Observational Study Medicine ®

Analysis of the kinematic variables that predict

jump serve efficacy among volleyball players
Mohd Arshad Bari, PhDa, Ali Azeez Aneed Al Mijbilee, PhDa, Shibili Nuhmani, PhDb, Amir Iqbal, MPTc,* ,
Ahmad H. Alghadir, PhDc

Abstract
In volleyball, a strong correlation exists between the proper application of kinematics factors and the serve results. Therefore,
this study compared the kinematics parameters of the volleyball jump serve among different functional classes and established
an appropriate multilinear regression model of performance. This correlational observational study involved thirty male collegiate
volleyball players categorized into under twenty-three (U-23) men, under twenty-one (U-21) junior men, and under nineteen (U-19)
youth boys. Data acquisition entailed the utilization of synchronized cameras to capture the volleyball serves meticulously, while
subsequent data analysis was conducted through the implementation of silicon coach–pro 8 motion analysis software. Analysis
of variance and multiple linear regressions were performed to analyze data, with a predetermined significance level of P < .05.
Jump serve analysis showed significant mean differences in selected major kinematic variables among all 3 classes (U-23 men,
U-21 junior men, and U-19 youth boys). U-23 men Model-3, which includes 3 independent variables (approach velocity [AV],
shoulder extension angles during the cocking phase, and center of gravity [CG] height), predicted velocity with an R-square
of 1.00, indicating that the selected independent variable caused 100% variation in ball velocity (BV), whereas models 1 and 2
showed 99% variation in BV, respectively. The U-21 Junior men Model-2, which includes 2 independent variables (height of CG
and shoulder extension angles during the cocking phase), predicted velocity with an R-square of 9.80, indicating that the selected
independent variable caused a 98% variation in BV. In contrast, model 1 showed a 94% variation in BV, respectively. U-19 youth
boys Model-1, which includes one independent variable (AV), predicted velocity with an R-square of 0.89, indicating that the
selected independent variable caused 89% variation in BV. The jump serve exhibits similar biomechanical characteristics across
different classes. However, the major independent variables of the jump serve: U-23 men were AV, shoulder extension angles at
cocking phase (SEACP), the height of CG, U-21 junior men were SEACP and height of CG, and U-19 youth boys were SEACP
and height of CG AV showed significant with the dependent variable (BV).
Abbreviations: AV = approach velocity, BV = ball velocity, CG = center of gravity, SEACP = shoulder extension angles at
cocking phase, U-19 = under nineteen, U-21 = under twenty-one, U-23 = under twenty-three.
Keywords: jump serve analysis, kinematics analysis, multilinear regression, volleyball

1. Introduction Among the various actions in the game, the volleyball service
holds particular importance in gaining a competitive advantage
Volleyball, a widely recognized sport, was first introduced by over opponents. Achieving successful serves requires precise
William G. Morgan in 1895 and has since gained significant tactics and pacing, with several kinematic factors, including
popularity worldwide. Throughout its history, the sport has upper body kinematics, approach distance, approach velocity
evolved in terms of rules and formats,[1] further establishing its (AV), and the height of the center of gravity (CG), influencing
significance, particularly with its inclusion in the 1964 Olympic the flight distance and velocity of the ball.[2,3] Applying these
Games. Volleyball is a team-oriented sport that emphasizes kinematic factors in the serve demonstrates strong correlations
both offensive and defensive skills, with the primary goal being with serve outcomes.[4–6]
the strategic placement of the ball in the opposing team court.

This study was funded by Researchers Supporting Project number Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King
(RSP2023R382), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Not applicable because none of the participants is identifiable through this study. *Correspondence: Amir Iqbal, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh11433, P.O. Box. 10219,
Saudi Arabia (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]).
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are
available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
The research method was carried out in accordance with the declaration of Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
Helsinki on ethical principles for medical research involving human participants reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
and was approved by the ethics committee, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh,
India (ethical approval number: PE/MAB/2017/2). Before the study, a signed How to cite this article: Bari MA, Al Mijbilee AAA, Nuhmani S, Iqbal A, Alghadir
informed-consent form was obtained from each participant and their legal AH. Analysis of the kinematic variables that predict jump serve efficacy among
guardians (in the case of minor participants aged below 16 years). volleyball players. Medicine 2023;102:31(e34471).
a
Department of Physical Education, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Received: 12 April 2023 / Received in final form: 22 June 2023 / Accepted: 3 July
Pradesh, India, b Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Medical 2023
Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, c http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000034471

