User Guide

Understanding force plate analysis,

testing protocols, and metrics.
November 2023
 2

Contents
0
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Understanding Force Plate Data ................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Understanding Force Derivatives................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Understanding Key Moments and Phases ................................................................................................ 6
2 Test Types .............................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Countermovement Jump (CMJ) ................................................................................................................ 9
2.1.1 Protocol .............................................................................................................................................................10
2.1.2 Key Moments and Phases................................................................................................................................13
2.1.3 Commonly Used Metrics ..................................................................................................................................15
2.2 Countermovement Rebound Jump (CMRJ) ............................................................................................ 16
2.2.1 Protocol ....................................................................................................................................................................17
2.2.2 Key Moments and Phases .......................................................................................................................................19
2.2.3 Commonly Used Metrics .........................................................................................................................................21
2.3 Squat Jump (SJ) ........................................................................................................................................ 22
2.3.1 Protocol .............................................................................................................................................................23
2.3.2 Key Moments and Phases................................................................................................................................26
2.3.3 Commonly Used Metrics ..................................................................................................................................28
2.4 Drop Jump (DJ) ......................................................................................................................................... 29
2.4.1 Protocol .............................................................................................................................................................30
2.4.2 Key Moments and Phases................................................................................................................................34
2.4.3 Commonly Used Metrics ..................................................................................................................................36
2.5 Squat Assessment (SQT).......................................................................................................................... 37
2.5.1 Protocol .............................................................................................................................................................38
2.5.2 Key Moments and Phases ...............................................................................................................................42
2.5.3 Commonly Used Metrics ..................................................................................................................................44
2.6 Hop Test (HT) ............................................................................................................................................ 45
2.6.1 Protocol .............................................................................................................................................................46
2.6.2 Key Moments and Phases ...............................................................................................................................50
2.6.3 Commonly Used Metrics ..................................................................................................................................52
2.7 Land and Hold (LAH) ................................................................................................................................. 53
2.7.1 Protocol .............................................................................................................................................................54
2.7.2 Key Moments and Phases ................................................................................................................................57
2.7.3 Commonly Used Metrics ..................................................................................................................................57
2.8 Quiet Stand (QSB) ..................................................................................................................................... 58
2.8.1 Protocol ....................................................................................................................................................................59
 3

2.8.2 Key Moments and Phases ......................................................................................................................................60

2.8.3 Commonly Used Metrics .........................................................................................................................................61
2.9 Isometric Test (ISOT) ................................................................................................................................ 62
2.9.1 Protocol .............................................................................................................................................................64
2.9.2 Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull Protocol ...................................................................................................................68
2.9.3 Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull Protocol ...........................................................................................................................69
2.9.4 Key Moments and Phases .......................................................................................................................................70
2.9.5 Commonly Used Metrics .........................................................................................................................................71
2.10 General Force-Time Analysis (GFTA) ...................................................................................................... 72
2.10.1 Protocol .............................................................................................................................................................73
3 Example Applications ............................................................................................................ 74
3.1 General Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 74
3.1.1 Evaluation Stage – Choosing Tests and Metrics ...................................................................................................74
3.1.2 Individualization: Personalizing the Assessment based on Need ........................................................................76
3.2 Profiling ...................................................................................................................................................... 78
3.2.1 Profiling for Improved Performance .................................................................................................................80
3.2.2 Controlling Test Protocols................................................................................................................................82
3.2.3 Defining Best Results ..............................................................................................................................................82
3.2.4 Frequency of Testing ...............................................................................................................................................83
3.2.5 Standardizing Test Protocols – Checklist before starting ....................................................................................84
3.2.6 Test Delivery Considerations ..................................................................................................................................85
3.3 Reviewing Results: Key considerations ........................................................................................................ 85
3.3.1 Balance vs. Asymmetry Profiling ............................................................................................................................86
3.4 Program Design/Intervention ....................................................................................................................... 87
3.4.1 Return to Play/Full Function ....................................................................................................................................88
3.4.2 Pre-Injury Baseline Data ..........................................................................................................................................89
3.5 Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................................... 95
3.5.1 Monitoring Training Adaptations ............................................................................................................................96
3.4.2 Monitoring Fatigue ..................................................................................................................................................97
3.6 Re-evaluate Progress or Completion of Intervention? .........................................................................100
Glossary .................................................................................................................................... 101
References ................................................................................................................................ 104
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 106

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 4

1 Introduction
This document aims to provide health and performance professionals with an understanding of force plate
testing and analysis, including the calculations and metrics used by ForceDecks, as well as common
applications.

This document assumes the reader has a basic knowledge of how to use ForceDecks, including setting up
the hardware and software, managing individual profiles, running tests, and generating reports. To get up
to speed on these processes, check out the ForceDecks Starter’s Guide ForceDecks – VALD Knowledge
Base

1.1 Understanding Force Plate Data

A force plate can be thought of as a weighing scale, but instead of recording a single weight, a force plate
records force values constantly over time (in ForceDecks’ case, up to 1,000 times every second) and plots
that data on a graph. The sole purpose of the hardware is to accurately capture exact forces at exact time
points, while the software performs analysis by applying algorithms to that data and automatically
reporting its results. Though it is possible to manually perform this in Excel, the primary benefits of
ForceDecks are:

1. ForceDecks allows people access to information that they may not know how to edit and calculate
themselves, thus eliminating the need for specific training and experience to manually calculate values
of interest; and
2. ForceDecks exponentially speeds up data processing and greatly supports those who work in high
pressure and/or time-sensitive environments, such as in elite sport or clinical practice.

To understand force plate data, it should be acknowledged that force plates directly measure only two
things: force and time. In turn, these force and time values are what allow for the calculation of a host of
other derivatives and metrics based on known physics principles, however these additional derivatives and
metrics are calculated, not directly measured.

Understanding how force and time underpin all force plate data will help users identify improper testing
procedures and ensure greater validity and reliability. For example, if bodyweight is captured while the
individual is unstable on a force plate, then their bodyweight will likely be recorded inaccurately.
Subsequently, given that acceleration calculations are reliant on bodyweight, the downstream calculations
of displacement and power will also be incorrect, thus demonstrating how one poor protocol can affect a
host of other results. This can have significant ramifications across a dataset, making it less reliable
and/or applicable in practice.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 5

1.2 Understanding Force Derivatives

ForceDecks provides a host of information on a range of metrics, all of which are derived from simple
underlying measurements. At a fundamental level, all force plates measure two things directly:

• Force (F); and

• Time (t)

From these two measurements and the known acceleration of gravity (g), ForceDecks uses Forward
Dynamics and Newton’s Laws to calculate a host of other derivatives such as:

• Body Mass (BM) = 𝐹 ÷ 𝑔

• Impulse (Imp) = 𝐹 × 𝑡
• Acceleration (a) = (𝐹 – 𝐵𝑊) ÷ 𝑚
• Velocity (v) = 𝑣0 + 𝑎. 𝑡
• Power (P) = 𝐹. 𝑣
• Change in Displacement (s) = 𝑣. 𝑡

In ForceDecks Raw Data view, these derivatives are color-coded to assist with readability. Any one of them
can be toggled on/off by clicking on its name in the legend at the bottom of the graph.

Force Derivative

Left Force (N)

Right Force (N)

Vertical Force (N)

Acceleration (m/s2)

Velocity (m/s)

Height (m)

Power (W)

Impulse (Ns)

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 6

1.3 Understanding Key Moments and Phases

ForceDecks records raw time-series data for each of these derivatives, which in turn are used to identify key
moments and phases such as:

Key Moment examples:

Start of Movement (SoM);

Start of max Rate of Force Development (RFD);
Takeoff;
Landing; and
• End of Movement Phase (EoM) examples:
Eccentric phase;
Braking Phase;
Deceleration Phase; and
Concentric Phase.

Start of Movement Analysis:

Start of Movement (SoM) is the moment when ForceDecks detects that the rep being conducted has begun.
ForceDecks default method is 20N for every test, however it is customizable for the following test types:
• Countermovement Jump
• Countermovement Jump – Loaded
• Squat Jump
• Squat Jump – Loaded
• Abalakov Jump
• Single Leg Jump

See this article for Customize Start of Movement Analysis.

In ForceDecks Raw Data view, key moments are labelled, and phases are shaded to assist with readability.
Key moments can be toggled on/off by clicking on ‘Labels’ in the legend at the bottom of the graph.

Phase:
Phase: Concentri
Eccentri

Key Moment:
Peak Landing

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 7

2 Test Types
Test Types Descriptions Other Test Types Pros Cons Page Number
in this Category

Countermovement Jump for • Single Leg Jump • Quick to test • Considered less 9
Jump (CMJ) maximum height (SLJ) (<1min) specific than other
with hands on test types
• Loaded • Easy to
hips.
Countermovement perform
Jump (LCMJ) • Low stress
• Abalakov Jump • Abundant
(ABCMJ) data
• Shows “jump
strategy”

Countermovement Perform a • Fast to set up • Cannot control the 16

Rebound Jump Countermovement and perform drop height for the
(CMRJ) Jump and then a rebound jump
• Generate
rebound jump for
outcome • No true metrics
maximum height
metrics for a for the
immediately upon
slow and fast Countermovement
landing.
SSC Jump
movement

Squat Jump (SJ) Jump for • Loaded Squat • Specific • Difficult to remove 22
maximum height Jump (LSJ) “overcoming” countermovement
with hands on test (No SSC) • No eccentric
hips, starting from
• Can use RFDs phase/data
a paused squat
position. • Low Stress

Drop Jump (DJ) Starting from a • Single Leg Drop • Starting from • Starting from a 29
box, dropping Jump (SLDJ) a box, box, dropping
onto force plates dropping onto force plates
then rebound onto force then rebound
jump for plates then jump for
maximum height. rebound jump maximum height.
for maximum
height.

