plate signals, and jump height was calculated based on take-off velocity. A moderate reliability was observed between three SLCMJ height results (ICC = 0.567).

2.2.2. Isometric Hip Strength Assessment

All hip strength assessments were conducted using an isometric dynamometer (Muscle Board, S2P, d. o. o, Ljubljana, Slovenija), which utilized U-shaped braces with single-point load cells. The procedure was recently assessed in terms of intra- and inter-day reliability, and most of the outcomes showed good to excellent reliability scores [27]. The braces could be rotated to accommodate the desired task. Hip flexion, adduction, and abduction maximal and explosive strength were measured in the supine position, while hip extension strength and explosive strength were assessed in the prone position, with the hip, knee, and ankle maintained in a neutral position. Testing positions were individually adjusted based on the participants’ anthropometric characteristics. During all tests, ankles and knees were aligned hip-width apart. Leg lever arm was measured prior to each test to the nearest 0.5 cm by measuring the distance from the greater trochanter to the middle of the sensor attachment site. To stabilize the body during testing, the players held on to the sides of the plinths while a non-elastic strap was tightly secured across the pelvis. For each test, the participants performed three isometric repetitions using their preferred push-off leg. They were required to apply a 10 N pre-tension to the brace, positioned just above the ankle, and then press against the sensor with their knee extended as quickly and forcefully as possible [28]. They had to maintain maximal pressure on the sensor for an additional 5 s. The rest period between repetitions of each individual test was approximately 30 s, while the rest period between tests targeting different muscle groups was three minutes. To avoid systematic bias due to fatigue accumulation, the test order was counter-balanced.
All measurements were recorded at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. The signals were automatically processed using the manufacturer’s software. A moving average filter with a 5 ms window was applied to the force signal. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) strength for adduction (MVIC ADD), abduction (MVIC ABD), flexion (MVIC FLEX), and extension (MVIC EXT) was determined as the highest force value within a one-second moving average window during MVICs. The rate of force development (RFD) was calculated within the first 100 ms of the explosive isometric contraction. Force values were multiplied by leg length and allometrically normalized by a factor of 0.67 to individual body weight, resulting in normalized peak torque (PT) (Nm/kg) and the rate of torque development (RTD) (Nm/s/kg) [29]. RTD was assessed for adduction (RTD ADD), abduction (RTD ABD), flexion (RTD FLEX), and extension (RTD EXT). MVIC measurements demonstrated a good to moderate reliability between three test repetitions (ICC = 0.913–0.580), while RTD variables exhibited a moderate to poor reliability (ICC = 0.546–0.396).

2.2.3. Single-Leg Countermovement Jump Kinematic Analysis

The technical execution of movements was recorded with two Panasonic DMC-FZ200 cameras (Panasonic Corporation, Kadoma, Osaka, Japan) at a capture frequency of 100 Hz. All jumps were captured in both the frontal and sagittal planes. The cameras were positioned at a 1 m height, 3 m sagittally or frontally relative to the participants. Video recordings were analyzed with Kinovea software (Version 0.9.5, Kinovea Open-Source Project, www.kinovea.org, accessed on 4 March 2024). The reliability and validity of the software for obtaining kinematic parameters had been previously verified [26]. When imported to the software, the video recordings of the SLCMJs were calibrated in 2D space with a Line tool in Kinovea software using the 0.3 m high vertical edge of the wooden box as a reference object, which was placed 0.05 m behind the force plates. Before conducting the 2D kinematic analyses, the video recordings of the SLCMJs were time-synchronized with the vertical component of ground reaction force (GRF). The time point of the GRF where the unloading phase for the SLCMJs started was synchronized with the start of the downward movement of the marker placed over the greater trochanter by visual inspection with a precision of 0.01 s.
Kinematic variables were analyzed in the order from proximal to more distal segments. They were calculated at the time point of the peak vertical GRF during the jump (Figure 2 and Figure 3). This was based on the understanding that the center of mass reaches its lowest vertical position when the GRF is at its peak [30], representing the most challenging phase of the jump for the musculoskeletal system. The “Stopwatch” module in Kinovea software was used to track the time from the initiation of the movement to the peak GRF time point. The Angle tool in Kinovea software was employed to measure the inclination of body segments relative to the vertical or horizontal planes (absolute kinematic variables) and joint angles—the angles between two adjacent body segments (relative kinematic variables). The markers were zoomed in to the maximum extent to improve the accuracy of the manual measurements. The absolute kinematic variables presented a moderate to good reliability between three jump repetitions (ICC = 0.605–0.795), apart from shin inclination in the sagittal plane (ICC = 0.492). The relative kinematic variables presented a poor to good reliability (ICC = 0.188–0.772). Schematic illustrations of the absolute and relative kinematic variables are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS (version 25.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics are reported as means (standard deviation) and ranges (minimum–maximum). For all outcome variables, the average of three repetitions (i.e., highest jump, MVIC, and RTD values) was used in statistical analyses to minimize variability-related errors. The normality of the raw data distribution was verified with the Shapiro–Wilk test. The strength of linear relationships between strength, kinematic, and jump height variables was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r). The results were interpreted according to recommendations from the scientific literature [31], with the following criteria: 0 indicating no correlation, 0.1–0.29 as small, 0.3–0.49 as moderate, 0.5–0.69 as large, 0.7–0.89 as very large, and 0.9–1 as a perfect correlation. For all analyses, the threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

