## 1 Introduction
It is not surprising to see the primary contributor to the total positive work done is different between the CMJ and DJ, given that these two jump actions focus on different SSC mechanics [4; 15]. [PERSON] et al. [15] revealed that the total joint work was determined by the range of motion of lower extremity joints during DJ. Specifically, the joint that has the largest degree of flexion attenuates the majority of the landing force and thereby generating significantly higher negative works, compared to other joints where flexion is minimized [15]. In addition, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [16] reported that the ankle joint was the primary contributor (45-50%), with the knee and hip joints being the second (30-35%) and third (15-25%) contributors to the total negative work during 60 cm drop heights (target heights were manipulated to 40, 60, and 80 cm). Similar results were supported by [PERSON] et al. [17], whereby the joint work were largest in the ankle joint (negative: \(--\)1.00 to \(-\)2.20 J/kg; positive: \(\sim\)1.60 to 2.00 J/kg), followed by the knee (negative: \(\sim\)\(-\)0.75 to \(-\)1.60 J/kg; positive: \(\sim\)0.85 to 1.00 J/kg) and hip joints (negative: \(\sim\)\(-\)0.20 to \(-\)0.50 J/kg; positive: \(\sim\)0.50 to 0.85 J/kg) at all drop heights (30, 60, 90, 120 cm). The aforementioned results partly support the notion that the ankle and knee joints are likely to be the biggest contributors to overall joint work done during the DJ [15]. Thus, this raises the question as to whether athletes will still rely on the ankle and knee joints during the rebound jump during the CMRJ, given its similarities. There is currently a scarcity of studies investigating joint work during the CMRJ via a comprehensive joint kinetic analysis. For instance, [PERSON] et al. (2018) compared jump heights between single and double leg CMRJ, showing that the mean differences in hip joint works in the sagittal (negative: \(--0.56\) J/kg; positive: \(\sim\)0.10 J/kg) and frontal planes (negative: \(--0.75\) J/kg; positive: \(\sim\)0.95 J/kg) during the instant at take-off largely explained the discrepancy in jump heights. However, to the best of our knowledge, the difference in the total works of lower extremity joints during the braking and propulsive phases of CMRJ and the reliability of measured metrics in CMRJ have yet to be investigated. Therefore, the aims of this study were to (1) investigate the between-session reliability of metrics measured during CMRJ, CMJ, and DJ tests and (2) analyze the jump strategy employed in these actions by comparing differences between kinetic variables (negative and positive joint work and joint contribution to total work), jump height, and strategy-based metrics measured from CMJ, DJ, and CMRJ tests. Understanding the reliability of metrics in these jump actions and the similarity between CMRJ, CMJ, and DJ tests will provide valuable insights for practitioners looking to utilize CMRJ as an alternative assessment method ([PERSON] et al., 2018; [PERSON] et al., 2018). It was hypothesized that (1) metrics measured in the CMRJ would demonstrate similar reliability to the other two tests and (2) metrics measured between jumps would show nonsignificant differences ([PERSON] et al., 2018).