Squat Loaded or • Single Leg Squat • Fits gap • Slower to set up 37

Assessment bodyweight Assessment between than other tests
(SQT) squats. Any (SLSQT) isometrics • Detection works
external load can and jumps better for faster
be entered
• Can track squats (without
manually or auto
force pause or slow
detected.
production tempo)
along with
velocity (F:V
Profile)
• Immediate,
rep-by-rep
results
provide
biofeedback

Hop Test (HJ) Starting with a • Single Leg Hop • Easier to • Asymmetries 45
sub- maximal Test (SLHJ) perform/learn cannot be used
CMJ, followed by than DJ for with confidence
5-10 consecutive some • Difficult for some
hops using ankles
• Test’s elastic to stay on force
only (no knee
ability plates
flexion).
• Faster to set
up and test
than DJ

Land And Hold Jumping with one • Single Leg Land • ECC/landing • Limited data (<10 53
(LAH) or two legs from and Hold (SLLAH) only test metrics)
ground/box onto
• Specific • Aggressive impact
force plate/s, then
Impact forces when done
holding in
Asymmetries for performance
landing position
until completely • Effective in
stable. numerous
RTP
scenarios

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 8

Quiet Stand (QSB) Stand as • Single Leg Stand • Immediate • Slower test to 58
stationary as (SLSB) objective perform
possible for a set data
• Single Leg Range • Can be difficult to
amount of time.
of Stability • Quantify interpret the
(SLROSB) asymmetry in results without
balance baseline data
• Track centre
of pressure
movement
over time

Isometric Test Static maximal • Single Leg • Safe, fast, • Can require 62
(ISOT) strength test. Isometric Test and reliable specific 68
(SLISOT) test of equipment slower
• Isometric Mid- maximal than jump testing
Thigh Pull (IMTP) strength • Requires attention
• Isometric Squat • RFD metrics on setup and
(ISQ) for return to execution
play and
• Isometric
fatigue
Shoulder I/Y/T
monitoring
Test
(SHLDISOI/Y/T)

ForceDecks can auto-detect 16 different test types (as at software version 2.0.8702 and iOS 1.9.0) ranging
across various jump protocols, isometric tests, and dynamic squat assessments. This section aims to
explain the raw data, key moments, and movement phases for each of the major ForceDecks test types, so
that users can identify key characteristics and understand test results. This section also covers common
methods to determine whether a test may be invalid, and if so, how to correct it or prevent future errors.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 9

2.1 Countermovement Jump (CMJ)

The Countermovement Jump (CMJ) is arguably the most popular force plate test due to its wide range of
applications and significant number of available metrics.

The CMJ can be easily used in:

• Individual profiling;
• Fatigue and adaptation monitoring; and
• A wide range of return-to-play scenarios.

The CMJ test in ForceDecks reports information on numerous phases and offers excellent asymmetry
analysis.

The goal of the CMJ is to jump as high as possible.

Below is a raw data trace of a typical Countermovement Jump test in ForceDecks, (showing only left, right
and total vertical force – all other derivatives and key moment labels are toggled off to help with viewing):

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 10

2.1.1 Protocol

To perform a Countermovement Jump test, follow these steps:

Starting position:

• Normal standing posture.

• Hands on hips (if unweighted) or hands on barbell (if weighted).

• Chest up and looking forward.

Protocol:

1. Zero Plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.

2. Assume starting position – Ask the individual to assume the starting position on the plates.

3. Weigh individual – Measure the individual’s weight.

4. Stabilize individual – Instruct the individual to remain completely still, in the starting position for 2-
3 seconds before and between each rep in the test.

5. Perform test – Instruct the individual to:

a. Keep the chest up and looking forward;

b. Bend down; then

c. Jump up; then

d. Land softly; then

e. Assume starting position again.

6. Repeat – Repeat step 5 to record the desired number of reps.

7. Complete the test – Click to stop the recording and check the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 11

Common protocol errors include:

Error Potential Effect(s)

Not stable during weighing. Bodyweight recorded inaccurately, which can introduce significant
error into metrics such as jump height (flight time or Imp-Mom),
power, and relative force values.
Error example:

Error:
Unstable weighing

Result:
Large displacement
error

Here is a test with a very unstable weigh period which in turn affects the displacement curve (pink)
significantly. This can be expected to also have ramifications in SoM and jump height, which would then
affect time-sensitive metrics and any metrics relying on jump height (e.g.: RSI Mod).

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 12

Error Potential Effect(s)

Pre-jump positive impulse Poor start of integration as there is already a positive velocity at
(Plantar flexion). SoM. This will influence a host of metrics from jump height to the
entire displacement curve along with metrics associated with
displacement.
Error example:

Error:
Positive impulse
prior to SoM

Result:
Large displacement
error

Positive Impulse immediately prior to the countermovement influences integration calculations,

as they are based on the assumption of a zero-velocity start. If a positive velocity exists,
displacement (pink) and therefore Jump Height will be less than the results show.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 13

2.1.2 Key Moments and Phases

ForceDecks auto-detects the following key moments in a Countermovement Jump:

Key Moments Description

Start of Movement Point where a 20N threshold is exceeded. This criteria is
customizable in Settings.
Start of Braking Phase Minimum force until end of eccentric phase.
Start of Deceleration Phase Peak eccentric velocity until end of eccentric phase.
Start of Concentric Phase Zero Velocity until take-off.
Start of Max. RFD Point of steepest concentric force.
End of Max. RFD Peak take off force.
Peak Take-off Force Highest force value obtained during the jump (eccentric/concentric
phase).
Take-off Point where force is below 20N.
Landing Point where force rises above 20N.
Peak Landing Force Highest force obtained during landing phase.

Key Moment:
Peak Landing Force

Key Moment:
Peak Take-off Force
Key Moment:
Start of Deceleration

Key Moment:
Start of Movement
Key Moment:
Take-off
Key Moment:
Landing
Key Moment:
Start of Braking

Key Moment:
Start of Concentric

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 14

ForceDecks auto-detects the following phases in a Countermovement Jump:

Phase Description
Weighing Phase Steady phase for weight to be recorded.
Eccentric Phase Phase containing negative velocity.
Braking Phase Sub-phase within eccentric phase: minimum force until end of
eccentric phase.
Deceleration Phase Sub-phase within eccentric phase: peak eccentric velocity until end of
eccentric phase.
Concentric Phase Zero velocity until take-off.
Flight Phase From take-off until landing.
Landing Phase Point where force rises above 20N, then eventually returns to
bodyweight.

Phase: Phase:
Weighing Concentric

Phase:
Phase:
Flight
Eccentric

Sub-Phase:
Braking
Phase:
Sub-Phase: Landing
Deceleration

From these key moments and phases in a Countermovement Jump test, ForceDecks software calculates and
reports 112 metrics on performance and asymmetry.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 15

2.1.3 Commonly Used Metrics

Some of the most commonly used metrics from a Countermovement Jump test include:

Metrics Description Common Application(s)

Performance Metrics
Jump Height (Imp- Outcome measure which gives Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
Mom) context to other metrics. monitoring
Flight Time: Contraction Time spent in the air divided by time Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
Time and RSI-Modified spent on the ground (eccentric and monitoring
concentric phases).
Eccentric Duration Length of time spent in the eccentric Fatigue monitoring
phase.
Eccentric Mean Power Average amount of power generated Individual profiling and adaptation
in the eccentric phase. monitoring
Peak Power Maximal power in the concentric Profiling and adaptation
phase. monitoring
Asymmetry Metrics
Concentric Impulse Difference between left and right Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry limb in total concentric work.
Eccentric Deceleration Difference between limbs in the rate Return to play monitoring
RFD Asymmetry at which the deceleration force is
generated.
Peak Landing Force Peak force difference between limbs Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry on landing.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 16

2.2 Countermovement Rebound Jump (CMRJ)

The Countermovement Rebound Jump (CMRJ) is a test that combines the benefits of a Countermovement
Jump with a Drop Jump.

The test can be performed with one or two limbs. The individual performs a Countermovement Jump with a
slow stretch-shortening cycle, followed immediately upon landing by a rebound jump with a fast stretch-
shortening cycle.

The test allows for quick comparison of both jumping strategies.

Below is a raw trace of a Countermovement Rebound Jump in ForceDecks:

4
2 3 5

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 17

2.2.1 Protocol

To perform a Countermovement Rebound Jump test, follow these steps:

Starting position:

• Normal standing posture.

• Hands on hips.

• Chest up and looking forward.

Protocol:

1. Zero Plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.

2. Assume starting position – Ask the individual to assume the starting position on the plates.

3. Weigh individual – Measure the individual’s weight.

4. Stabilize individual – Instruct the individual to remain completely still, in the starting position for 2-
3 seconds before and between each rep in the test.

5. Perform test – Instruct the individual to:

f. Keep the chest up and looking forward;

g. Bend down; then

h. Jump up; then

i. Land on the plates with both feet at the same time; then

j. Immediately jump as high as possible; then

k. Land softly; then

l. Assume starting position again.