The descriptive statistics for the SLCMJ kinetic and kinematic variables, as well as the isometric hip maximal and explosive strength variables, are presented in Table 1.
Figure 4 shows the correlation analysis results between the SLCMJ kinematic and kinetic variables and hip maximal and explosive strength. A moderate negative correlation was observed between SLCMJ height and femur inclination in the frontal plane (r = −0.30; 95% CI from −0.496 to −0.082; p < 0.05). In the sagittal plane, hip angle demonstrated a moderate, negative, and statistically significant correlation with MVIC ABD (r = −0.23; 95% CI from −0.431 to −0.003; p < 0.05). Femur inclination exhibited a moderate, positive correlation with MVIC ABD (r = 0.27; 95% CI from 0.043 to 0.464; p < 0.05).
In the frontal plane, kinematic variables also showed statistically significant correlations with hip strength. Shin inclination was moderately and positively correlated with MVIC ABD (r = 0.23; 95% CI from 0.000 to 0.429; p < 0.05). Furthermore, RTD ADD displayed moderate, negative, and statistically significant correlations with trunk angle (r = −0.29; 95% CI from −0.450 to −0.022; p < 0.05) and trunk inclination (r = −0.33; 95% CI from −0.449 to −0.025; p < 0.05). No statistically significant correlations were found between SLCMJ height and hip strength variables. Statistically significant correlations are emphasized in Figure 5.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between SLCMJ height, SLCMJ kinematic variables (assessing movement technique), and maximal and explosive hip strength. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine these relationships in a large sample of elite athletes. The main findings demonstrated significant relationships between maximal hip abductor strength and sagittal plane hip flexion angle (r = −0.23), femur inclination (r = −0.27), and shin inclination (r = 0.23). Moreover, explosive adduction strength was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) with frontal plane trunk angle (r = −0.29) and trunk inclination (r = −0.33). Additionally, a significant negative correlation was observed between femur inclination and jump height (r = −0.30). In contrast, no significant relationship was found between hip strength variables and jump height.

4.1. Relationship Between SLCMJ Height and Kinematic Variables

The novel finding of the present study was the significant negative relationship between femur inclination in the frontal plane and SLCMJ height (r = −0.30). This result suggests that a smaller deviation of the knee from the frontal plane (i.e., reduced knee valgus), which reflects a better alignment of the lower-limb joints in the lowest position of the center of mass, was associated with a higher SLCMJ height in the present study. Biomechanically, the optimal alignment of the lower-limb joints facilitates more efficient force transmission from the ground through the kinetic chain, minimizing energy losses and enhancing vertical propulsion [14,19,32]. A reduced femur inclination may also indicate better neuromuscular control of the hip and knee, particularly from the hip abductors and external rotators, which are essential for maintaining proper alignment during dynamic movements [20]. The research on this topic is scarce, as there are only a few studies examining the relationships between hip strength, frontal plane knee alignment, and jumping performance. In agreement with our study, Ueno et al. (2020) [20] found that a higher gluteus medius strength predicted lower knee abduction moments during drop vertical jumps in female athletes. In contrast, Vadász et al. (2023) [19] demonstrated conflicting findings. Healthy male physical education students performed single-leg jumps on a force plate, and knee and hip kinetics and kinematics were measured. They found no significant correlation between jump kinetics (specifically, propulsive impulse) and knee valgus during the SLCMJs. These mixed findings suggest that the relationship between hip strength, knee alignment, and jump performance is complex and may be influenced by factors such as sex, neuromuscular coordination, and movement strategy. Additionally, methodological differences, such as variations in participant training status, task constraints, or biomechanical analysis techniques, may have contributed to the differing outcomes. These discrepancies also highlight the need for further research to investigate whether targeted training interventions aimed at improving frontal plane alignment and hip strength translate to enhanced jump performance.