1
Bari et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:31Medicine

Table 1 baseline.[8] Due to the aerodynamics influenced by topspin

and side spin, the serve imparts unique movements to the
The descriptive characteristics of the participants.
ball, making it challenging for the receiver to handle effec-
Characteristics U-23 Men U-21 Junior men U-19 Youth boys tively and reducing the chances of an easy reception. Jump
and spin serves exhibit distinct vertical and horizontal ball
Age (yr) 22.20 ± 0.41 19.40 ± 3.51 17.40 ± 0.69 movements with varying speeds. Controlling the spin on
Height (cm) 182.60 ± 4.00 180.70 ± 2.35 179.00 ± 1.88
the ball plays a crucial role in the game of volleyball. The
Weight (kg) 80.70 ± 7.46 80.10 ± 3.38 66.90 ± 1.88
server objective is to deliver the ball within the court while
U-19 = under nineteen, U-23 = under twenty-three. considering factors such as directional control, speed, and
acceleration to make it difficult for the receiver to handle it
effectively. To achieve this, the server must consider elements
Table 2 like the angle of the arm and the level of hand-ball striking,
Descriptive statistics of kinematics variable of the jump serve. which influence the serving distance and maintain a competi-
tive level of proficiency.[8–10]
Mean The volleyball serve represents a dynamic art form that
Variable (standard deviation) varies based on individual requirements, skills, and specific
Shoulder extension angles at U-23 Men 2.70 (0.75) match situations.[11] The effectiveness of the serve often
cocking phase (SEACP) O U-21 Junior men 2.28 (0.53) proves to be a determining factor in the outcome of a game,
U-19 Youth boys 2.21 (0.46) as elite players can generate high ball speeds, limiting their
Elbow extension angles at U-23 Men 1.39 (0.38) opponents attacking capabilities. While different serving
Cocking Phase (EEACP) O U-21 Junior men 1.31 (0.21) methods exhibit similar maximum speed ranges, power
U-19 Youth boys 1.31 (0.18) serves tend to have higher mean speeds. [12] Previous scien-
Maximum elbow extension U-23 Men 1561.20 (123.68) tific analyses have emphasized the utilization of the jump
angular velocity (MEEAV) 0/s U-21 Junior men 1622.80 (141.93) serve as a means for volleyball players to achieve success-
U-19 Youth boys 1589.30 (128.27) ful serves and gain an advantage in scoring points. Serve
Maximum shoulder flexion U-23 Men 2484.40 (208.24) velocity plays a significant role in securing an upper hand in
angular velocity (MSFAV)0/s U-21 Junior men 2364.90 (231.93)
volleyball. [13] Thus, this study focuses on the speed and kine-
U-19 Youth boys 2119.70 (96.38)
Wrist angle at ball contact U-23 Men 164.20 (20.61)
matic parameters of the volleyball jump serve as the depen-
(SABC)0 U-21 Junior men 172.50 (6.39) dent and independent variables, respectively. Numerous
U-19 Youth boys 152.20 (15.41) biomechanical analysis studies have been conducted on the
Elbow angle at ball contact U-23 Men 133.10 (3.41) volleyball serve, primarily in coaching, training, and major
(EABC)0 U-21 Junior 128.20 (6.23) tournaments. However, a comprehensive understanding of
U-19 Youth boys 119.80 (2.04) the biomechanical aspects specifically related to the volley-
Shoulder angle at ball contact U-23 Men 71.10 (8.83) ball jump serve is still lacking. [14–17]
(SABC)0 U-21 Junior men 65.20 (9.86) Despite its extensive historical background, volleyball has
U-19 Youth boys 59.20 (10.13) received insufficient attention in terms of biomechanical anal-
Wrist angular velocity at ball U-23 Men 251.90 (15.44) ysis. The biomechanical examination of volleyball motion
contact (WAVBC)0/s U-21 Junior men 242.90 (19.39) focuses on key variables such as velocity, trajectory angle, per-
U-19 Youth boys 245.90 (20.42)
formance mechanics, and correlation, collectively known as
Spike height (cm) U-23 Men 327.40 (3.77)
U-21 Junior men 268.80 (24.67) “digitization.” These variables allow for a comprehensive eval-
U-19 Youth boys 287.60 (30.19) uation of serve effectiveness, which can be measured through
Take-off to line distance U-23 Men 83.40 (10.09) various methods. Prioritizing speed in volleyball is crucial for
(TLD) cm U-21 Junior men 82.80 (9.25) minimizing errors and gaining a competitive advantage over
U-19 Youth boys 76.80 (6.95) opponents. Unfortunately, there is a lack of comparative studies
Approach distance (m) U-23 Men 3.17 (0.32) on these biomechanical procedures across different functional
U-21 Junior men 3.09 (0.26) classes. This research aims to comprehensively explore various
U-19 Youth boys 2.70 (0.17) aspects of the jump serve, including its execution, the influence
Approach Velocity (AV) m/s. U-23 Men 2.82 (0.33) of independently selected factors on ball velocity (BV), the
U-21 Junior men 2.61 (0.17) performance of different age groups, and disparities in perfor-
U-19 Youth boys 2.60 (0.07)
mance, providing insights into the biomechanics of this partic-
Height of CG U-23 Men 1.72 (0.06)
U-21 Junior men 1.61 (0.13)
ular skill.
U-19 Youth boys 1.63 (0.07)
Ball velocity (m/s) U-23 Men 22.70 (3.27)
U-21 Junior men 21.57 (2.06)
U-19 Youth boys 19.99 (1.98)
2. Methods