6. Repeat – Repeat step 5 to record the desired number of reps.

7. Complete the test – Click to stop the recording and check the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 18

Common protocol errors include:

Error Potential Effect(s)

Pre-jump movement or Given the length of a Countermovement Rebound Jump, small
inaccurate weighing errors in protocol to start a test have lots of time to amplify during
a test. Incorrect weight or movement prior to the test will result in
inaccuracies in the velocity and height measurements.
Error Example:

Result: Large
displacement
error

Error:
Inaccurate body weight

Here is a test which starts with an inaccurate body weight. This in turn affects the height (i.e.,
displacement) curve (pink). Additionally, this will impact the velocity, power, and impulse curves, and any
metrics which are derived from them.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 19
2.2.2 Key Moments and Phases

ForceDecks auto-detects the following key moments in a Countermovement Rebound Jump:

Key Moment Description

Start of Movement Point where a 20N threshold is exceeded.
Start of Concentric Phase Zero Velocity before first takeoff.
Peak Takeoff Force Maximum force prior to first takeoff.
First Takeoff Point where force is below 20N.
First Landing Point where force rises above 20N.
Peak Impact Force Greatest passive force on impact from first landing.
Contact Trough Lowest force point between peak impact and peak drive-off force.
Start of Concentric Phase Zero Velocity before second takeoff.
Peak Drive-Off Force Greatest active force prior to second takeoff.
Second Takeoff Point where force is below 20N.
Second Landing Point where force rises above 20N.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 20

ForceDecks auto-detects the following phases in a Countermovement Rebound Jump:

Phase Description
Takeoff Phase Phase between start of movement and first takeoff.
Eccentric Phase Phase between start of movement and start of concentric phase.
Concentric Phase Phase between start of concentric phase and first takeoff.
Rebound Phase Phase between first landing and second takeoff.
Eccentric Phase Phase between first landing and start of concentric phase.
Concentric Phase Phase between start of concentric phase and second takeoff.

Phase:
Takeoff Phase
Phase:
Concentric
Phase
Rebound Phase
Eccentric
Phase
Concentric
Phase
Eccentric
Phase

From these key moments and phases in a Countermovement Rebound Jump test, ForceDecks software
calculates and reports 82 metrics on performance and asymmetry.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 21

2.2.3 Commonly Used Metrics

Some of the most commonly used metrics from a Countermovement Rebound test include:

Metrics Description Common Application(s)

Performance Metrics
First Jump Height Outcome measure to anchor/give Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
(Imp-Mom) context to other metrics. monitoring, profiling
Rebound Jump Height Measure to compare to the first Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
(Imp-Mom) jump with a slower takeoff. monitoring, profiling
Rebound Contact Time to complete the rebound Fatigue monitoring, adaptation,
Time takeoff. monitoring, profiling
Takeoff Peak Power / Power produced by the individual Individual profiling
BM normalized to their body mass.
Asymmetry Metrics
Peak Drop Landing L/R difference of landing force from Return to play monitoring,
Force the first jump. adaptation monitoring
Peak Landing L/R difference of landing force from Return to play monitoring,
Force the second jump. adaptation monitoring

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 22

2.3 Squat Jump (SJ)

The Squat Jump (SJ) test is used to evaluate triple extension performance by isolating the concentric
phase of a jump.

The SJ is a highly effective test to determine an individual’s ability to exhibit pure concentric force, without
utilizing the stretch shortening cycle.

The protocol is extremely strict and must be performed precisely to ensure correct software detection and
accurate results.

The goal of the SJ is to jump as high as possible.

Below is a raw data trace of a typical Squat Jump test in ForceDecks, (showing only left, right and total
vertical force – all other derivatives and key moment labels are toggled off to help with viewing):

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 23

2.3.1 Protocol

To perform a Squat Jump test, follow these steps:

Starting position:

• Partial or quarter-squat position

• Hands on hips

Protocol:

1. Zero plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.
2. Assume starting position – Ask the individual to assume the starting position on the plates.

3. Weigh individual – Measure the individual’s weight.

4. Stabilize individual – Instruct the individual to remain completely still, in the starting position
for 2-3 seconds before and between each rep in the test.

Important: ensure there is no downward movement from

the starting position.

5. Perform test – Instruct the individual to:

a. Keep the chest up and looking forward;
b. Jump up; then
c. Land softly; then
d. Assume starting position again.

6. Repeat – Repeat step 5 to record the desired number of reps.

7. Complete the test – Click to stop the recording and check the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 24

Common protocol errors include:

Error Potential Effect(s)

Not stable during weighing. Bodyweight recorded inaccurately, which can introduce significant
error into metrics such as jump height (Imp-Mom), power and
relative force values.
Error example:

Error:
Bodyweight
incorrect

Result:
Large displacement
Result: error
Large error in SoM

Here is an example of an unstable weighing period which resulted in a recorded bodyweight, heavier than
the individual’s actual bodyweight. This has caused the SoM to be incorrectly detected when the individual
stabilizes at normal bodyweight. As can be seen, not only is SoM detected extremely early (i.e., at roughly
20.4s, rather than when it should - at roughly 21.5s), but displacement is incorrect due to incorrect
bodyweight integration.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 25

Error Potential Effect(s)

Countermovement prior to concentric Can elicit a poor test detection and will negate the goal of a
phase. squat jump test as a stretch shortening cycle has been
introduced.
Error example:

Error:
Countermovement

Result:
Large error in SoM

Here we can see not only a countermovement prior to the squat jump, but a poor detection of SoM.
SoM should be after the second trough, well inside the concentric phase. Therefore, results for
contraction time, all RFD and force, at given time points will all be unreliable.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 26

2.3.2 Key Moments and Phases

ForceDecks auto-detects the following key moments in a Squat Jump:

Key Moments Description

Start of Movement Point where a 20N threshold is exceeded. This criteria is
customizable in Settings.
Start of Max. RFD Point of steepest concentric force.
End of Max. RFD End point of the largest RFD.
Peak Take-off Force Highest force value obtained during the jump.
Take-off Point where force is below 20N.
Landing Point where force rises above 20N.
Peak Landing Force Highest force obtained during landing phase.

Key Moment:
Key Moment: Peak Landing Force
Peak Take-off Force

Key Moment:
End of Max. RFD

Key Moment:
Start of Max. RFD

Key Moment:
Start of Movement Key Moment:
Key Moment:
Take-off Landing

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 27

ForceDecks auto-detects the following phases in a Squat Jump:

Phase Description
Weighing Phase Steady phase for weight to be recorded.
Concentric Phase Zero velocity until take-off.
Flight Phase From take-off until landing.
Landing Phase Point where force rises above 20N and settles back to bodyweight.

Phase:
Weighing

Phase:
Concentric Phase:
Flight

Phase:
Landing

From these key moments and phases in a Squat Jump test, ForceDecks software calculates and reports 71
metrics on performance and asymmetry

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 28

2.3.3 Commonly Used Metrics

Some of the most commonly used metrics from a Squat Jump test include:

Metrics Description Common Application(s)

Performance Metrics
Jump Height (Imp- Outcome measure to give context to Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
Mom) other metrics. monitoring
Positive Takeoff Total concentric work performed Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
Impulse above bodyweight. monitoring
Concentric RFD Rate of force development (RFD) in Fatigue monitoring, profiling
the concentric phase.
Peak Power / BM Maximal power in the concentric Individual profiling and adaptation
phase relative to bodyweight. monitoring
Peak Net Takeoff Force Peak net force (above bodyweight) Profiling and adaptation
/ BM relative to bodyweight. monitoring
Asymmetry Metrics
Positive Takeoff L/R difference of concentric work Return to play monitoring
Impulse Asymmetry performed above bodyweight.
Concentric RFD Rate of L/R force development in the Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry concentric phase.
Force at Peak Power L/R difference in force output at the Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry moment of peak force application.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 29

2.4 Drop Jump (DJ)

The Drop Jump (DJ) test evaluates reactive ability and an individual’s stretch-shorten cycle capacity. The

test has many similarities with repeat jumping and cutting maneuvers in athletics.

The goal of the DJ is to jump as high as possible but after minimal ground contact time.

Below is a raw data trace of a typical Drop Jump test in ForceDecks, (showing only left, right and total
vertical force – all other derivatives and key moment labels are toggled off to help with viewing):

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 30
2.4.1 Protocol

To perform a Drop Jump test, follow these steps:

Starting position:

• Standing on box or elevated platform immediately behind force plates

• Normal standing posture

• Hands on hips

• Chest up and looking forward

Protocol:

1. Zero plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.

2. Weigh individual – Measure the individual’s weight.

3. Assume starting position – Ask individual to assume the starting position on the plates.

4. Perform test – Instruct the individual to:

a. Keep chest up and looking forward;

b. Step out from the box(maintain hip height until drop of both feet); then

c. Land on the plates with both feet at the same time; then

d. Immediately jump as high as possible; then

e. Land softly, remaining completely still on the plates for 2-3 seconds; then

f. Assume the starting position again.

5. Repeat – Repeat steps 3 and 4 to record the desired number of reps.

6. Complete the test – Click to stop the recording and check the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 31

Common protocol errors Include:

Error Potential Effect(s)

Not taking individual’s With no bodyweight taken, detection will not be successful.
weight prior to jump
Error example:

Here is an example of a test where 3 drop jumps were performed, but an individual’s bodyweight
was not taken prior to testing, resulting in an error.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 32

Error Potential Effect(s)

Walking off the box instead Can influence asymmetries upon impact which can lead to poor
of hopping. data quality especially post injury. This will also influence “effective
drop height” as the individual can lower down before dropping and
effectively change the drop height. Can also influence contact time
lengths if the step down is significant enough.
Error example:

Result:
Error:
Artificially exaggerated
Mistimed landing
asymmetry results

Here is an individual that stepped off the with the left leg leading (right foot planted on box). The
initial impact can be seen very early on the left leg while the right leg picks up force just slightly
later. One objective of the test is for the individual to contact the force plates with both limbs at
the same time after stepping off the box.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 33

Error Potential Effect(s)

Incorrect box height (manual Jump height from flight time should be very similar to Imp-Mom
entry). method. If an error has occurred from manually entering a box
height, there will be a difference between jump height via flight
time and Imp-Mon calculation.
Error example:

Error:
Incorrect box height
entered

Result:
Large displacement error

In this example the drop height was entered in at 50cm (the actual height of the box) however the
effective drop height was only an average of 38.3cm (as seen below). This was likely due to either
the test subject lowering down before stepping off the box or the platform height was not
accounted for. Either way the drop height was reduced, and this leads to a large discrepancy in
jump height between Flight Time and Impulse-Momentum. This should not be the case on a proper
drop jump.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 34
2.4.2 Key Moments and Phases

ForceDecks auto-detects the following key moments in a Drop Jump:

Key Moments Description

Drop Landing Point where a 20N threshold is exceeded.
Peak Impact Force Greatest passive force on impact from box drop.
Contact Trough Lowest force point between peak impact and peak drive-off force.
Start of Concentric Rising from the lowest position after landing.
Peak Drive-Off Peak active force (contraction based).
Force
Take-off Point of toe off/beginning of flight time.
Landing Point of touch down (Force over 20N).
Peak Landing Force Greatest force generated on landing.