4.2. Relationship Between Kinematic Variables and Maximal and Explosive Hip Strength

Hip abductor strength demonstrated a positive correlation with femur inclination (r = 0.27) and a negative correlation with hip angle (r = −0.23) in the sagittal plane. Hip abductors are most commonly associated with preventing the pelvis from dropping on the side of the unsupported leg in the frontal plane and, consequently, maintaining the alignment and stability of body segments (specifically pelvic and trunk stability), thereby enabling the lower limbs to adopt more mechanically favorable positions that optimize force production and stability during explosive tasks such as SLCMJs [18,33,34]. The negative correlation between hip abductor strength and hip angle in the sagittal plane may reflect a more stable and controlled movement strategy, where the athlete minimizes excessive motion in the hip joint to maintain balance and inter-segment alignment. This is in agreement with the study by Floria et al. (2016) [35], where the authors demonstrated that participants with a lower jump performance showed greater trunk flexion at the end of the concentric phase, which could imply reduced lower-limb extension and, consequently, a shorter range of motion for force production during push-off. On the contrary, better jumpers exhibited a greater descent amplitude, which indicates a longer range of motion over which force can be produced, resulting in a greater push-off GRF impulse [35,36]. The findings of this study underscore the importance of hip abductor strength for frontal plane pelvic stability and the optimization of sagittal plane jump technique. Weaknesses in these muscles could compromise trunk control and lower-limb alignment, potentially leading to compensatory movement patterns that reduce efficiency and increase the risk of injury [37,38]. Nonetheless, practitioners should be careful when interpreting the results. Low-level correlations indicate that there could be other important factors that contribute to jump performance. Future research should explore targeted hip strength training interventions and the relationships of hip strength with sagittal plane kinematics and jump performance.
A weak but significant (p < 0.05) positive correlation was found between hip abduction strength and frontal plane shin inclination (r = 0.226). This suggests that stronger athletes in our study may have adopted a jump strategy with greater shin inclination, potentially linked to a controlled knee valgus position. While valgus is often seen as an injury risk [39,40,41], in this context, it may reflect an efficient alignment for force production and energy transfer during propulsion. The weak correlation indicates that hip abduction strength is just one factor influencing jump technique, with neuromuscular coordination, ankle mechanics, and trunk stability likely also playing roles [19,33,42,43]. Future research should determine whether this shin inclination enhances performance or is an adaptive response to individual biomechanics and identify when valgus transitions from functional to harmful.
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate a significant relationship between hip adductor RTD and trunk angle and trunk inclination kinematic variables during SLCMJs. A high RTD is known to be essential for a superior performance in both jumping [25] and sprinting [44]. Furthermore, executing single-leg movements with a high RTD requires strong and powerful hip adductor and abductor muscles [45,46]. The adductor muscles contribute to hip stability by facilitating synergistic contractions with the intrapelvic musculature. Specifically, the hip adductor muscles work in coordination with the internal and external obliques as part of the anterior oblique sling system, ensuring both functional movement and trunk stabilization [47]. This biomechanical interplay underscores the observed relationship in this study, where individuals with a greater hip adductor RTD demonstrated a superior ability to stabilize the trunk during SLCMJs. Furthermore, our results show the importance of hip adductor strength and explosiveness not only for generating force, but also for maintaining dynamic trunk control, which is critical for athletic performance. These results suggest that targeted strengthening of the hip adductors could have broader implications for improving movement efficiency and preventing injury in athletes. Nonetheless, practitioners should exercise caution when interpreting these results, as isometric strength testing has a lower ecological validity, making it more difficult to translate findings into real-world settings. While isometric assessments can offer valuable insights into maximal force production, they may not fully capture the dynamic and sport-specific nature of athletic movements.

