## 3 Results
### Reliability of the ADR Jumping  
The test-retest reliability on a single day (internal consistency) [59] was calculated from the data obtained from the first 5 jumps, and corresponding results were produced for consecutive jump pairings (Table 2). The ICC values indicated test-retest correlations that were interpreted as near perfect consistencies (ICC = 0.94-0.98) for the within-session test-retest reliability. On the other hand, the CCC also showed high values of (CCC = 0.97), having very high precision and near perfect accuracy values (\(\rho\) = 0.94 and \(C_{b}\) = 0.99). The CVs were similar (4.21%).  
In terms of noise, the SEM values were 1.18 cm (0.70 cm-1.37 cm) on average for the forefoot. Furthermore, the signal-to-noise ratio was less than unity in both cases, implying that the noise was greater than the minimum change in practical interest.  
Internal consistency between consecutive attempts was analyzed using the Bland-Altman analysis (Figure 5), which showed that all points were within the upper and lower LoA. The systematic error showed values ranging from \(-\)0.7 to 0.04 cm.  
On the other hand, the proportionality of the error was negligible as the slopes observed for the fit lines varied from 3.10\({}^{-3}\) to 0.08. The observation of regression plots showed very strong and near perfect linear relationships between consecutive trials (0.84-0.95), with slopes very near unity and intercepts ranging from \(-\)0.6 to \(-\)3.7 cm.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **2–1** & **3–2** & **4–3** & **5–4** & **Mean of the Test** \\ \hline Change in the mean & 0.73 & \(-\)0.05 & 0.30 & 0.60 & – \\ IC-95\% lower & \(-\)0.23 & \(-\)0.96 & 0.55 & 0.11 & – \\ IC-95\% upper & 1.69 & 0.87 & 1.15 & 1.09 & – \\ ICC & 0.94 & 0.95 & 0.95 & 0.98 & 0.96 \\ IC-95\% lower & 0.85 & 0.86 & 0.87 & 0.95 & 0.91 \\ IC-95\% upper & 0.98 & 0.98 & 0.98 & 0.99 & 0.98 \\ CCC & 0.92 & 0.93 & 0.94 & 0.97 & 0.94 \\ IC-95\% lower & 0.77 & 0.80 & 0.81 & 0.91 & 0.82 \\ IC-95\% upper & 0.97 & 0.98 & 0.98 & 0.99 & 0.98 \\ \(\rho\) (precision) & 0.93 & 0.93 & 0.94 & 0.97 & 0.94 \\ \(C_{b}\) (accuracy) & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.99 \\ SEM (cm) & 1.37 & 1.31 & 1.22 & 0.70 & 1.18 \\ IC-95\% lower & 1.03 & 0.99 & 0.92 & 0.53 & 1.00 \\ IC-95\% upper & 2.07 & 1.99 & 1.85 & 1.06 & 1.47 \\ CV (\%) & 5.03 & 4.70 & 4.37 & 2.48 & 4.21 \\ SWC (cm) & 0.39 & 0.37 & 0.34 & 0.20 & 0.33 \\ IC-95\% lower & 0.29 & 0.28 & 0.26 & 0.15 & 0.28 \\ IC-95\% upper & 0.59 & 0.56 & 0.52 & 0.30 & 0.42 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* IC-95%: confidence intervals at 95%; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; CCC: concordance coefficient correlation; \(\rho\): precision derived from CCC; C\({}_{b}\): accuracy derived from CCC; SEM: standard error of measurement; CV: coefficient of variation; SWC: smallest worthwhile change.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Within-session test–retest reliability for the _ADR jumping_ photocell between five trials.  
Figure 5: Within-session consistency for consecutive trials. (**Left**) Bland–Altman plots for consecutive pairs of jumps between ADR and MoCAP. The pointed line: the mean of the differences (systematic error); dashed lines: the upper and lower LoA (random error); the continuous line: the ideal agreement; the dashed and dotted line: the regression line of the differences (a proportional error); Mean: mean of the differences; SD: standard deviation; dashed area: confidence intervals for 95% of the LoAs and mean. (**Right**) Passing-Bablock regression for consecutive trials. The dotted line: linear regression; SEE: standard error of the estimate.