AV = approach velocity, CG = center of gravity, U-19 = under nineteen, U-21 = under twenty-one,
2.1. Study design
U-23 = under twenty-three. The study was based on an observational research design, aim-
ing to analyze the kinematic variables that can predict the effi-
cacy of the jump serve among collegiate volleyball players.
Continuous participation in sports activities can decrease
player intensity and passion over time.[7] To maintain optimal
performance levels, it is crucial to strike a balance between
2.2. Ethical considerations
the game demands and the players physical fitness. In recent
decades, scientific training programs have emerged as essen- The research method was carried out in accordance with
tial components for the advancement and success of volley- the declaration of Helsinki on ethical principles for medical
ball. Regarding the serve, variations can be observed, such research involving human participants and was approved by
as standing or jump serves. Jump serves, particularly those the ethics committee, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
executed with topspin, involve the player jumping in court (ethical approval number: PE/MAB/2017/2). Before starting the
and striking the ball towards the opponent court from the study, a signed informed-consent form was obtained from each

2
Bari et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:31www.md-journal.com

Table 3
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in upper body kinematics across the groups.
ANOVA Sum of squares df Mean square Partial eta squared F-value Sig.
Shoulder extension angles at Cocking Phase (SEACP) Between groups 1.36 2 0.68 0.12 1.91 0.16
Within groups 9.59 27 0.35
Total 10.95 29
Elbow extension angles at cocking phase (EEACP) Between groups 0.038 2 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.78
Within groups 2.019 27 0.07
Total 2.057 29
Maximum elbow extension angular velocity (MEEAV) 0/s Between groups 19021.40 2 9510.70 0.03 0.55 0.58
Within groups 467037.30 27 17297.67
Total 486058.70 29
Maximum shoulder flexion angular velocity (MSIRAV)0/s Between groups 691364.60 2 345682.30 0.41 9.74* 0.00
Within groups 958013.40 27 35481.97
Total 1649378.00 29
Wrist angle at ball contact phase (WABC)0 Between groups 2083.26 2 1041.63 0.24 4.44* 0.02
Within groups 6333.70 27 234.58
Total 8416.97 29
Elbow angle at ball contact phase (EABC)0 Between groups 904.86 2 452.43 0.64 24.82* 0.00
Within groups 492.10 27 18.22
Total 1396.96 29
Shoulder angle at ball contact phase (SABC)0 Between groups 708.06 2 354.03 0.22 3.82* 0.03
Within groups 2502.10 27 92.67
Total 3210.16 29
wrist angular velocity at ball contact phase (WAVBC) 0/s Between groups 420.00 2 210.00 0.04 0.61 0.55
Within groups 9284.70 27 343.87
Total 9704.70 29
Spike height (cm) Between groups 17904.80 2 8952.40 0.56 17.50* 0.00
Within groups 13812.40 27 511.57
Total 31717.20 29
Takeoff to line distance (TLD) cm Between groups 266.40 2 133.20 0.11 1.69 0.20
Within groups 2123.60 27 78.65
Total 2390.00 29
Approach distance (m) Between groups 0.86 2 0.43 0.31 6.37* 0.00
Within groups 1.83 27 0.07
Total 2.70 29
Approach velocity (m/s) Between groups 0.30 2 0.15 0.19 3.24 0.06
Within groups 1.26 27 0.05
Total 1.57 29
Height of CG (m) Between groups 0.07 2 0.03 0.24 4.02* 0.03
Within groups 0.22 27 0.01
Total 0.29 29
Ball velocity m/s Between groups 37.11 2 18.56 0.17 2.96 0.07
Within groups 169.42 27 6.27
Total 206.54 29
CG = center of gravity.
*Significant value if P < .05.

Table 4 participant and their legal guardians (in the case of minor par-
Summary of regression models of volleyball serves.
ticipants aged below 16 years).