4.3. Relationship Between SLCMJ Height and Maximal and Explosive Hip Strength

We found no significant relationship between hip maximal or explosive strength and SLCMJ height in our study. Previous research on this topic is conflicting. Kozinc and Šarabon (2022) [14] reported weak correlations between maximal hip strength (r = 0.292–0.304) and RTD variables (r = 0.202–0.288) with SLCMJ height in soccer players, explaining only a small variance (r2 = 0.24). Similarly, Haksever et al. (2022) [48] found moderate correlations (r = 0.389–0.469) between isometric hip abduction strength and SLCMJ height, while Harrison et al. (2013) [23] found no significant relationships (r = 0.084–0.188, p > 0.05) using isokinetic testing.
We speculate that isometric strength may be less relevant to jumping performance due to its limited specificity to dynamic tasks. Strength assessments should align with functional movement demands, including contraction type, timing, and body positioning, making dynamic strength tests more sensitive [42,49,50,51]. Given that our participants performed counter-movement jumps, concentric and eccentric hip abductor strength may be more relevant to predicting SLCMJ height than isometric strength. Future studies should take this into consideration and further investigate the relationship between dynamic hip abductor strength and single-leg jump performance, particularly in contexts that closely replicate sport-specific movements, by prioritizing dynamic strength assessments that provide more functionally relevant data and enhance the applicability of such findings to performance and training contexts. Furthermore, single-leg jump performance is likely influenced by multiple factors beyond hip strength, including balance, neuromuscular control, and intermuscular coordination. Future research should explore how these elements interact with strength to enhance functional performance in tasks like SLCMJs.

