Leard, J.S., M.A. Cirillo, E. Katsnelson, D.A. Kimiatek, T.W. Miller, K. Trebincevic, and G.C. Garbalosa. Validity of two alternative systems for measuring vertical jump height. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(4):1296-1299. 2007.-Vertical jump height is frequently used by coaches, health care professionals, and strength and conditioning professionals to objectively measure function. The purpose of this study is to determine the concurrent validity of the jump and reach method (Vertec) and the contact mat method (Just Jump) in assessing vertical jump height when compared with the criterion reference 3-camera motion analysis system. Thirty-nine college students, 25 females and 14 males between the ages of 18 and 25 (mean age 20.65 years), were instructed to perform the countermovement jump. Reflective markers were placed at the base of the individual's sacrum for the 3-camera motion analysis system to measure vertical jump height. The subject was then instructed to stand on the Just Jump mat beneath the Vertec and perform the jump. Measurements were recorded from each of the 3 systems simultaneously for each jump. The Pearson r statistic between the video and the jump and reach (Vertec) was 0.906. The Pearson r between the video and contact mat (Just Jump) was 0.967. Both correlations were significant at the 0.01 level. Analysis of variance showed a significant difference among the 3 means F2,235 = 5.51, p < 0.05. The post hoc analysis showed a significant difference between the criterion reference (M = 0.4369 m) and the Vertec (M = 0.3937 m, p = 0.005) but not between the criterion reference and the Just Jump system (M = 0.4420 m, p = 0.972). The Just Jump method of measuring vertical jump height is a valid measure when compared with the 3-camera system. The Vertec was found to have a high correlation with the criterion reference, but the mean differed significantly. This study indicates that a higher degree of confidence is warranted when comparing Just Jump results with a 3-camera system study.