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. error of the estimate

2.3. Setting
U-23 men 1 00.99† 00.99 00.98 00.38
2 01.00‡ 00.99 00.95 00.28
Collegiate students who were playing volleyball regularly were
3 00.99§ 01.00 01.00 00.21 invited using posters and pamphlets to participate voluntarily in
†Predictors: (Constant), approach velocity the volleyball ground of the university. This study took 3-month
‡Predictors: (Constant), approach velocity (AV), shoulder extension angles at cocking to complete after its beginning in March 2018.
phase
§Predictors: (Constant), approach velocity (AV), shoulder extension angles at cocking
2.4. Participants
phase, the height of CG.
U-21 Junior 1 00.97† 00.94 00.93 00.55 Thirty (30) male collegiate volleyball players volunteered to take
men 2 00.99‡ 00.98 00.97 00.36 part in this study. According to their age, the groups were clas-
sified into 3 separate subcategories (under twenty-three [U-23]
†Predictors: (Constant), the height of CG men, under twenty-one [U-21] junior men, and under nineteen
‡Predictors: (Constant), the height of CG, shoulder extension angles at cocking [U-19] youth boys). To confirm that each athlete was eligible for
phase. the research, a brief medical history was obtained from partici-
U-19 Youth 1 00.94† 00.89 00.86 00.70
pants. None of the players ever had elbow or shoulder surgery,
boys
and none of them had ever complained of pain while serving. A
†Predictors: (Constant), approach velocity.
written signed informed consent was obtained from each partic-
U-19 = under nineteen, U-21 = under twenty-one, U-23 = under twenty-three. ipant before the beginning of the study.

3
Bari et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:31Medicine

Table 5 angles and wrist angular velocity at ball contact phase, spike
height, takeoff to line distance, approach distance, AV, height
Significance of the regression model (U-23 Men volleyball
of CG and BV.
players jump serve).
ANOVA†
Mean 2.6. Data collection and analysis
Model Sum of Squares df square F Sig.
The subject volleyball serves were recorded using 3 synchro-
1 Regression 94.95 1 94.95 664.51* 00.00‡ nized Nikon D-7000 video cameras in a field setting. The
Residual 01.13 8 00.13 monitor was set to sports mode and the video camera sam-
Total 96.17 9 pling rate was set to one hundred twenty (120) fields per sec-
2 Regression 95.45 2 47.72 526.58* 00.00§ ond and 1/2000 fast shutter speed. The 1-camera was located
Residual 00.63 7 00.08 12 (m) perpendicular to the sagittal line and parallel to the
Total 96.91 9 mediolateral axis as their volleyball serve hand, resulting in
3 Regression 95.82 3 31.93 713.20* 00.00∥ a 90o angle between their respective optical axes. The second
Residual 00.26 6 00.04
camera was positioned perpendicular to the sagittal plane
Total 96.09 9
on the right side of the volleyball pole, 20 meters apart, to
ANOVA = analysis of variance. measure BV and trajectory. The third camera is placed just
†Dependent Variable: ball velocity. behind the volley ball server. Additionally, the cameras were
‡Predictors: (Constant), approach velocity. raised (1.50 m) and rotated in order to obtain the largest pic-
§Predictors: (Constant), approach velocity, shoulder extension angles at cocking phase. ture possible while keeping all points of interest completely
∥Predictors: (Constant), approach velocity, shoulder extension angles at cocking phase, the height
within movement Figure 1. Three trials were completed by
of CG.
*Significant value if P < .05.
the subjects, and one of the finest trials was chosen for fur-
ther analysis. Along the service line, a calibration band (1.21
Table 6 m by 1.21) was recorded. Twenty-three passive markers were
digitized and evaluated with the silicon coach pro 8 motion
Significance of the regression model (U-21 junior men volleyball
analysis program, according to Davis protocols. The digitiz-
players jump serve).
ing procedure began with 06 (six) video frames just before
ANOVA† initiating the movement and finished with 05 frames after
ball impact.
Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
1 Regression 35.657 1 35.652 120* 0.00‡
Residual 2.384 8 0.29
2.7. Statistical analysis
Total 38.041 9
2 Regression 37.135 2 18.563 144* 0.00§ A statistical tool IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version
Residual 0.906 7 0.122 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) was used for the statistical
Total 38.041 9 analysis.[18] Analysis of variance and multi linear regression
ANOVA = analysis of variance.
analysis were used to investigate differences in kinematic
†Dependent Variable: ball velocity. characteristics of distinct functional classes, as well as the
‡Predictors: (Constant), the height of CG. established predictive model of serve performance. The sig-
§Predictors: (Constant), the height of CG, shoulder extension angles at cocking phase. nificance level was set at P < .05 for all statistical analysis in
*Significant value, if P < .05. this study.