4.4. Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the variability in jump performance poses a challenge for statistical analysis, as a greater variability in individual measures reduces their ability to explain jump height. Another limitation is the use of 2D kinematic analysis instead of a more precise 3D analysis, which could provide a more comprehensive understanding of joint kinematics. Furthermore, the isometric strength tests used in this study do not closely replicate the dynamic conditions of an SLCMJ. While jumping involves force production in a closed kinetic chain, our strength assessments were conducted in an open kinetic chain, potentially limiting the ecological validity of the strength measurements. Previous research suggests that the relationship between lower-limb strength and jump performance is influenced by contraction type and body positioning during testing [14,23,42,49,52]. Finally, despite standardized jump execution instructions, individual variations in technique and neuromuscular coordination may have influenced the results, leading to differing contributions from specific muscle groups among participants. Taking this into account, it should be emphasized that this is a preliminary study. Future research should be conducted using more sophisticated methods (3D kinematic analysis and dynamic strength tests) to enhance ecological validity, thereby improving the applicability of the findings to real-world training and competition settings. Incorporating advanced motion capture systems, larger and more diverse athlete samples, and longitudinal designs could offer deeper insights into performance adaptations and better inform evidence-based training practices.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated a significant relationship between SLCMJ kinematic variables and SLCMJ height, highlighting the importance of a proper technique for jump performance. Additionally, certain maximal and explosive hip strength variables were moderately correlated with trunk and knee kinematics in the sagittal and frontal planes, suggesting that hip abduction and adduction strength contribute to the technical execution of an SLCMJ. This finding underscores the potential benefits of strength training for refining jump technique and indirectly enhancing performance while also reducing injury risk. However, no significant correlations were found between hip strength and SLCMJ height, indicating that isolated isometric hip strength may not directly influence jump performance or that the testing procedure used in this study may lack the sensitivity to detect this relationship. Future research should focus on confirming these findings by incorporating dynamic strength assessments, including both concentric and eccentric measures at different hip joint angles, which may reveal stronger associations between hip strength and jump performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.S., N.Š. and P.P.; data curation, D.S. and N.Š.; formal analysis, D.S., A.R., N.Š. and P.P.; funding acquisition, P.P.; investigation, D.S., A.R. and P.P.; methodology, D.S., A.R. and N.Š.; project administration, N.Š. and P.P.; resources, N.Š. and P.P.; software, D.S., A.R. and N.Š.; supervision, D.S., A.R., N.Š. and P.P.; validation, D.S., N.Š. and P.P.; visualization, D.S. and A.R.; writing—original draft, D.S. and A.R.; writing—review and editing, D.S., A.R., N.Š. and P.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by the Slovenian Research Agency through the project TELASI-PREVENT (L5-1845) (Body asymmetries as a risk factor in musculoskeletal injury development: studying etiological mechanisms and designing corrective interventions for primary and tertiary preventive care), by Rector’s fund of University of Primorska throughout internal post-doc project IZO-STAR (2991-2/2021) and by the Slovenian Research Agency through the research programs KINSPO—Kinesiology for the effectiveness and prevention of musculoskeletal injuries in sport (P5-0443) for N.Š. and Kinesiology of monostructural, polystructural and conventional sports (P5-0147) for D.S.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport (reference number: 14:2023, approved on 15 September 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants for their cooperation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Sleivert, G.; Taingahue, M. The Relationship between Maximal Jump-Squat Power and Sprint Acceleration in Athletes. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2004, 91, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pleša, J.; Kozinc, Ž.; Šarabon, N. Bilateral Deficit in Countermovement Jump and Its Influence on Linear Sprinting, Jumping, and Change of Direction Ability in Volleyball Players. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 768906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bishop, C.; Abbott, W.; Brashill, C.; Turner, A.; Lake, J.; Read, P. Bilateral vs. Unilateral Countermovement Jumps: Comparing the Magnitude and Direction of Asymmetry in Elite Academy Soccer Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 1660–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bishop, C.; Brashill, C.; Abbott, W.; Read, P.; Lake, J.; Turner, A. Jumping Asymmetries Are Associated with Speed, Change of Direction Speed, and Jump Performance in Elite Academy Soccer Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 1841–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bobbert, M.F.; Casius, L.J.R. Is the Effect of a Countermovement on Jump Height Due to Active State Development? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2005, 37, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Godinho, I.; Pinheiro, B.N.; Scipião Júnior, L.D.G.; Lucas, G.C.; Cavalcante, J.F.; Monteiro, G.M.; Uchoa, P.A.G. Effect of Reduced Ankle Mobility on Jumping Performance in Young Athletes. Motricidade 2019, 15, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fischer, F.; Blank, C.; Dünnwald, T.; Gföller, P.; Herbst, E.; Hoser, C.; Fink, C. Isokinetic Extension Strength Is Associated with Single-Leg Vertical Jump Height. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2017, 5, 2325967117736766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Van Hooren, B.; Kozinc, Ž.; Smajla, D.; Šarabon, N. Isometric Single-Joint Rate of Force Development Shows Trivial to Small Associations with Jumping Rate of Force Development, Jump Height, and Propulsive Duration. JSAMS Plus 2022, 1, 100006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dos’Santos, T.; Thomas, C.; Jones, P.A.; Comfort, P. Asymmetries in Single and Triple Hop Are Not Detrimental to Change of Direction Speed. J. Trainology 2017, 6, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kotsifaki, A.; Whiteley, R.; Van Rossom, S.; Korakakis, V.; Bahr, R.; Sideris, V.; Graham-Smith, P.; Jonkers, I. Single Leg Hop for Distance Symmetry Masks Lower Limb Biomechanics: Time to Discuss Hop Distance as Decision Criterion for Return to Sport after ACL Reconstruction? Br. J. Sports Med. 2022, 56, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bobbert, M.F.; De Graaf, W.W.; Jonk, J.N.; Casius, L.J.R. Explanation of the Bilateral Deficit in Human Vertical Squat Jumping. J. Appl. Physiol. 2006, 100, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Spudić, D.; Ribič, A. Relationship between Unilateral and Bilateral Countermovement Jump Performance and Force-Velocity-Power Outcome Variables. Kinesiology 2023, 55, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. McElveen, M.T.; Riemann, B.L.; Davies, G.J. Bilateral Comparison of Propulsion Mechanics during Single-Leg Vertical Jumping. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kozinc, Ž.; Šarabon, N. Measurements of Lower-Limb Isometric Single-Joint Maximal Voluntary Torque and Rate of Torque Development Capacity Offer Limited Insight into Vertical Jumping Performance. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 2022, 26, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kotsifaki, A.; Korakakis, V.; Whiteley, R.; Van Rossom, S.; Jonkers, I. Measuring Only Hop Distance during Single Leg Hop Testing Is Insufficient to Detect Deficits in Knee Function after ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020, 54, 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stefanyshyn, D.J.; Nigg, B.M. Contribution of the Lower Extremity Joints to Mechanical Energy in Running Vertical Jumps and Running Long Jumps. J. Sports Sci. 1998, 16, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wilczyński, B.; Zorena, K.; Ślęzak, D. Dynamic Knee Valgus in Single-Leg Movement Tasks. Potentially Modifiable Factors and Exercise Training Options. A Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sado, N.; Yoshioka, S.; Fukashiro, S. Free-Leg Side Elevation of Pelvis in Single-Leg Jump Is a Substantial Advantage over Double-Leg Jump for Jumping Height Generation. J. Biomech. 2020, 104, 109751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vadász, K.; Varga, M.; Sebesi, B.; Hortobágyi, T.; Murlasits, Z.; Atlasz, T.; Fésüs, Á.; Váczi, M. Frontal Plane Neurokinematic Mechanisms Stabilizing the Knee and the Pelvis during Unilateral Countermovement Jump in Young Trained Males. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ueno, R.; Navacchia, A.; DiCesare, C.A.; Ford, K.R.; Myer, G.D.; Ishida, T.; Tohyama, H.; Hewett, T.E. Knee Abduction Moment Is Predicted by Lower Gluteus Medius Force and Larger Vertical and Lateral Ground Reaction Forces during Drop Vertical Jump in Female Athletes. J. Biomech. 2020, 103, 109669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chang, E.; Norcross, M.F.; Johnson, S.T.; Kitagawa, T.; Hoffman, M. Relationships between Explosive and Maximal Triple Extensor Muscle Performance and Vertical Jump Height. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 545–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tsiokanos, A.; Kellis, E.; Jamurtas, A.; Kellis, S. The Relationship between Jumping Performance and Isokinetic Strength of Hip and Knee Extensors and Ankle Plantar Flexors. Isokinet. Exerc. Sci. 2002, 10, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Harrison, B.; Firth, W.; Rogers, S.; Tipple, J.; Marsden, J.; Freeman, J.A.; Hough, A.D.; Shum, G.L.K. The Relationship between Isokinetic Performance of Hip and Knee and Jump Performance in University Rugby Players. Isokinet. Exerc. Sci. 2013, 21, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Macedo Alfano Moura, T.B.; Alves Okazaki, V.H. Kinematic and Kinetic Variable Determinants on Vertical Jump Performance: A Review. MOJ Sports Med. 2022, 5, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mcerlain-Naylor, S.; King, M.; Pain, M.T.G. Determinants of Countermovement Jump Performance: A Kinetic and Kinematic Analysis. J. Sports Sci. 2014, 32, 1805–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Puig-Diví, A.; Escalona-Marfil, C.; Padullés-Riu, J.M.; Busquets, A.; Padullés-Chando, X.; Marcos-Ruiz, D. Validity and Reliability of the Kinovea Program in Obtaining Angles and Distances Using Coordinates in 4 Perspectives. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Marušič, J.; Marković, G.; Šarabon, N. Reliability of a New Portable Dynamometer for Assessing Hip and Lower Limb Strength. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Maffiuletti, N.A.; Aagaard, P.; Blazevich, A.J.; Folland, J.; Tillin, N.; Duchateau, J. Rate of Force Development: Physiological and Methodological Considerations. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2016, 116, 1091–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jaric, S.; Mirkov, D.; Markovic, G. Normalizing Physical Performance Tests for Body Size: A Proposal for Standardization. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005, 19, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. McMahon, J.J.; Suchomel, T.J.; Lake, J.P.; Comfort, P. Understanding the Key Phases of the Countermovement Jump Force-Time Curve. Strength Cond. J. 2018, 40, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Akoglu, H. User’s Guide to Correlation Coefficients. Turk. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 18, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kotsifaki, A.; Korakakis, V.; Graham-Smith, P.; Sideris, V.; Whiteley, R. Vertical and Horizontal Hop Performance: Contributions of the Hip, Knee, and Ankle. Sports Health 2021, 13, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. De Marche Baldon, R.; Lobato, D.F.M.; Carvalho, L.P.; Wun, P.Y.L.; Presotti, C.V.; Serrão, F.V. Relationships between Eccentric Hip Isokinetic Torque and Functional Performance. J. Sport Rehabil. 2012, 21, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kariyama, Y.; Hobara, H.; Zushi, K. Differences in Take-off Leg Kinetics between Horizontal and Vertical Single-Leg Rebound Jumps. Sports Biomech. 2017, 16, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Floría, P.; Gómez-Landero, L.A.; Suárez-Arrones, L.; Harrison, A.J. Kinetic and Kinematic Analysis for Assessing the Differences in Countermovement Jump Performance in Rugby Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 2533–2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sánchez-Sixto, A.; Harrison, A.J.; Floría, P. Larger Countermovement Increases the Jump Height of Countermovement Jump. Sports 2018, 6, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. De Bleecker, C.; Vermeulen, S.; De Blaiser, C.; Willems, T.; De Ridder, R.; Roosen, P. Relationship Between Jump-Landing Kinematics and Lower Extremity Overuse Injuries in Physically Active Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2020, 50, 1515–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pedley, J.S.; Lloyd, R.S.; Read, P.J.; Moore, I.S.; De Ste Croix, M.; Myer, G.D.; Oliver, J.L. Utility of Kinetic and Kinematic Jumping and Landing Variables as Predictors of Injury Risk: A Systematic Review. J. Sci. Sport Exerc. 2020, 2, 287–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bakker, R.; Tomescu, S.; Brenneman, E.; Hangalur, G.; Laing, A.; Chandrashekar, N. Effect of Sagittal Plane Mechanics on ACL Strain during Jump Landing. J. Orthop. Res. 2016, 34, 1636–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kotsifaki, A.; Van Rossom, S.; Whiteley, R.; Korakakis, V.; Bahr, R.; Sideris, V.; Jonkers, I. Single Leg Vertical Jump Performance Identifies Knee Function Deficits at Return to Sport after ACL Reconstruction in Male Athletes. Br. J. Sports Med. 2022, 56, 490–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Podraza, J.T.; White, S.C. Effect of Knee Flexion Angle on Ground Reaction Forces, Knee Moments and Muscle Co-Contraction during an Impact-like Deceleration Landing: Implications for the Non-Contact Mechanism of ACL Injury. Knee 2010, 17, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Martinez, A.F.; Lessi, G.C.; Carvalho, C.; Serrao, F.V. Association of Hip and Trunk Strength with Three-Dimensional Trunk, Hip, and Knee Kinematics during a Single-Leg Drop Vertical Jump. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 1902–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Patti, A.; Gervasi, M.; Giustino, V.; Figlioli, F.; Canzone, A.; Drid, P.; Thomas, E.; Messina, G.; Vicari, D.S.S.; Palma, A.; et al. The Influence of Ankle Mobility and Foot Stability on Jumping Ability and Landing Mechanics: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2024, 9, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Maćkała, K.; Fostiak, M.; Kowalski, K. Selected Determinants of Acceleration in the 100m Sprint. J. Hum. Kinet. 2015, 45, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Francis, P.; Gray, K.; Perrem, N.; Driban, J.B. The Relationship between Concentric Hip Abductor Strength and Performance of the Y-Balance Test (YBT). Int. J. Athl. Ther. Train. 2018, 23, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lanza, M.B.; Rock, K.; Marchese, V.; Addison, O.; Gray, V.L. Hip Abductor and Adductor Rate of Torque Development and Muscle Activation, but Not Muscle Size, Are Associated with Functional Performance. Front. Physiol. 2021, 12, 744153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Santana, J.C.; McGill, S.M.; Brown, L.E. Anterior and Posterior Serape: The Rotational Core. Strength Cond. J. 2015, 37, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Haksever, B.; Micoogullari, M.; Soylu, C.; Baltaci, Y.G. Does Gluteus Medius Muscle Strength Affect Balance and Jumping Performance in Elite Female Handball Players? Sci. Sports 2022, 37, e1–e151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kollock, R.; Van Lunen, B.L.; Ringleb, S.I.; Onate, J.A. Measures of Functional Performance and Their Association with Hip and Thigh Strength. J. Athl. Train. 