Key Moment: Key Moment:

Peak Impact Force Peak Drive-Off Force

Key Moment:
Contact Trough
Key Moment:
Peak Landing Force

Key Moment: Key Moment:

Key Moment: Take-off Landing
Drop Landing

Key Moment:
Start of Concentric

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 35

ForceDecks auto-detects the following phases in a Drop Jump:

Phase Description
Eccentric Phase From drop landing until zero velocity.
Concentric Phase Zero velocity until take-off.
Flight Phase From take-off until landing.
Landing Phase Point where force rises above 20N and settles back to bodyweight.

Phase:
Concentric

Phase:
Eccentric Phase:
Landing

Phase:
Flight

From these key moments and phases in a Drop Jump test, ForceDecks software calculates and reports 59
metrics on performance and asymmetry.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 36

2.4.3 Commonly Used Metrics

Some of the most commonly used metrics from a Drop Jump test include:

Metrics Description Common Application(s)

Performance Metrics
Jump Height (Imp- Outcome measure to anchor/give Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
Mom) context to other metrics. monitoring
RSI Flight time divided by contact time. Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
monitoring, profiling
Active Stiffness Peak active force (in concentric Fatigue monitoring, adaptation,
phase) divided by the change in monitoring, profiling
displacement of CoM from contact
to the minimum value (the lowest
point during contact phase).
Peak Power Maximum power value attained Individual profiling and adaptation
during the trial. monitoring
Contact Time Time spent on the ground between Adaptation monitoring, fatigue
drop landing and takeoff. monitoring
Asymmetry Metrics
Concentric Impulse L/R difference of concentric work Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry performed.
Eccentric Impulse L/R difference of eccentric work Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry performed.
Drop Landing RFD L/R difference in rate of force Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry produced/accepted on initial drop
landing.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 37

2.5 Squat Assessment (SQT)

The Squat Assessment (SQT) enables detailed analysis of both body weight and externally loaded squats.

It can be used to:

• Assess performance attributes through Force:Velocity profiling;

• Track asymmetry improvements during rehabilitation; as well as
• Provide biofeedback for performers to improve movement mechanics in real time.

The goals of the SQT will vary based on objectives.

Below is a raw trace of a Squat Assessment with three reps in ForceDecks, (showing only left, right and
total vertical force – all other derivatives and key moment labels are toggled off to help with viewing):

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 38
2.5.1 Protocol

To perform a Squat Assessment test, follow these steps:

Starting position:

• Normal standing posture

• Hands on hips (if unweighted) or hands on barbell (if weighted)

• Chest up and looking forward

Protocol:

1. [OPTIONAL] Enter external load – The weight of the external load can be manually entered.

2. Zero plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.

3. Weigh individual – Measure the individual’s weight without the barbell.

4. Assume starting position – Ask individual to assume starting position on the plates.

5. Stabilize individual – Instruct the individual to remain completely still, in the standing position
for 2-3 seconds before and between each rep in the test.

6. Perform test – Instruct the individual to:

a. Keep the chest up and looking forward;

b. Bend down into a squat, keeping the knees in line with the toes; then

c. Push through the heels; then

d. Assume the starting position again.

7. Repeat – Repeat step 6 to record the desired number of reps.

8. Complete the test – Click to stop the recording and check the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 39
Common Errors Include:
Error Potential Effect(s)
Not selecting Squat The squat needs prior selection to be detected. If this is not selected,
Assessment you will not get a detection of each repetition.

Error example:

Error:
Squat Assessment
Result: not selected
Squats not detected

Test Type pre-set left on “Auto-Detect” leaves the squat undetected. This can easily be fixed by
selecting Squat Assessment during test setup.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 40

Error Potential Effect(s)

Manually entering the If the external resistance (weight plates etc.) are incorrectly identified
incorrect weight for the as a certain weight, you will get poor data. This will result in the
external load equations having incorrect data and result in incorrect force metrics.
Error example:

Result:
SoM detected
incorrectly
Total mass
(correct)

Total mass
(incorrect)
Entered external load Actual external load

Bodyweight

Error:
External load
entered incorrectly

This example has a dramatically incorrect weight attributed to the external load. The true load was
80kg and 50kg was manually entered. The poor detection can be seen in the graph as the SoM
happens halfway down the unloading curve and the entire last repetition is missed.
The below example is the correct external load detection.

Result:
SoM detected correctly

Total mass

Entered external load ≈ Actual external load

Bodyweight

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 41

Error Potential Effect(s)

Not staying stable between This can become increasingly challenging with extreme loads as the
reps bar will flex and rebound. Without clear separation of reps, start of
movement detection and end of rep detection can be challenged by
the large oscillating forces
Error example:

Error:
Unstable

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 42

2.5.2 Key Moments and Phases

ForceDecks auto-detects the following key moment in a Squat Assessment:

Key Moments Description

Start of Rep Point where rep commences.
Start of Deceleration Phase Point of peak negative velocity.
Eccentric Peak Force Greatest force found in eccentric phase.
Start of Concentric Phase Point at zero velocity.
Concentric Peak Force Peak force found in concentric phase.
End of Rep Point where force returns to system weight/force.

Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3

Key Moment: Key Moment:

Eccentric Peak Force Concentric Peak Force

Key Moment:
Rep Start
Key Moment:
Rep End

Key Moment:
Start of Deceleration Key Moment:
Start of Concentric

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 43

ForceDecks auto-detects the following phases in a Squat Assessment:

Phase Description
Eccentric Phase Point where rep commences to start of concentric phase.
Deceleration Phase Sub-phase within eccentric phase: point of peak negative velocity
to start of concentric phase.
Concentric Phase Point at zero velocity to end of rep.
Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3

Phase:
Eccentric

Phase:
Concentric

Sub-Phase:
Deceleration

From these key moment and phases in a Squat Assessment, ForceDecks software calculates and reports 25
metrics on performance and asymmetry.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 44

2.5.3 Commonly Used Metrics

Some of the most commonly used metrics from a Squat Assessment include:

Metrics Description Common Application(s)

Performance Metrics
Concentric Mean Average velocity found through the Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
Velocity concentric phase. monitoring
Eccentric Peak Velocity Greatest negative velocity found Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
during eccentric phase. monitoring
Maximum Negative Lowest point the CoM achieved in Adaptation monitoring, return to
Displacement the squat. play
Peak Force Highest force output throughout the Individual profiling and adaptation
entire repetition. monitoring
Eccentric Peak Power Highest power output achieved in Adaptation monitoring, profiling
eccentric phase.
Asymmetry Metrics
Concentric Mean Force L/R difference of concentric force Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry performed.
Eccentric Mean Force L/R difference of eccentric force Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry performed.
Peak Force Asymmetry L/R difference in the peak force Return to play monitoring
attained.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 45

2.6 Hop Test (HT)

The Hop Test (HT) is an excellent option to assess elastic/reactive qualities without the use of a box as
during the Drop Jump.

The HT is a bilateral test performed with (relatively) straight legs, using the ankle/calf as the primary means
of upward propulsion without squatting downward. The test is commonly done by performing 10 rapid
hops and analyzing the best 5.

The goal of the HT is to perform a set number of hops for maximum height and minimal ground contact
time, using only the toes/forefoot.

Below is a raw trace of a Hop Test with ten hops in ForceDecks, (showing only left, right and total vertical
force – all other derivatives and key moment labels are toggled off to help with viewing):

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 46

2.6.1 Protocol

To perform a Hop Test, follow these steps:

Starting position:

• Normal standing posture

• Hands on hips

• Chest up and looking forward

Protocol:

1. Zero plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.

2. Assume starting position – Ask individual to assume the starting position on the plates.

3. Weigh individual – Measure the individual’s weight.

4. Stabilize individual – Instruct the individual to remain completely still, in the starting position for
2-3 seconds before and between each rep in the test.

5. Perform test – Instruct the individual to:

a. Keep chest up and looking forward;

b. Bend down; then

c. Jump up; then

d. Land stiff-legged on only the toes; then

e. Quickly jump off the toes, for the desired number of hops, in rapid succession. (Safely
keeping the knees as straight as possible.)

f. Land softly; then

g. Assume starting position again.