Table 7 3. Results
Significance of the regression model (U-19 youth boys volleyball
The descriptive characteristics of the participants are available
players jump serve).
as Table 1.
ANOVA† Table 2 list the selected kinematics variables of jump serve
during serve execution. The U-23 men have greater values
Model Sum of squares df Mean square F-value P value
on shoulder extension angle and elbow extension angle at
1 Regression 31.371 1 31.363 64* .00*,‡ cocking phase, maximum elbow extension and maximum
Residual 3.924 8 0.492 shoulder extension at acceleration phase, maximum shoul-
Total 35.283 9 der internal rotation/flexion angular velocity, shoulder and
elbow angles and wrist angular velocity at ball contact
ANOVA = analysis of variance, U-19 = under nineteen.
phase, spike height, takeoff to line distance, approach dis-
†Dependent variable: ball velocity;
‡Predictors: (Constant), approach velocity.
tance, AV, height of CG and BV as compared with other age
*Significant value if P < .05. groups.
Table 3 list the significant mean differences among U-23
men, U-21 junior men and U-19 youth boys volleyball play-
ers on maximum shoulder flexion angular velocity o/s at
2.5. Selection of variables acceleration phase, wrist angle at ball contact phase, elbow
Following an assessment of the relevant literature and consul- angle at ball contact phase, shoulder angle at ball contact
tation with subject professionals, the determinants for jump phase, spike height, approach distance and height of CG
serve were chosen. Variables considered for serve were height, (P < .05). At the same time, shoulder extension angles at
weight, age, shoulder extension angle and elbow extension the cocking phase, elbow extension angles at cocking phase,
angle at cocking phase, maximum elbow extension and max- maximum elbow extension angular velocity (o/s), wrist
imum shoulder extension at acceleration phase, maximum angular velocity(o/s) at ball contact phase, take off to line
elbow extension angular velocity, maximum shoulder internal distance (cm), AV (m/s) and BV (m/s) showed insignificant
rotation/flexion angular velocity, wrist, shoulder and elbow mean differences.

4
Bari et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:31www.md-journal.com

Table 8
Coefficients of the regression model volleyball players jump serve.
Coefficients†
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model Beta Std. Error Beta t value Sig.
U-23 Men 1 (Constant) −5.19 1.08 −4.76* 0.00
Approach velocity 9.90 0.37 0.99 25.77* 0.00
2 (Constant) −5.91 0.86 −5.86* 0.00
Approach velocity 10.17 0.32 1.01 30.93* 0.00
Shoulder extension angles at cocking phase −0.33 0.13 −0.08 −2.36* 0.03
3 (Constant) 2.31 2.6 0.86 0.41
Approach velocity 10.47 0.26 1.05 41.13* 0.00
Shoulder extension angles at cocking phase −0.55 0.12 −0.13 −4.39 0.01
Height of CG −4.49 1.57 −0.08 −2.85 0.03
U-23 Junior men 1 (Constant) −3.46 2.29 −1.50 0.17
Height of CG 15.55 1.42 0.96 10.91 0.00
2 (Constant) −2.35 1.54 −1.52 0.17
Height of CG 15.96 0.94 0.99 16.89* 0.00
Shoulder extension angles at cocking phase −0.76 0.22 −0.19 −3.38 0.01
U-19 Youth boys 1 (Constant) −50.85 8.85 −5.75 0.00
Approach velocity 27.23 3.40 0.94 8.01* 0.00
U-19 = under nineteen, U-23 = under twenty-three.
*Significant value, if P < .05.
†Dependent variable ball velocity.

Figure 1. Experimental. setup.

3.1. A description of the multiple linear regression analysis that the variables account for 98%, 98% and 100% differ-
of volleyball players jump serve ences in velocity of volleyballUnder-21junior men Model
1, which incorporates only 1 parameter (height of CG) and
Multiple linear regression analysis was used to create regression Model 2, which incorporates 2 parameters (height of CG and
modules for the jump serves of U-23 men, U-21 junior men, and SEACP), predict velocity with an R square of 0.94 and 0. 98
U-19 youth boys volleyball players. Out of 14 selected kine- (percent) indicating that the variable accounts for 94% and
matic variables, volleyball players U-23 men shoulder extension 98% (percent) differences in velocity of volleyball. Under-19
angles at cocking phase (SEACP) and height of CG, U-21 junior youth boys Model 1, which incorporates only 1 parameter
men SEACP and height of CG and U-19 youth AV were entered (AV), predicts velocity with an R square of 0.89, indicating
by using a stepwise multiple regression module with a depen- that the variable accounts for 89% (percent) difference in
dent variable of BV (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter ≤ 00.05, velocity of volleyball.
Probability-of-F-to-remove ≥ 00.10). Table 5 lists the regression equations based on models 1, 2,
Table 4 lists the Under-23 men Model 1, which incorpo- and 3 were significant (P = .00, P < .05), as seen in Table 3. As a
rates only 1 parameter (AV), model 2 which incorporates result of the study, U-23 men volleyball players BV can be esti-
only 2 parameters (AV, SEACP) and model 3, which incorpo- mated/predicted by using AV in model-1, AV, SEACP in model-2,
rates 3 parameters (AV, SEACP, and height of CG), predicts and AV, SEACP, height of CG in model 3.
velocity with R squares of 0.98, 0.98, and 1.00, indicating
5
Bari et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:31Medicine

