# Acceleration Capacity and Vertical Jump Performance Relationship in Prepubertal Children
## 3 Results  
A significant difference was observed between girls and boys for the APHV (\(p<0.001\)). No difference was observed for the other anthropometric data (Table 1). Similarly, no significant sex effect was observed in sprint and horizontal jump performance (Table 2).  
Vertical jump height was significantly influenced by the modality (\(p<0.001\); \(\mathrm{np2}=0.619\)) and by sex (\(p<0.001\); \(\mathrm{np2}=0.263\)), but no sex-modality interaction was observed (\(p=0.470\); \(\mathrm{np2}=0.031\)). Post-hoc tests indicated that vertical jump height was higher during CMJa compared to CMJ (\(p<0.001\); d = 1.519) and SJ (\(p<0.001\); d = 1.479). No difference was observed between SJ and CMJ (\(p=0.990\); d = 0.040). Sex differences revealed higher vertical jump values for boys compared to girls (\(p<0.001\); d = 0.574).  
Significant relationships were observed between the three vertical jumps (SJ, CMJ, and CMJa) and all sprinting performances (5 m, 10 m, and 20 m time) (Figure 1; Table S1). No correlation was observed between the broad jump and sprint performance. A significant relationship was observed between the hop test and 20 m time (\(p=0.014\); r = \(-0.506\)). Significant relationships were also observed between SJ, CMJ, and CMJa. However, the broad jump performance was correlated with CMJ and CMJa performance. In addition to that, CMJa performance was also correlated with the hop test.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Girls–Boys** \\ **Mean** \\ **Values** \\ \end{tabular} & **Girls** & **Boys** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **\(p\)-Value** \\ **(Sex Effect)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Difference** \\ **(95\%CI)** \\ \end{tabular} & **d** \\ \hline
5 m time & \(1.38\) & \(1.36\) & \(1.41\) & \(0.360\) & \(-0.04\) & \(-0.376\) \\ (s) & (\(\pm 0.11\)) & (\(\pm 0.09\)) & (\(\pm 0.12\)) & & \(0.919\) & \(0.01\) \\ \hline
10 m time & \(2.35\) & \(2.46\) & \(2.36\) & \(0.919\) & \(0.01\) & \((-0.74;0.83)\) & \(0.042\) \\ (s) & (\(\pm 0.14\)) & (\(\pm 0.34\)) & (\(\pm 0.17\)) & \(0.318\) & \(0.09\) & \(0.411\) \\ \hline
20 m time & \(4.13\) & \(4.19\) & \(4.13\) & \(0.27\) & \(0.318\) & \(0.09\) & \(0.411\) \\ (s) & (\(\pm 0.23\)) & (\(\pm 0.18\)) & (\(\pm 0.27\)) & & \((-0.39;1.20)\) & \(0.411\) \\ \hline SJ (cm) & \(19.48\) & \(18.28\) & \(20.22\) & & \(-1.95\) & \\ (\(\pm 2.76\)) & (\(\pm 2.51\)) & (\(\pm 2.71\)) & & \((-5.19;1.31)\) & \\ \hline CMJ (cm) & \(19.44\) & \(17.91\) & \(20.39\) & \(<0.001\) ** & \(-2.48\) & \(0.574\) \\  & (\(\pm 2.33\)) & (\(\pm 1.35\)) & (\(\pm 2.33\)) & & \((-5.73;0.78)\) & \(0.574\) \\ \hline CMJa (cm) & \(23.49\) & \(21.51\) & \(24.72\) & & \(-3.209\) & \\  & (\(\pm 3.40\)) & (\(\pm 1.86\)) & (\(\pm 3.59\)) & & \((-6.46;0.05)\) & \\ \hline Broad jump & \(1.31\) & \(1.27\) & \(1.42\) & \(0.115\) & \(-0.09\) & \(-0.658\) \\ (m) & (\(\pm 15.06\)) & (\(\pm 0.07\)) & (\(\pm 0.12\)) & \(0.158\) & \(-0.05\) & \\ \hline Hop test & \(0.87\) & \(0.85\) & \(0.90\) & \(0.158\) & \(-0.05\) & \\ (m) & (\(\pm 9.00\)) & (\(\pm 0.06\)) & (\(\pm 0.10\)) & \(0.158\) & \(-0.05\) & \\  & & & & & \((-1.45;0.23)\) & \(-0.617\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values are mean (\(\pm 5\)D). SJ: squat jump; CMJ: countermovement jump; CMJa: countermovement jump with arms. The 2-way ANOVA revealed a main sex effect for all vertical jumps. For that reason, the main effect is only presented. The significant sex effect is represented by ** (\(p<0.01\)).  
\end{table}
Table 2: Sprint and jump performance.