6. Repeat – Repeat step 5 to record the desired number of reps.

7. Complete the test – Click to stop the recording and check the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 47
Common protocol errors include:

Error Potential Effect(s)

Not performing at least 5 hops Auto-analysis of hop test will fail.
Error example:

Here the Individual has not performed the required minimum of 5 hops to get a detection.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 48

Error Potential Effect(s)

Allowing the Individual to This simply changes the test from an ankle dominant, elastic test to
bend the knees when a slower SSC lower body test. This will not result in incorrect
jumping detection but may produce poor data.
Error example:

Result:
Data may not be
representative of
Error: test goals.
Knee bend
during hops

Here is an example of a Hop Test that has been performed with a knee bend upon each landing.
Note the long contact times and the deep trough between impacts and takeoffs. In this example,
some or all analyzed results may not be valid.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 49

Error Potential Effect(s)

Not starting with a stable This can lead to displacement drift as the Individual mass is needed
period or ending with a stable to orient displacement.
period
Error example:

Error: Error:
Unstable period Unstable period
prior to jump after hops

Result:
Inaccurate
displacement

Shown here is a drifting displacement curve (pink) because the individual was never truly stable before
jumping or on landing of the last hop.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 50

2.6.2 Key Moments and Phases

ForceDecks auto-detects the following key moment in a Hop Test:

Key Moment Description

Start of Movement Point where hop test commences.
Best Landing Landing for the best hop.
Best Peak Force Force value for the best hop.
Best Take-off Flight time for the best hop.

Key Moment:
Best Peak
Force (N)

Key Moment:
Start of Movement
(SoM)

Key Moment: Key Moment:

Landing Take-off
(Best Hop) (Best Hop)

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 51

ForceDecks auto-detects the following phases in a Hop Test:

Phase Description
Best Hop The single hop with the highest RSI out of the entire hop test.
Best 5 Hops The top 5 hops with the highest RSI out of the entire hop test.
(Highlighted in purple and green)

Phase:
Best Hop

Phase:
Best 5 Hops

From these key moment and phases in a Hop Test, ForceDecks software calculates and reports 54 metrics
on performance and asymmetry.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 52

2.6.3 Commonly Used Metrics

Some of the most commonly used metrics from a Hop Test include:

Metrics Description Common Application(s)

Performance Metrics
Best Reactive Strength Absolute best RSI (FT:CT) out of a Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
Index (RSI) series of hops. monitoring
Contact Time Time spent on the ground between Fatigue monitoring, adaptation
each hop. monitoring
Mean Active Stiffness Peak force divided by displacement. Adaptation monitoring, return to
play
Peak Force Highest force output throughout the Individual profiling and adaptation
entire hop test. monitoring
Mean RSI (over given N Average RSI over N hops. This fits Adaptation monitoring, profiling
Hops) the 10/5 RSI where the average of
the 5 best hops out of 10 are
averaged.
Asymmetry Metrics
Mean Impulse L/R difference of work performed. Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry
Mean Peak Force L/R difference of the average of all Return to play monitoring
Asymmetry peak force measures (per rep)
performed.
Peak Force Asymmetry L/R difference in the peak force Return to play monitoring
attained per Hop.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 53

2.7 Land and Hold (LAH)

The Land and Hold (LAH) is a test that evaluates stability as well as how an Individual manages landing
impact forces.

This test can be performed with one or two limbs and either off the ground or from an elevated start (e.g.:
box). The intensity of the test can also be modified by adding external loads, thus allowing for a large
variety of testing options in performance and rehabilitation.

The goal for the LAH test is to land and stabilize as quickly as possible.

Below is a raw trace of a Single Limb Land and Hold Test in ForceDecks:

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 54

2.7.1 Protocol

To perform a Land and Hold test, follow these steps:

Starting position:

• Standing on box or elevated platform immediately behind force plates

• Normal standing posture

• Hands on hips
• Chest up and looking forward

Protocol:

1. Zero plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.

2. Weigh individual – Measure the individual’s weight.

3. Assume starting position – Ask individual to assume the starting position on the plates.

4. Perform test - Instruct the individual to:

a. Keep the chest up and looking forward;

b. Step off the box; then

c. Land on the plates with both feet at the same time; then

d. Land softly, remaining completely still for 2-3 seconds; then

e. Assume starting position again.

5. Repeat – Repeat steps 3 and 4 to record the desired number of reps.

6. Complete the test – Click to stop the recording and check the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 55

Common protocol errors include:

Error Potential Effect(s)

Not remaining off the force Detection will be unsuccessful, or trials will be incorrectly detected
plates for 3 seconds as Drop Jumps.
between trials
Error example:

Result:
Incorrect detection Error:
Gap between
reps too short

Here is a test with four LAH reps performed, but the individual did not remain stable on landing
and did not step off the force plates for 3 seconds which has resulted in both undetected and
incorrectly labelled tests.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 56

Error Potential Effect(s)

Not remaining stable upon If the individual is too quick to step off the force plates, puts the
landing other foot down, or hops to gain balance after landing, detection
will fail.
Error example:

Error: Error:
No stable period No stable period

Result:
Incorrect or no
detection

In the test above, the individual simply never came to a point of stability, and therefore no detection
was made.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 57

2.7.2 Key Moments and Phases

ForceDecks auto-detects the following key moments in Land and Hold tests.

Key Moment Description

Drop Landing Point where landing commences.
Peak Landing Force Highest landing force obtained.
Stabilized Point where force is within a 15N standard deviation for 0.5
seconds.

Key Moment:
Peak Landing Force

Key Moment:
Stabilized

Key Moment:
Drop Landing

Note: there are no discrete phases detected in a Land and Hold test.

From these key moments in a Land and Hold test, ForceDecks software calculates and reports 3 metrics on
performance and asymmetry.

2.7.3 Commonly Used Metrics

Some of the most commonly used metrics from a Land and Hold test include:

Metrics Description Common Application(s)

Performance Metrics
Peak Landing Force Highest Force produced on landing Adaptation monitoring, return to
play, profiling
Time to Stabilization Time between landing and stability Adaptation monitoring, return to
play, profiling

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 58

2.8 Quiet Stand (QSB)

The Quiet Stand (QSB) test assesses an individual’s ability to balance and maintain stability under a variety of
conditions.

This assessment measures the center of pressure (CoP) of the individual, which goes beyond the typical visual
assessments that stability tests are limited to.

The goal of the Quiet Stand test is to stand as still as possible for a set amount of time.

Below is the raw CoP trace of a Quiet Stand test in ForceDecks:

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 59

2.8.1 Protocol

To perform a Quiet Stand test, follow these steps:

Starting Position:

• Normal Standing Posture

• Hands on hips
• Chest up and looking forward

Protocol:

1. Confirm exercise length – Input the desired length of the protocol (in seconds).

2. [OPTIONAL] Select additional test parameters – Select if the individual being tested has their eyes
closed, is standing on an unstable surface, or is performing a secondary task.

3. Zero plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.

4. Assume starting position – Ask the individual to assume the starting position on the plates.

5. Perform test – Instruct the individual to:

a. Keep their feet set; then

b. Stand as still as possible for the length of the exercise.

6. Repeat – Repeat step 5 to record the desired number of reps.

7. Complete the test – Click to stop the recording and check the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 60

Common protocol errors include:

Error Potential Effect(s)

Lifting feet off the plate during The measured centre of pressure will suddenly jump to another part
the test of the plate when the foot is set back down, resulting in larger
values for the metrics calculated using it.
Example:

Error:
Two separate
center of
pressure traces

The right plate has two separate center of pressure traces indicating that the right foot was picked
up and placed back down during the rep. If this happens the rep should be discarded and
reperformed.

2.8.2 Key Moments and Phases

There are no detected key moments or phases in a Quiet Stand test.

In a Quiet Stand test, ForceDecks software calculates and reports 8 metrics on performance and asymmetry.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 61

2.8.3 Commonly Used Metrics

Some of the most commonly used metrics from a Quiet Stand test include:

Metrics Description Common Application(s)

Performance Metrics
CoP Range – Medial- The distance between the furthest Balance screening, return to play,
Lateral points in the side-to-side direction profiling
CoP Range – Anterior- The distance between the furthest Balance screening, return to play,
Posterior points in the front-to-back direction profiling
The length of the center of pressure Balance screening, return to play,
Total Excursion
line during the test profiling

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 62
2.9 Isometric Test (ISOT)
Isometric tests (both bilateral and single limb) are an effective way to determine maximum strength output
in numerous scenarios. A variety of testing options exist and include the Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull, several
hamstring variations, and a comprehensive shoulder series that examines force production at end ranges
of motion. Isometric tests will be discussed together in this section since they exhibit common factors,
including key analysis metrics and similar asymmetry considerations.

Below is a raw trace of a Bilateral Isometric Test (in this case an Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull test), showing
left, right, and total forces:

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 63

An example Single Limb Isometric Test (in this example, the right limb only) is shown below:

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 64

2.9.1 Protocol

To perform an Isometric test, follow these steps:

Starting position:

Starting position varies depending on the isometric test being performed.

Protocol:

1. Zero plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.

2. Weigh individual – Measure the individual’s weight.

Important: For isometric tests where the bodyweight is being supported by something
other than the plates (e.g., Shoulder ISO-I), only the limb being tested should be
weighted.

3. Assume starting position – Ask the individual to assume the starting position on the plates.

4. Stabilize individual – Instruct the individual to remain completely still, in the starting position
for 2-3 seconds before and between each rep in the test.

5. Perform test - Instruct the individual to:

a. Contract as hard and as fast as possible; then

b. Hold at maximum force output for a minimum of 2 seconds; then

c. Relax after the contraction; then

d. Assume the starting position again.

6. Repeat – Repeat step 5 to record the desired number of reps.

7. Complete the test – Click to stop the recording and check the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 65

Common protocol errors include:

Error Potential Effect(s)

Not taking Individual or Limb This will affect detection of the exercise and report an error
Weight Prior to test message.
Error example:

Limb was not weighed prior to test. Here both limbs should have been weighed in the testing
position. One limb should be removed while the other limb is tested. Then pause recordings, switch
legs, continue recording, stop and analyze.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 66

Error Potential Effect(s)

Not utilizing pre-tension Pretension reduces “Impact Forces” which effect all time-
prior to the execution of a based force values and RFDs. This may also negate true
test maximal force values if the impact is hard enough.
Error example:

Result:
Impact registers
incorrect peak force.