The regression equations based on models 1, and 2 were sig- height), predicted velocity with an R-square of 1.00, indicating
nificant (P = .00, P < .05), as seen in Table 6. As a result of the that the selected independent variable caused 100% variation
study, U-21 junior men volleyball players BV can be estimated/ in BV. In contrast, models 1 and 2 showed 99% variation in
predicted by the height of CG in model-1 and the height of CG, BV, respectively. U-21 junior men Model-2, which includes 2
and SEACP in model-2. independent variables (the height of CG and shoulder exten-
The regression equation based on model-1 was significant (F sion angles during the cocking phase), predicted velocity with
= 64.09, P = .00, P < .05), as seen in Table 7. As a result, U-19 an R-square of 0.98, indicating that the selected independent
youth boys volleyball players BV can be estimated/predicted by variable caused 98% variation in BV, whereas models 1 showed
using the AV. 94% variation in BV, respectively. U-19 youth boys Model-1,
The Regression equation is estimated on the basis of the which includes 1 independent variable (AV), predicted velocity
above-mentioned Table 8 as following: with an R-square of 0.89, indicating that the selected indepen-
U-23 men Model-1. BV = (9.9) AV—5.19 dent variable caused 89% variation in BV.
Here, the AV coefficient was found statistically significant In the present study, BV has also been improved but not
using with (P = .00, P < .05). significantly as the efficiency standard has increased. The
U-23 men Model-2. BV = (10.17) AV + (−0.33) SEACP − 5.91 average score for serving velocity among men U-23 men,
Here, the AV and SEACP coefficient were found statistically U-21 junior men, and U-19 youth volleyball players in cate-
significant using with (P = .00, and P = .03, P < .05). gories was 22.70 m/s, 21.57 m/s, and 19.99 m/s. During the
execution volleyball serve, a taller athlete has an advantage
1. BV has a positive effect with AV, when SEACP is kept compared to other athletes with shorter height because taller
constant. athletes have higher ball contact and greater height of ball
2. BV has a negative effect with SEACP, when AV is kept release. In volleyball, serve height of ball contact very import-
constant. ant factor, which have a greater angle of release.[19–21] Ball
U-23 men Model-3. BV = (10.47) AV + (−0.55) SEACP + (−4.49) position at impact is determined by height of the CG, spike
height of CG + 2.31 height and toss of the server- a successful serve requires a
Here, the AV and SEACP and height of CG coefficient were perfect place of toss and contact angle of the serve is required
found statistically significant using with (P = .00, and P = .03, a higher BV.
P = .03 P < .05). Analysis of jump serve showed significant mean differences
in selected major kinematic variables among the 3 classes in
1. BV has a positive effect with AV, when SEACP and height line with the previous studies were shown significant mean
of CG are kept constant. differences in upper body kinematics between different func-
2. BV has a negative effect with SEACP when, AV and height tional classes and elbow joint has significant relation with
of CG are kept constant. BV.[22] Few studies conducted on volleyball jump serve and
3. BV has a negative effect with height of CG, when AV and found that elbow and humerus extensions were significant
SEACP are kept constant. factors while jump serve action.[14,20,23] According to previ-
U-21 junior men Model-1. BV = (15.55) height of CG–3.46 ous scientific examinations, the ball should be serving around
Here, the height of CG coefficient was found statistically sig- the body midline to have contact with the hitting shoulder.[24]
nificant using with (P = .00, P < .05). The volleyball is contacted with a relaxed hand just as the
U-21 junior men Model-2. BV = (15.96) height of CG + elbow completes its extension. The wrist is flexing and the
(–0.76) SEACP − 2.35 hand is rotating forward due to pronation and wrist adduc-
Here, the height of CG and SEACP coefficient were found tion.[25] The velocity of the hand at contact is one of the most
statistically significant using with (P = .00, and P = .01, P < .05). important variables in the jump serve, as the faster the hand
velocity the faster the BV. The ball will always leave the hand
1. BV has a positive effect on the height of CG, when shoul- at a faster velocity than that of the hand, due to the transfer
der extension angle at cocking phase is kept constant. of momentum from the heavier hand and arm to the lighter
2. BV has a negative effect on SEACP, when the height of CG volleyball. In current analysis U-23 men maximum shoulder
is kept constant. flexion angular velocity reported higher in comparison with
other junior groups. In line with the previous examinations,
U-19 youth boy Model-1. BV = (27.23) AV − 50.85 the BV in jumps serve was noticeably higher (23.03 ± m/s)
Here, the AV coefficient was found statistically significant in the senior age group (23.7 m/s).[14] It was clearly indicated
using with (P = .00, P < .05). that arm traveled speed play significance role in serve veloc-
ity. A study of the serve of collegiate male volleyball players
revealed that the players hand traveled at 13.6 m/s prior to
3.2. Selected regression models contact, while the ball left the hand at 19.7 m/s.[26] When
U-23 Men model: BV = (10.47) AV + (−0.55) SEACP + (−4.49) compared to the spike in which the player hand traveled at
height of CG + 2.31 15.4 m/s and the ball left the hand at 22.4 m/s, suggesting
U-21 junior men model: BV = (15.96) height of CG + (−0.76) that the velocity of the hand is close to 70% of the velocity of
SEACP − 2.35 the ball after impact.[26]
U-19 youth boys Model: BV = (27.23) AV − 50.85 BV in all serve has same pattern that senior players has
more speed as compare with junior player. Senior players
have more power, strength and have the skill hitting the
4. Discussion ball more accurately in front of hitting shoulder as compare
with juniors. Complex skill that is currently performed by
Volleyball is a dynamic game that can differ due to individual almost all highly skilled volleyball players at all levels of
needs, skills and match situations. This intervention tends to be play. Adherence to the suggestions included here describing
a decisive factor in the outcome of a certain game. Thus, at a the movements and timing involved in ideal technique will
high stage, the player can generate a high ball speed to limit their improve the skill of players at all levels. Even if these extreme
opponents attack capabilities. The findings of the study revealed positions are difficult for players of lower strength and flexi-
that selected performance models were statistically significant. bility levels, attempting to increase range of movement, joint
U-23 men Model-3, which includes 3 independent variables (AV, movement timing and jump height will improve jump serve
shoulder extension angles during the cocking phase, and the CG effectiveness.
6
Bari et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:31www.md-journal.com

