All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear authors,
The reviewers considered that all issues pointed out were adequately addressed and recommended the acceptance for publication. Congratulations on your work.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have successfully addressed all aspects of my previous revision, so I recommend accepting the paper.
No comments
No comments
No comments
I am satisfied with all the amendments / responses to my previous comments.
I am satisfied with all the amendments / responses to my previous comments.
I am satisfied with all the amendments / responses to my previous comments.
I am satisfied with all the amendments / responses to my previous comments.
Dear authors, congratulations on your work. Reviewers have made important comments including the need to reinforce the argument regarding the value of the changes to be expected and improve the discussion in light of practical applications.
Please, consider the reviewer's suggestions a re-submmit a new version for further evaluation.
Regards
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
The authors investigated the error in jump height estimation using the flight time method, considering the changes in ankle knee position between takeoff and landing. This is a simulation based on an anthropometric model.
I found the study very interesting and brings important information to the literature.
The study appears to have no important issues from a methodological point of view.
I have just a few comments to discuss and question the practical applications of the study.
It is recognized that all motor tests used in physical assessment inherently entail biological error and variability, which cannot be entirely eradicated. What should be prioritized is a thorough familiarization of individuals to mitigate such errors. With this in mind, the authors should contemplate for a future study conducting an error analysis in a real-world setting with well familiarized subjects, calculating the variability (error), and subsequently determining whether it falls within acceptable margins.
Another aspect to consider is that in an evaluation, the paramount concern is the consistency of measurements. Even if the estimated metric doesn't precisely correspond to the actual metric (i.e. agreement), what matters most is its reliability. This is crucial when monitoring the acute or chronic effects of training.
In regards to proposing an equation to adjust the values, I found the spreadsheet quite interesting. However, what concerns me is the feasibility of acquiring angular measurements, which could potentially pose a significant challenge in field assessments.
Please try to contemplate the aspects mentioned above in your discussion.
The study is relatively well written and clear. The information provided is sufficient for the reader to understand the context. For further clarity, please consider the use of single 'terms' throughout, e.g. ankle joint angle. There are appear to be some errors with referencing (maybe some field code error) and some references appear complete.
There was sufficient detail & information to replicate they study, supported by appropriate references.
The findings from the simulated data showed large errors. The authors discuss their findings in the context of athletic training, rehabilitation etc. This context, however, is not substantiated. For example, an example of flat-footed landing is presented (very unlikely to happen, realistically, and easily detectable by the tester) as well as an example of change of 10 degrees (30 degrees - 20 degrees). None of these examples, however, appear to be based on literature. It would help the argument if some indication of experimental data could provide /support the value of the changes to be expected (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5120166/) to strengthen the argument.
The calculator is very useful, based on the what the study is discussion. The manuscript also suggests that information was provided on setting up the recording device and the subsequent analysis. I was not able to find those. In any case, if those refer to the foot image (Fig 2), then a screenshot from these measurements from the Kinovea window or an annotated image would have been clearer.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.