Error:
No pre-tension

Here you can see a rapid rise of Force, a peak, trough, and another rise in force. This suggests there
was no pretension before the pull was commenced, the individual pulled from a “slack” position,
“bounced” back, and pulled again. Not only does this effect time metrics but also this “impact” is
where peak force is found which is most likely not a real muscular action.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 67

Error Potential Effect(s)

Using drastically This will have impact on all values relating to time. The more pre-
inconsistent levels of pre- tension there is, the higher starting value force you have. For
tension example, Force@200ms will be higher than a lower pre-tension if
intent and force rise is equivalent. This makes the data used for
monitoring noisier.
Error example:

Above is an example of two isometric tests with drastically different starting forces (892N left, and
1,388N right). Forces reached at 200ms are drastically higher in part due to the “head start” of
starting with ~500N more force.

If the same individual were to then start the 3rd trial with closer to 900N of pre-tension again, we
may see a decrease in RFD. In practice, such a decrease may be attributable to “noise” in the
measure, but alternatively may simply be due to poor standardization of testing protocol.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 68

2.9.2 Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull Protocol

The Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull (IMTP) test is a type of Isometric Test and is detected and analyzed exactly
the same way within ForceDecks. However, given the IMTP is a very commonly used test in its own right,
this section covers its specific protocol.

To perform an IMTP test, follow these steps:

Setup:

Set your ForceDecks up in a dedicated IMTP rig or with a fixed barbell within a cage or frame.

Note: the equipment used for an IMTP test can make a significant difference to the quality of your
results. A dedicated IMTP rig is recommended because it will typically:

a. Allow for the bar height to be finely adjusted to suit different individuals;
b. Feature a stiffer bar than a traditional weightlifting bar; and
c. Have no slack between the bar and frame.

For recommendations on where to find a local supplier of IMTP rigs for your ForceDecks, please
contact [email protected]

Starting position:

Note: the individual’s body should be in the below position, with roughly 135° of knee flexion, and
the feet, hands, and shoulders in vertical alignment (Kraska, 2009)

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 69

2.9.3 Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull Protocol

To perform an Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull test, follow these steps:

Starting position:

• Standing position with hip and knees slightly bent

• Bar positioned at mid-thigh

• Gripping the bar with slight pretension

Protocol:

1. Zero Plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.

2. Weigh individual – Measure the individual’s weight.

3. Assume starting position – Ask the individual to assume the starting position on the plates.

4. Stabilize individual – Instruct the individual to remain completely still, in the starting position for 2-
3 seconds before and between each rep in the test.

5. Perform Test – Instruct the individual to:

a. Contract as hard and as fast as possible: then

b. Hold at maximum force output for a minimum of 2 seconds; then

c. Relax after the contraction; then

d. Assume the starting position again.

6. Repeat – Repeat step 5 to record the desired number of reps.

7. Complete the test – Click to stop the recording and check the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 70

2.9.4 Key Moments and Phases

ForceDecks auto-detects the following key moments in an Isometric test.

Key Moments Description

Start of Movement Point where exercise commences.
Peak Vertical Force Greatest force recording through the entire trial.

Key Moment:
Peak Force (N)

Key Moment:
Start of Movement

Note: there are no distinct phases detected in an Isometric Test.

From these key moments in an Isometric test, ForceDecks software calculates and reports 44 metrics on
performance and asymmetry.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 71

2.9.5 Commonly Used Metrics

Some of the most commonly used metrics from an Isometric test include:

Metrics Description Common Application(s)

Performance Metrics
Peak Vertical Force Maximal force produced within the Profiling, adaptation monitoring
trial
Absolute Impulse Total work performed Profiling, adaptation monitoring
Force @ Depending on the sport, you can Fatigue monitoring, adaptation,
100/150/200ms select a time epoch that matches the monitoring, profiling
sport demand (example, sprinting
GCT of about 100ms)
Rate of Force Similar to F@time point, RFD is Individual profiling and adaptation
Development @ time found to track explosive strength monitoring
epoch of choice qualities and fatigue
Peak Vertical Force/BW Peak force relative to bodyweight is Adaptation monitoring, profiling
used for comparison to other
individuals
Asymmetry Metrics
Peak Vertical Force L/R difference between max force Return to play monitoring,
Asymmetry produced Profiling
Absolute Impulse L/R difference of total work Return to play monitoring,
Asymmetry performed Profiling
RFD Asymmetry L/R difference in rate of force Return to play monitoring
produced

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 72

2.10 General Force-Time Analysis (GFTA)

The General Force Time Analysis is a very different process than other test types that have clear
instructions and detection points that allow ForceDecks to auto-detect and auto-analyze.

The GFTA allows the user to record force:time data for any test or exercise they wish. In a GFTA test, there
is no defined start of movement (SoM) or eccentric/concentric/landing phases, but ForceDecks does
produce simple force related metrics such as peak force and minimum force.

There are countless examples of tests for which GFTA may be used, but one example shown below is a
GFTA test being used to analyze a golf swing.

Key Moment:
Peak Force (N)

Key Moment:
Minimum Force (N)

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 73

2.10.1 Protocol

To perform a General Force –Time Analysis test, follow these steps:

(This test is available on ForceDecks Windows only. GFTA is not available in ForceDecks iOS).

Note: A General Force-Time Analysis is typically performed for tests and movements which are not
automatically detected by ForceDecks Windows. This allows any test to be analyzed at a basic
level, even if it is a unique or uncommon protocol or movement.

General Force-Time Analysis tests yield generic results, which are broadly suitable for most
tests, but depending on the test being performed, may not capture all desired metrics for all
users.

Starting position:

• As desired

Protocol:

1. Zero plates – Zero the plates. Ensure nothing is touching the plates during this step.

2. Assume starting position – Ask the individual to assume the starting position on the plates.

3. Weigh individual – Measure the individual’s weight.

4. Stabilize individual – Instruct the individual to remain completely still, in the starting position
for 2-3 seconds before and between each rep in the test.

5. Perform test - Instruct the individual to perform the desired movement.

6. Repeat – Repeat step 5 to record the desired number of reps.

7. Stop recording – Click to stop the recording.

8. Mark reps – Click “Mark Trial Range”, then on the graph, to select the desired range/s to be
analyzed.

9. Complete the test - Analyze and save the results.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 74

3 Example Applications
This section discusses some of the possible use cases for ForceDecks, using sources taken from:

1. Published literature; and

2. Case studies from current ForceDecks users.

ForceDecks provides a detailed and objective understanding of physical characteristics that relate to sport,
work, and/or life tasks that in turn, can help manage general well-being (VALD, 2023). The following section
covers common examples of force plate testing, while exploring how resultant data can be used effectively
in daily practice. Specifically, we explore why all tests have value, while acknowledging that test types need
to be matched with the right context to have maximal value, i.e., ecological validity.

Using ForceDecks helps to better understand and articulate changes in attributes that relate to sports
performance, work-related duties, and to guide the progression of injury rehabilitation. In contrast to
monitoring progress, it helps to illuminate when physical characteristics are in decline (e.g., fatigue
monitoring), which can put performances and the individual at risk, including injury and illness. While these
are two distinct considerations (i.e., deciding when to push and when to protect), in practice they work in
tandem to ensure healthy performance is maintained.

3.1 General Considerations

3.1.1 Evaluation Stage – Choosing Tests and Metrics

Before thinking deeply about what and when to test, it is important to consider what you want to know from
testing and how you plan to use the resultant data, e.g., how will you leverage the information alongside
other stakeholders so that programming interventions are successful? The following diagram (Figure 2),
underpinned by principles of continuous improvement, offer an example process to help reach your goal(s).

EVALUATION
STAGE
START HERE

Figure 2. Testing using ForceDecks – considerations for planning, testing, leveraging results, and programming.
VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide
 75

For best practice, it is recommended to start with conducting a Needs Analysis, considering the demands of
the task and/or sport, and the status of the individual being tested. The structure of the testing session and
selected tests should generally meet the following criteria:

1. Tests should relate to a desirable quality in the individual’s sport or occupation (for example, the
strength capacity of a dog handler in the military or the police).
2. Tests should be repeatable (considering time, set up, access to equipment/space).
3. The individual clearly understands the purpose and goal(s), to ensure that effort and intent are
maximal.
4. The data collected will be used to affect exercise prescription and training, where applicable.

Once these have been established, the next step is to select relevant tests and metrics. By quantifying
relevant physical capacities, strengths and weaknesses can be determined, guiding targeted training
prescriptions to address the revealed deficiencies (James, 2023; Sheppard, 2021). To assist with test
selection, ForceDecks users should consider both the individual’s immediate and longer-term testing needs,
where the choice of tests and metrics are an important first step. For example, as the user, are you looking
to assess physical qualities that are important for performance (sport/ job/ life), monitor dose-
response/fatigue, or understand progressions during injury rehabilitation? Below are 3 distinct user
applications using the CMJ, where ForceDecks can have a significant impact on practice:

*Ensure all component parts are concurrently monitored to understand what is driving any changes in data over time.

NOTE: It is often at times beneficial to evaluate countermovement jump metrics relative to body mass. Above all, the practitioner should be
consistent in how they evaluate their data (absolute vs. relative) to appropriately appraise differences between athlete cohorts and changes over
time.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 76

Figure 3. A framework to guide practitioners for selecting metrics using the countermovement jump test (Adapted from Bishop et
al. (2022)

Once the user-case has been established, the next step is to understand how to generate a performance-
profile for the individual, where the ForceDecks Assessment Framework (see Figure 4) can help to design a
suitable testing battery as part of a continuum, where at one end, tests are less demanding and focus on
balance and basic function. On the other end of the continuum, test types are more ballistic, and are used
to understand plyometric performance. Consequently, each test helps to understand physical
characteristics (e.g., strength, speed, and/ or endurance) that are important for enhancing physical
performance and is an important first step when designing training and exercise programs. Critically,
practitioners need to be mindful that not every individual has to carry out tests at every stage of the
ForceDecks Assessment Framework (Figure 4), as it is based on need and capability.