5. Limitation of movement, joint movement timing and jump height will

The study is limited by a small sample size, making it difficult improve jump serve effectiveness.
to generalize the findings to other populations and skill levels.
The observational design prevents establishing causal relation-
ships, and the absence of a control group limits the ability to Author contributions
compare results. Reliance on a single outcome measure, BV, Conceptualization: Mohd Arshad Bari, Ali Azeez Aneed Al
may overlook other important aspects of performance. The Mujbilee, Shibili Nuhmani.
study controlled laboratory conditions may not fully cap- Data curation: Mohd Arshad Bari, Ali Azeez Aneed Al Mujbilee.
ture the complexities of real-game situations, and alternative Formal analysis: Mohd Arshad Bari, Amir Iqbal.
statistical approaches could provide additional insights. The Funding acquisition: Ahmad H. Alghadir.
study does not consider the anthropometrical and temporal Investigation: Mohd Arshad Bari, Ali Azeez Aneed Al Mujbilee.
aspects of kinematic variables or include a comprehensive set Methodology: Mohd Arshad Bari, Ali Azeez Aneed Al Mujbilee.
of variables. Project administration: Mohd Arshad Bari, Ali Azeez Aneed Al
Mujbilee, Shibili Nuhmani, Amir Iqbal.
Resources: Amir Iqbal, Ahmad H. Alghadir.
6. Scope Supervision: Shibili Nuhmani, Ahmad H. Alghadir.
Validation: Shibili Nuhmani.
The study findings suggest that coaches and trainers can utilize Writing – original draft: Mohd Arshad Bari, Ali Azeez Aneed Al
factors such as AV, shoulder extension angles, and CG height Mujbilee, Amir Iqbal.
to design training programs that enhance the jump serve per- Writing – review & editing: Mohd Arshad Bari, Shibili Nuhmani,
formance of volleyball players. An individualized coaching Amir Iqbal, Ahmad H. Alghadir.
approach, tailored to each player strengths and weaknesses,
is recommended to maximize improvement potential and
optimize overall performance. Biomechanical analysis tech- References
niques, such as motion capture systems and video analysis,
[1] Qo’shayevich XQ. The origin of volleyball and its place in world sports.
can provide real-time assessment and feedback on kinematic Eur J Life Safety Stability (2660-9630). 2021;11:140–1.
variables, enabling players to make necessary adjustments [2] González-Silva J, Fernández-Echeverría C, Conejero M, et al.
and optimize their jump serve. Additionally, the identification Characteristics of serve, reception and set that determine the setting
of key kinematic variables associated with successful jump efficacy in men’s volleyball. Front Psychol. 2020;11:222.
serves can inform talent identification and player selection [3] Lima R, Afonso J, Silva AF, et al. Relationships between ball speed and
processes, leading to the development of standardized assess- arm speed during the volleyball serve in youth elite male players, and
ment protocols. Incorporating these recommendations in why statistical significance might be misleading. Proc Inst Mech Eng
future studies and practical applications has the potential to Part P. 2021;235:122–30.
[4] Khalaf FC, Aseen MI, Hasnawi ZA. Relationship of the synchroniza-
advance volleyball training, performance analysis, and talent
tion of the striking arm with the rising foot and some kinematic vari-
development. ables with the accuracy of the jump serve in volleyball. Am J Interdiscip
Res Develop. 2023;12:1–9.
[5] Pradhan P, Basumatary SJ, Kumar S, et al. Kinematic analysis of jump
7. Suggestion and recommendations serve performance among volleyball players. Int J Physiol Nutr Phys
Educ. 2022;7:352–4.
Further research is justified to investigate additional variables [6] Bhasi SU, Sadanandan C. Kinematic analysis of velocity of jump serve
and factors, such as footwork kinematics, arm swing mechan- among national level volleyball players. Int J Phys Educ Sports Health.
ics, and body positioning, that have the potential to influence 2022;9:267–9.
the performance of the volleyball jump serve. Conducting [7] Weldon A, Mak JT, Wong ST, et al. Strength and conditioning practices
similar studies with female volleyball players would provide and perspectives of volleyball coaches and players. Sports. 2021;9:28.
[8] Alexander M, Honish A, Center-Manitoba CS, et al. An analysis of the
a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying kine-
volleyball jump serve. Coach Info. 2009:1–10.
matic factors and facilitate a comparative analysis of biome- [9] Ciuffarella A, Russo L, Masedu F, et al. Notational analysis of the vol-
chanical characteristics and performance predictors across leyball serve. Timisoara Phys Educ Rehabil J. 2013;6:29–35.
genders. Moreover, longitudinal studies that track the evo- [10] Moras G, Peña J, Rodríguez S, et al. A comparative study between serve
lution of kinematic parameters and performance outcomes mode and speed and its effectiveness in a high-level volleyball tourna-
over an extended duration hold promise in offering valuable ment. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2008;48:31.
insights into the developmental trajectory of the jump serve [11] Ibrahim MS, Muralidharan S, Deng Z, et al. A hierarchical deep tempo-
and identifying potential prognostic indicators for perfor- ral model for group activity recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE con-
mance enhancement. ference on computer vision and pattern recognition 2016. p. 1971–80.
[12] Palao JM, Valadés D, Manzanares P, et al. Physical actions and work-
rest time in men’s beach volleyball. Motriz. 2014;20:257–61.
[13] Palao J, Manzanares P, Ortega E. Techniques used and efficacy of
8. Conclusion volleyball skills in relation to gender. Int J Perform Anal Sport.
2009;9:281–93.
In conclusion, jump serve acts similar in terms of biomechan- [14] Coleman S, Benham A, Northcott S. A three-dimensional cin-
ical characteristics of volleyball serve. But the major indepen- ematographical analysis of the volleyball spike. J Sports Sci.
dent variables of jump serve: U-23 men were AV, SEACP, the 1993;11:295–302.
height of CG, U-21 junior men were SEACP and the height [15] Reeser JC, Fleisig GS, Bolt B, et al. Upper limb biomechanics during the
of CG, and U-19 youth boys were SEACP and the height of volleyball serve and spike. Sports Health. 2010;2:368–74.
CG AV showed significant with dependent variable (BV). The [16] MacKenzie S, Kortegaard K, LeVangie M, et al. Evaluation of
jump serve is an exciting and complex skill that is currently two methods of the jump float serve in volleyball. J Appl Biomech.
2012;28:579–86.
performed by almost all highly skilled volleyball players at
[17] Paulo A, Zaal FT, Seifert L, et al. Predicting volleyball serve-reception
all levels of play. Adherence to the suggestions included here at group level. J Sports Sci. 2018;36:2621–30.
describing the movements and timing involved in ideal tech- [18] SPSS I. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Armonk, New York, USA:
nique will improve the skills of players at all levels. Even if IBM SPSS. 2013;2.
these extreme positions are difficult for players of lower [19] Palao JM. Normative profiles for serve speed for the training of the
strength and flexibility levels, attempting to increase range serve and reception in volleyball. Sport J. 2014.

7
Bari et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:31Medicine

[20] Singh AB, Rathore VS. Kinematic factors of off-speed and power spike [24] Kitsiou A, Sotiropoulos K, Drikos S, et al. Tendencies of the volleyball
techniques in volleyball. 2013. serving skill with respect to the serve type across genders. J Phys Educ
[21] Andriani A, Nasuka N, Irawan FA. Coaching evaluation for wom- Sport. 2020;20:564–70.
en’s volleyball sports year 2018 semarang city. J Phys Educ Sports. [25] Hasan A, Akarçeşme C, Aktuğ Z, et al. The relationship of wrist
2019;8:11–8. and shoulder joint isokinetic strength and service and spike
[22] Khan MTHI, Ahmad F. Spatio-temporal analysis of volleyball serve. Int velocity in elite female volleyball players. Turkish J Sport Exerc.
J Eng Dev Res. 2019;7:805–10. 2019;21:182–7.
[23] Hussain I, Mohammad A, Khan A. Videographical analysis of arm [26] Tant C, Witte K. Temporal structure of a left hand toss vs. A right-hand
swing on spike jump performance of two different functional classes’ toss of the volleyball jump serve. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive.
volleyball players. Eur Acad Res. 2013;1:1035–47. 1991.