2015, 50, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nuzzo, J.L.; Mcbride, J.M.; Cormie, P.; Mccaulley, G.O. Relationship between Countermovement Jump Performance and Multijoint Isometric and Dynamic Tests of Strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 699–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Suchomel, T.J.; Sole, C.J.; Bellon, C.R.; Stone, M.H. Dynamic Strength Index: Relationships with Common Performance Variables and Contextualization of Training Recommendations. J. Hum. Kinet. 2020, 74, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Impellizzeri, F.M.; Rampinini, E.; Maffiuletti, N.; Marcora, S.M. A Vertical Jump Force Test for Assessing Bilateral Strength Asymmetry in Athletes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2007, 39, 2044–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Applsci 15 04651 g001
Figure 1. A flowchart of the study procedures and measures.
Figure 1. A flowchart of the study procedures and measures.
Applsci 15 04651 g001
Applsci 15 04651 g002
Figure 2. Presentation of relative (a) and absolute (b) kinematic variables in the sagittal plane.
Figure 2. Presentation of relative (a) and absolute (b) kinematic variables in the sagittal plane.
Applsci 15 04651 g002
Applsci 15 04651 g003
Figure 3. Presentation of relative (a) and absolute (b) kinematic variables in the frontal plane.
Figure 3. Presentation of relative (a) and absolute (b) kinematic variables in the frontal plane.
Applsci 15 04651 g003
Applsci 15 04651 g004
Figure 4. Correlations between single-leg countermovement jump height, hip maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) variables, hip rate of torque development (RTD) variables, and kinematic variables obtained from frontal and sagittal planes. ABD—hip abduction; ADD—hip adduction; *—statistically significant correlation (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Correlations between single-leg countermovement jump height, hip maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) variables, hip rate of torque development (RTD) variables, and kinematic variables obtained from frontal and sagittal planes. ABD—hip abduction; ADD—hip adduction; *—statistically significant correlation (p < 0.05).
Applsci 15 04651 g004
Applsci 15 04651 g005
Figure 5. A graphical summary of the study results. MVIC—maximal voluntary isometric strength and RTD—rate of torque development during explosive isometric contractions.
Figure 5. A graphical summary of the study results. MVIC—maximal voluntary isometric strength and RTD—rate of torque development during explosive isometric contractions.
Applsci 15 04651 g005
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of single-leg counter movement jump kinetic and kinematic variables and isometric hip strength variables.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of single-leg counter movement jump kinetic and kinematic variables and isometric hip strength variables.
TestVariable NameMean (SD)MaximumMinimum
SLCMJHeight (m)0.18 (0.03)0.260.12
Hip
MVIC
variables		Abduction (Nm/kg0.67)8.51 (1.59)12.674.73
Adduction (Nm/kg0.67)9.90 (2.27)16.503.52
Flexion (Nm/kg0.67)10.10 (2.23)15.172.68
Extension (Nm/kg0.67)10.09 (2.31)15.653.90
Hip
RTD
variables		Abduction (Nm/kg0.67/s)34.59 (18.56)85.702.73
Adduction (Nm/kg0.67/s)44.49 (22.24)98.343.64
Flexion (Nm/kg0.67/s)59.68 (33.00)158.715.84
Extension (Nm/kg0.67/s)38.99 (22.18)104.521.74
Sagittal plane
kinematic
variables		Knee angle (°)113.95 (6.78)131.6799.18
Hip angle (°)108.06 (10.02)144.0893.06
Shin inclination (°)30.98 (3.54)40.6425.43
Femur inclination (°)35.21 (5.54)47.8218.93
Trunk inclination (°)38.31 (9.23)63.5213.02
Frontal plane
kinematic
variables		Knee angle (°)172.14 (4.87)178.76159.15
Hip angle (°)77.02 (11.33)88.8321.88
Trunk angle (°)110.98 (14.38)169.8791.61
Shin inclination (°)6.69 (4.13)19.060.55
Femur inclination (°)8.91 (4.85)19.860.17
Pelvis inclination (°)81.86 (11.74)89.6226.37
Trunk inclination (°)21.15 (12.88)71.535.10
SLCMJ—single-leg countermovement jump; MVIC—maximal voluntary isometric strength; and RTD—rate of torque development during explosive isometric contractions.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Spudić, D.; Ribič, A.; Šarabon, N.; Pori, P. Relationship Between Single-Leg Countermovement Jump Height, Technique, and Hip Strength in Elite Handball Players. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 4651. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094651

AMA Style

Spudić D, Ribič A, Šarabon N, Pori P. Relationship Between Single-Leg Countermovement Jump Height, Technique, and Hip Strength in Elite Handball Players. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(9):4651. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094651

Chicago/Turabian Style

Spudić, Darjan, Ažbe Ribič, Nejc Šarabon, and Primož Pori. 2025. "Relationship Between Single-Leg Countermovement Jump Height, Technique, and Hip Strength in Elite Handball Players" Applied Sciences 15, no. 9: 4651. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094651

APA Style

Spudić, D., Ribič, A., Šarabon, N., & Pori, P. (2025). Relationship Between Single-Leg Countermovement Jump Height, Technique, and Hip Strength in Elite Handball Players. Applied Sciences, 15(9), 4651. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094651

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop