## 3 Results  
This study's data are presented in Table 4 as means and standard deviation (SD). The normal distribution of all variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, which indicated that all variables followed a normal distribution (\(p>0.05\)). Analyzing the results, we find that all body composition parameters recorded lower values in the final tests than in the initial. The results of both groups highlight that the training process positively affected body parameters and influenced body composition parameters. The Skewness values ranged between \(-0.575\) and \(1.684\), respectively, and the Kurtosis values ranged between \(-0.708\) and \(4.111\), reflecting a normal data asymmetry. The results in Table 5 reflect that the differences between the initial and final testing, for all body composition parameters of the study groups, were statistically significant, where \(p<0.001\). The decrease in body mass values (\(\Delta X=-8.950\)) and body fat percentage (\(\Delta X=-4.640\)) were greater compared to the decreases in the body parameters of Group 1--Plyometric Stair Jump group. The values of the mean differences fell between the lower and upper limits of the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **Group** & **Test** & **Min.** & **Max.** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Skewness** & **Kurtosis** & **Shapiro-Wilk \(p\)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Height (H)} & G1 & \multirow{2}{*}{IT} & 176.00 & 192.50 & 183.430 & 4.692 & 0.624 & 0.616 & 0.628 \\ \cline{3-10}  & G2 & & 175.00 & 194.00 & 185.700 & 6.272 & \(-0.575\) & \(-0.708\) & 0.453 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Body mass (BM)} & G1 & \multirow{2}{*}{IT} & 72.00 & 99.00 & 81.600 & 7.152 & 1.684 & 4.111 & 0.053 \\ \cline{2-10}  & G2 & & 75.00 & 89.00 & 83.300 & 4.473 & \(-0.396\) & \(-0.490\) & 0.519 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10}  & G1 & & 65.00 & 84.00 & 73.400 & 6.380 & 0.206 & \(-0.754\) & 0.692 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10}  & G2 & & 62.50 & 85.00 & 74.350 & 6.633 & 0.070 & \(-0.001\) & 0.501 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Body fat percentage (BFP)} & G1 & \multirow{2}{*}{IT} & 14.20 & 21.60 & 17.050 & 2.346 & 0.958 & 0.106 & 0.252 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10}  & G2 & & 11.60 & 19.20 & 15.510 & 2.422 & \(-0.281\) & \(-0.688\) & 0.714 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10}  & G1 & & 10.50 & 16.50 & 12.540 & 1.869 & 1.287 & 1.246 & 0.093 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10}  & G2 & & 9.10 & 13.80 & 10.870 & 1.415 & 1.043 & 0.745 & 0.357 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of body composition parameters. 95% CI for all parameters of the groups. The Cohen's d values were negative, falling between \(-2.362\) and \(-1.622\), which highlighted a very large negative effect, indicating the positive impact of the training programs on body composition parameters. The analysis between the study groups in Table 6 shows that the differences were not statistically significant for height and body mass at the two tests. The percentage of body fat was statistically significant at the final test, at \(p=0.019\), but between the initial tests of the groups, the difference was statistically insignificant, at \(p>0.05\). [PERSON]'s values highlighted a small effect for body mass with d \(<0.3\), but for fat mass at the initial test, the effect size was large with d = 0.646, and it was very large at the final test, with d \(>0.8\). The results in Table 7 show a normal distribution of the data according to the Shapiro-Wilk values, with \(p>0.05\). Analyzing the Skewness and Kurtosis values, we find a symmetrical distribution of the results. Also, analyzing the mean values between the tests, we find that the final test results are higher than the initial test for all fitness parameters of the study groups.