For example, elderly individuals might not require and/ or be able to complete high impact and velocity test
like, Drop Jumps, but they do require strength and balance to execute daily tasks like, squatting to pick a
bag from the floor, or to get out of a chair. In this example, supporting practitioners need to consider whether
tests other than balance, functional movement patterns, and isometric strength are safe and relevant to the
client’s need.

Conversely, military personnel and athletes might require a high degree of elastic reactive strength for
aggressive change of direction, jumping from a run up, or running at speed, where Drop Jumps or the 10/5
Repeated Hop Test offer relevant test solutions.

Figure 4. The ForceDecks Assessment Framework assists practitioners when selecting test types based on the
individual’s need and as part of a continuum.

3.1.2 Individualization: Personalizing the Assessment based on Need

It is important to consider if the goal of your testing is to determine one of the following:

1. What is the individual’s capability and capacity - personal best efforts/outcomes across
relevant metrics, how they compared to normative standards, and how you can leverage their
results to improve the individual’s status?

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 77

2. What is the individual’s average and/or standard deviation of their effort and outcome?
3. What do the individual’s effort/outcomes look like under adverse conditions, e.g., during peak
levels of fatigue?

The above may seem like a relatively minor distinction but can have a significant impact on the interpretation
of any data collected. For example, when testing an individual, consider the differences between:

a. Optimal status; and

b. Normal daily demands.

Below are examples applications that ForceDecks users encounter, providing details of the client/athlete,
test, and metrics:

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 78

Practical Implications – when to test?

Example comparison: In a typical week, a military Sergeant and basketball player might experience high
workloads in their respective jobs, which can have negative implications on their ForceDecks testing
performances. Therefore, we might expect sub-optimal performances, unless their training is adjusted to
accommodate (typically reduced) for associated acute fatigue to subside. Understanding the need to
control physical status in the lead in to testing (time of day, day of week, stage of program, level of fatigue,
etc.) is an important consideration when collecting data that is both valid and reliable (Issurin, 2010).

Time of day is also an important consideration when testing. The impact on results is known to vary due to
the natural circadian rhythm and the body’s fluctuation in alertness, hormonal status, and internal body
temperature (Thun, 2015; Atkinson, 1996; Bourreau, 2015). If it is not possible to test-retest at a similar time
of day, you can use “Attributes” to delineate results.

In ForceDecks, you can assign “tags”, to help classify similar tests that have different constraints. For
example, if CMJ is tested in the morning or the evening, it will help the practitioner decide whether the
fluctuation in data is due to actual changes in neuromuscular status or simply due to variation in the time.
Similarly, attributes can be used in the same manner to delineate differences in physical status (Zarrouk,
2012).

3.2 Profiling

Purpose Establish a baseline for an individual, relative to:

• Their peers (for immediate intervention)
• The individual (for future monitoring and intervention)
Objectives Establish a reliable measure of what is typical for the individual, using
criteria that is:
• Reliably monitored over time
• Directly related to their goals
Common tests Tests should be easy to perform reliably with minimal familiarization, while
gathering as much data as possible, such as (but not limited to):
• CMJ
• SQT (loaded or unloaded)
• Isometric Tests
Frequency of testing Typically, just once, at start of a discreet period:
• During first visit to clinic
• Based on timeline needs – e.g., start of program/season/course
• Start of new exercise program
• Pre/post-surgery
Key considerations • Is the individual familiarized enough or physically capable enough
to make their data reliable?
• Would improvement in the aspects being measured mean
progress towards their goals?
• Can the analysis be consistently performed again in the future to
test the same aspects?

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 79

Profiling is an important part of understanding programming for performance and injury rehabilitation. The
general goal of profiling is to take a “fingerprint” of the individual, to answer questions such as:

• What are their strengths?

• What are their outputs in given tests/metrics?
• What are their weaknesses and imbalances?
• What do their normal outcome measures (e.g., jump height) look like?
• What do their normal strategies (e.g., countermovement depth, contraction time, etc.) look like?
• What do they do on a consistent basis that may be beneficial or detrimental to their sport or their
health?

With this in mind, understanding how results in multiple assessments relate to each other can help to
improve your understanding of an individual’s “fingerprint” and personalize their exercise prescription
accordingly (Turner, 2019).

Below is an example of how relevant test/s and variable/s may be selected to form part of profiling.

Which type of attribute needs to be tested?

Jumping and Landing Agility Reactive Ability

Strength Agility
Landing Only

*These tests may instead/also be performed in single limb variants where appropriate.
Note: These are attributes that are relevant for rapid change of direct movements and agility.

For the purpose of this User Guide, our discussion focuses on neuromuscular assessment. Other common
areas of profiling such as: 3D movement analysis, speed, endurance, blood panels and cognitive testing are
out of the scope of this User Guide but may still form a part of the profiling and monitoring process and may

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 80

add value to neuromuscular assessment results.

The following section discusses profiling of both performance and asymmetry.

3.2.1 Profiling for Improved Performance

To establish a well-rounded profile for the individual, it is important to consider using different test types.
Developing a well-rounded performance profile requires results from multiple test types, each offering
details about different attributes. If time and resources allow, the best approach is to examine various test
results to identify similarities and relationships. Trends will begin to emerge and that will help support
informed decision-making for training and exercise. For example, consider the following tests and the data
they most accurately report:
• CMJ: precise information regarding slow Stretch Shorten Cycle (SSC) ability and easily administered
for ongoing monitoring.
• DJ: provides relevant information for fast Stretch Shorten Cycle (SSC) ability, that relates to jumping
from a run up, rapid change of direction, and running at speed.
• SJ: isolates an individual’s ability to generate force during movement without any elastic
contribution.
• Lower Limb ISOT: a reliable method to determine lower body maximum force production.

However, this is by no means a comprehensive list of options. For example, a Hop Test can replace the DJ;
Single Limb Jump and Isometric tests may help with single limb versus double leg abilities (possibly
highlighting deficiencies or asymmetry variations). Lastly, Squat Assessment and/or Loaded CMJs can be
used to create a Force:Velocity Profile or again, help to determine how external load influences asymmetry
profiles. Beyond using single tests, it is also possible to cross-reference different test types such as an IMTP
and CMJ to derive a Dynamic Strength Index (DSI), or to look at the difference in CMJ and SJ performance
in order to better understand the relationship between strength capacity and Stretch Shorten Cycle (SSC)
ability.

Index Equation Description Common Values

Dynamic CMJ Peak Determines the A low DSI (e.g., < 0.6) suggests jump or
Strength Index Force / IMTP percentage of plyometric training may be beneficial.
(DSI) Peak Force maximum isometric
force (i.e., from an A moderate DSI (e.g., 0.6 - 0.8) may indicate
IMTP) that an that both power and maximum strength should
individual expresses be trained concurrently.
during a ballistic
movement (i.e., a A high DSI (e.g., > 0.8) may indicate that
CMJ). additional maximum strength training would
be useful to increase performance. Caution
should be used with deconditioned
individuals.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 81

Elastic SJ Jump Determines the The CMJ uses the eccentric phase to develop
Utilization Ratio Height / CMJ contribution of the elastic potential and quickly transfers that energy
(EUR) Jump Height stretch/shorten cycle to the force generated during the concentric
(i.e.: elastic properties) phase.
to overall jump
performance. The SJ removes that elastic potential by requiring
the individual to jump from a paused squat
position.

Determining the difference between the two

jump heights may identify the contribution of
elastic potential to jump performance. The
larger the difference, the more the individual
may rely on elastic properties to jump.
CMJ Upper CMJ Jump Determines the The CMJ protocol requires that the hands of the
Body Height / contribution of an arm subject stay on their hips during the entire test.
Contribution Abalakov swing movement to This restricts the upward momentum generated
Jump Height overall jump height. by the upper body and, in some cases, may
expose deficits in jump strategy. These factors
reduce final vertical jump height.

Testing an individual with and without arm

swing will determine the additional contribution
(if any) of upper body.

Some individuals may display stronger single

limb results than when both limbs are testing
simultaneously.
Bilateral IMTP Bilateral Identifies if the Testing bilaterally and both limbs individually may
Strength Deficit Max/(IMTP Left summed unilateral demonstrate if and by how much single limb
Max + IMTP force produced is force output differs.
Right Max) greater than in the
bilateral testing A result of >1.0 means that bilateral force is
condition. higher, while <1.0 means that summed unilateral
forces are higher.

Such results may guide programming choices

and inform practitioners of how asymmetries in
bilateral movement patterns differ from single
limb performances.

There are many options for creating a profile. The following principles are recommended for establishing
priorities:

1. Determine the performance and/or physical demands for the individual, and assess what extent of
testing can be tolerated;
2. Identify the general attributes that match the response(s) to question 1, such as, CMJ
performance for a basketball player or single leg ISO strength for a soldier;
3. Select tests that return unique results rather than ones that examine similar aspects and yield
redundant conclusions. Consider logistics such as time, equipment availability, and individual
experience when selecting certain tests over others within a category; and
4. Use the results to establish a baseline, identify areas of performance excellence, and aspects in
need of improvement.

Finally, it is worth considering how you will present the data in an understandable way. On that topic, the
paper “Total Score of Athleticism: Holistic Athlete Profiling to Enhance Decision Making” by Anthony Turner

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 82

(2019) may provide some guidance.

