###### Abstract  
This study aims to comprehensively assess the accuracy and precision of five different devices and by incorporating a variety of analytical approaches for measuring countermovement jump height: Qualisys motion system; Force platform; Ergojump; an Accelerometer, and self-made Abalakov jump belt. Twenty-seven male and female physical education students (23.5 \(\pm\) 3.8 years; height 170 \(\pm\) 9.1 cm and body mass 69.1 \(\pm\) 11.4 kg) performed three countermovement jumps simultaneously measured using five devices. The 3D measured displacement obtained through the Qualisys device was considered in this study as the reference value. The best accuracy (difference from 3D measured displacement) and precision (standard deviation of differences) for countermovement jump measurement was found using the Abalakov jump belt (0.8 \(\pm\) 14.7 mm); followed by the Force platform when employing a double integration method (1.5 \(\pm\) 13.9 mm) and a flight-time method employed using Qualisys motion system data (6.1 \(\pm\) 17.1 mm). The least accuracy was obtained for the Ergojump (\(-\)72.9 mm) employing its analytical tools and then for the accelerometer and Force platform using flight time approximations (\(-\)52.8 mm and \(-\)45.3 mm, respectively). The worst precision (\(\pm\)122.7 mm) was obtained through double integration of accelerometer acceleration data. This study demonstrated that jump height measurement accuracy is both device and analytical-approach-dependent and that accuracy and precision in jump height measurement are achievable with simple, inexpensive equipment such as the Abalakov jump belt. type=digital, frame=  
can be broadly grouped according to their domain of application, i.e., laboratory or field tests. Laboratory tests typically involve three-dimensional motion capture or ground reaction force measurement systems, while field tests typically incorporate contact mats, accelerometers, jump belts, and vertical jump reaching devices. Laboratory devices are by far more expensive and time-consuming. The literature demonstrates that there are significant differences among different jump height estimation methods [8; 11] which can be described as direct methods such as (i) tape and (ii) marker tracking; and indirect methods such as (iii) flight-time, (iv) take-off velocity, (v) impulse-momentum and (vi) work energy. In the direct methods, the jump height is assessed by using a measurement tape, marking the maximum height, or tracking marker positions during the recording of the jump [6; 12]. For the indirect approach, the jump height is estimated based on the kinematic parameters, such as flight-time and vertical acceleration of the subject's centre of mass [10]. Motion capture systems, such as Qualisys Motion System (QMS), are considered by many as the gold standard or reference equipment [6; 11; 13]. However, due to their complexity, experienced investigators must operate them and analyse the data. Furthermore, set up and participant preparation time can be extensive. Such constraints make motion capture systems impractical when measurement involves many participants. Since the measurements rely on the infrared reflection of markers, the tests are often restricted to laboratory settings to prevent perturbations created by sunlight and to protect expensive equipment from other environmental conditions. On account of their accuracy in lab-based settings, motion capture systems have been used by several authors for the validation of alternative field-based jump height measurement methods [6; 14]. Force platform (FP) measurement is one of the most accurate measurement technologies commonly used for biomechanical investigations, and these have been used to assess jump height using vertical ground reaction force [3; 7; 11; 13]. Many authors consider them an alternative gold standard device to the motion capture approach [8; 13]. FP's are typically expensive, difficult to move to the field, and require a long time to analyse the data.