## 3 Results  
Descriptive statistics and interday reliability of RCMJ-30 parameters obtained from the MARS are presented in Table 1. The fatigue and endurance index demonstrated poor interday reliability (ICC = 0.32-0.42). Maximum jump height showed moderate reliability (ICC = 0.62), while mean jump height, representing the average jump height over 30 s, exhibited good interday reliability (ICC = 0.83). No parameters showed evidence of learning effects across the four days (\(p>0.05\)). Dominant and non-dominant leg CMJ performances with different recovery intervals following PAPE protocol are presented in Table 2.  
A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significant differences among the five experimental conditions for both jump height and flight time in the dominant leg. For jump height, the analysis yielded a significant effect: F\({}_{(4,96)}\) = 9.955, \(p<0.00\), \(1-\beta\) = 0.95, and \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.30 (large effect). Similarly, flight time differed significantly across conditions (F\({}_{(4,96)}\) = 7.82, \(p=0.01\), \(1-\beta\) = 0.88, and \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.25, large effect). Bonferroni-corrected post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that the R8 condition resulted in significantly greater jump height compared with baseline (\(p<0.00\), \(d=1.96\)), R2 (\(p<0.00\), \(d=1.57\)), and R6 (\(p=0.01\), \(d=0.95\)). Additionally, flight time in the R8 condition was significantly higher than both the baseline (\(p=0.01\), \(d=0.88\)) and R2 (\(p=0.01\), \(d=0.66\)). Furthermore, the R6 condition was significantly higher than the baseline (\(p=0.01\), \(d=0.50\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Session 1** & **Session 2** & **Session 3** & **Session 4** & **F** & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} **ICC(2,1)** \\ **(95\% CI)** \\ \end{tabular} & **SEM** \\ \hline Maximum jump height & 0.23 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.693 & 0.56 & 0.023 & 0.62 & 0.03 \\ (m) & (0.05) & (0.05) & (0.05) & (0.05) & & & & & (0.43–0.79) & 0.03 \\ Mean jump height & 0.16 & 0.15 & 0.154 & 0.16 & 2.372 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.83 & 0.02 \\ (m) & (0.05) & (0.04) & (0.03) & (0.04) & 2.372 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.02 \\ Fatigue index & 65.33 & 66.35 & 60.56 & 63.47 & & & & & 0.42 \\ (\%) & (14.75) & (12.34) & (16.98) & (13.31) & 1.190 & 0.32 & 0.05 & 0.42 & 10.18 \\ Endurance index & 86.60 & 89.01 & 82.44 & 77.43 & & & & & (0.21–0.44) & 10.88 \\ (\%) & (18.35) & (17.35) & (13.70) & (10.98) & 3.077 & 0.06 & 0.12 & 0.32 & 10.88 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
Notes. Data are reported as mean (standard deviation). ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; SEM = standard error of measurement.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and interday reliability of 30 s repetitive countermovement jump (RCMJ-30) parameters. In the non-dominant leg, a similar one-way repeated measures revealed statistically significant differences for both jump height (F\({}_{(4,\,96)}\) = 7.583, \(p\) < 0.00, \(1\) - \(\beta\) = 0.88, and \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.24, large effect) and flight time (F\({}_{(4,\,96)}\) = 8.661, \(p\) = 0.00, \(1\) - \(\beta\) = 0.86, and \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.27, large effect). Post hoc analyses revealed that in the R8 condition, jump height was significantly higher compared with both baseline (\(p\) < 0.00, \(d\) = 2.00) and R2 (\(p\) = 0.01, \(d\) = 0.95). Furthermore, the R4 condition resulted in a significantly higher jump height compared with baseline (\(p\) = 0.01, \(d\) = 0.79). The flight time in the R8 condition was significantly greater than that in both baseline (\(p\) < 0.00, \(d\) = 1.33) and R4 (\(p\) = 0.03, \(d\) = 0.67). The R4 condition also showed significantly greater flight time compared with baseline (\(p\) = 0.05, \(d\) = 0.65). No significant differences were observed across the five conditions for mean power or velocity, in either or non-dominant leg (\(p\) > 0.05). The line chart illustrates significant differences in R8 compared with baseline and the other recovery intervals (Figure 2).