3.2.2 Controlling Test Protocols

As stated earlier, the importance of applying a standardized protocol is fundamental to test validity and
reliability, where the following examples need careful consideration:

• A steady weigh-in period is measured immediately prior to start of movement;

• A steady period of at least 3 seconds in squat position, before movement occurs;
• Preventing a countermovement/sudden dip at start of movement of a Squat Jump;
• When assessing a Drop Jump, the individual steps off the box and maintains hip height before
dropping;
• Setting bar height and joint angles in consistent positions for each individual; and
• Capturing an accurate system weight (i.e., bodyweight plus any external load) in a loaded
Squat Assessment.

These factors (along with others mentioned throughout this document) are the cornerstones in the usage
of force plates. Executing correct, repeatable protocols should be considered a critical precursor to
selecting and analyzing force plate data.

3.2.3 Defining Best Results

For any test that involves multiple trials, it is important to consider if data will be considered from all trials
(repetitions) or from the “best” trial only. Results can then be filtered by the maximum, minimum, or average of
trials (intra and inter-session).

For example, a profile can be built from a single “best trial” (e.g., the repetition with the best jump height, the
shortest contact time, the lowest interlimb asymmetry, etc.) for key metrics of interest, such as, Jump
Height, Peak Power, Eccentric Deceleration RFD, Eccentric Peak Power, etc. Alternatively, you may prefer to
use multiple trials within a testing session. For example, consider a subject performs 5 trials in a CMJ test,
and registers the following:

Best Jump Height in Trial 1

Best Peak Power in Trial 4
Best Eccentric Deceleration RFD in Trial 2
Best Eccentric Peak Power in Trial 1

The above outlines a test set, where the “best result” for each variable can occur in different repetitions or
trials. For this reason, it might be preferable to use all trial/session data, as this single trial will be able to be
better analyzed for both strengths and weaknesses. Thus, in this example, one may opt to analyze and filter
results through the “maximum’ of trials.

It’s normal to see inter-trial variation. ForceDecks then allows us to analyze multiple trials as an average or
mean of trials, along with its respective standard deviation and coefficient of variation, to help us better
understand this variability and compare changes within various testing sessions.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 83

3.2.4 Frequency of Testing

Contextual needs and constraints are important considerations when setting testing frequency. In sport, for
example, testing alongside known benchmarks and past results are often used to set training direction at
the start of preseason; assess physical progress during and/or at the end of preseason training; before
using testing sparingly during the in-season and off-season phases to monitor and manage physical status,
i.e., dose-response relationship.

Compare this to private practice physiotherapy, where practitioner-client interactions are less frequent,
testing frequency will be lower. In these circumstances, the practitioner needs to consider time constraints
and how the test results will be applied to guide rehabilitation, while engaging the client optimally.
Therefore, an important consideration is frequency of testing, which changes depending on the desired
outcome of the test. For example, fatigue monitoring will be conducted more frequently than testing the
effectiveness of an intervention.
Below are some important considerations for selecting an appropriate frequency:

1. Familiarization: it is prudent to allow enough trials to build familiarization and consistency in

results. The rate of familiarization can vary depending on the experience of the individual and the
complexity of the test (Bishop, 2022; Knezevic, 2014; Henry, 1967; Haugen, 2016).
2. With less data collected, it is more difficult to identify the difference between outliers and “good”
or “bad” performances. The more consistently data is collected, the easier it becomes to spot and
clean poorly performed tests, resulting in more reliable data.
3. Frequent testing helps visualize the normal trends that occur in each time, such as over the course
of an exercise program, during a normal week of training, or during a rehabilitation journey.

For example, when trying to understand dose-response, if an individual is only tested fortnightly, it is difficult
to determine how well that individual is progressing. Ideally, measures would be taken more frequently to
get a better understanding (Bailey, 2019; Cormack, 2008). However, in contrast to testing healthy
populations, frequent testing during rehabilitation interventions might not allow adequate time to highlight
meaningful change but demonstrates normal daily variation of status. Therefore, practitioners need to adopt
a plan and schedule for testing frequency that meets their individual’s set of circumstances.

Below is an example of how appropriate test types and metrics may be selected based on time constraints
and need.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 84

How often will the individual be tested?

≥ Once / Week Every 2-4 Weeks Every 4-8 Weeks

Overall Performance CMJ, IMTP, Reactive Ability/ CMJ, IMTP, Force/Load Velocity
Strength
Readiness plus… Readiness DJ/HT, plus… Profiling

CMJ
CMJ IMTP SJ DJ HT SQT
(Loaded)

ECC Peak ECC Peak Power

RFD CON RFD RSI RSI
Duration Velocity / BM

ECC Peak CON Contact Contact Peak CON Takeoff

Peak Force Velocity
Velocity Duration Time Time Velocity

Peak CON
Squat Depth Mean Force Peak Force Peak Force Peak Force Jump Height
Power

ECC Decel
Jump Height Jump Height Jump Height
RFD

Velocity
P2:P1 CON
Peak Force
Impulse

Jump Height

Peak Landing
Force

Note: test choice is at the discretion of the practitioner based on the individual being tested.

3.2.5 Standardizing Test Protocols – Checklist before starting

Standardizing test protocols for testing is essential to ensure consistency and reliability in the
measurements obtained. Outlined below are steps to improve standardization of test protocols for force
plate testing:

1. Define Objectives: Clearly outline the objectives of your testing. What specific physical capacities
or qualities are you measuring? What information are you trying to gather?
2. Review Relevant Literature: Familiarize yourself with existing research and standards related to
force plate testing. This can help you understand best practices and inform your protocol.
3. Define Subject’s Instructions and Tester’s Cueing: Clearly communicate instructions/cueing to
participants to ensure consistent testing conditions – includes all relevant instructions that might
influence results.
4. Control for Variability: Minimize external factors (e.g., task constraints) that could introduce
variability in the measurements. Emphasize reliable and consistent testing conditions, e.g.,
footwear, fatigued vs non-fatigued, etc.
5. Consider Order Effects: If your testing involves multiple trials or conditions, consider the order in
which they are presented to the subject. Randomize or counterbalance the order to minimize
order effects when needed.

By following these steps, you can establish a standardized and reliable protocol for testing in your specific
application. Keep in mind that the details of the protocol may vary based on the specific goals of your
testing.
VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide
 85

3.2.6 Test Delivery Considerations

Test delivery considerations during ForceDecks testing are crucial to ensure accurate and reliable data
collection. Below are key considerations to keep in mind:

1. Cueing and Instructions: Ensure a protocol is clearly laid out, allowing all involved to understand every
step in the process, and ensuring those being tested can perform the test to their full capabilities, e.g.,
acutely fatigued due to poorly administered warm up.

2. Familiarization: Include a set of familiarization trials to allow participants to become accustomed to

the testing environment and tasks. This helps reduce potential learning effects that could impact data
validity.

3. Order of Testing: Tests must be ordered to allow for the participant to perform optimally, without the
negative effects of the previous tests affecting subsequent tests.

4. Rest Periods in Between Trials and Subsequent Tests: These must be appropriate for the same
reasons as delineated above.

5. Task Repetition: Determine the number of repetitions or trials for each task. Consistency in the number
of repetitions helps ensure that the data collected is representative of the participant's performance.

6. Task Complexity: Be mindful of the complexity of the task participants are asked to perform. Ensure
that tasks are appropriate for the participant's ability level and that they can be consistently replicated.

7. Real-time Feedback: Consider providing real-time feedback to participants during testing, especially if
the follow up involves intervention or training. This can help participants adjust their performance and
maintain consistency.

8. Monitoring Participant Compliance: Continuously monitor participant compliance with the testing
protocol. Address any deviations promptly to maintain consistency in data collection.

By carefully considering these factors, you can enhance the reliability and validity of testing, ensuring that
the data collected accurately reflects the demands of the individual’s needs – sport, work, and/or in life.

3.3 Reviewing Results: Key considerations

Once testing has been successfully completed, it is important to understand the participant’s strengths and
weaknesses relative to benchmarked standards or previous healthy results, for programming and training/
exercise prescription to meet the individual’s needs. In exercise science, the principle of Specificity is
fundamental to adaptation and the successful transfer to real-world situations, e.g., prescribing exercises
that help with heavy lifting from the ground (McGuigan, 2014). By choosing the right tests and metrics, it
helps us consider wider implications of programming and/or recommendations, e.g., prior training history,
current physical status, expected demands of role (sport or job), daily tasks, etc.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 86

For example, the diagram on the left

(Figure 5) shows results for several
strength tests and associated
variables, illustrating varying degrees
of output success (i.e., strengths and
weaknesses).

In this example, while isometric

performance is good (see dial on the
far left), jumping performance –
landing and propulsive qualities were
moderate (see all other dials).

Therefore, where jumping and landing

is required, as is the case here, the
goal might be to improve the transfer
of developed strength to more
explosive actions, like high-speed
running, aggressive change of
direction, and/ or jumping after a run
up.

Figure 5. An example lower limb test battery looking at different strength qualities for performance athletes and personnel.

It is also prudent to consider the individuals intrinsic injury risk profile (Joyce, 2015). Joyce & Lewindon (2015)
suggest that intrinsic risks may include past injury, age, reduced range of motion, and muscle weakness. If the
individual is exposed to extrinsic risk factors, they become more susceptible to injury. Extrinsic risk factors are
those that are applied to the individual, such as, sports training, workplace hazards and regular physical
activity, weather, and the nature of the expectations of the sport, job, or activity. As consequence, testing
results help us understand risk factors, e.g., structural imbalances and asymmetries.

3.3.1 Balance vs. Asymmetry Profiling

When assessing physical asymmetries (structural

and functional) from a scientific standpoint, it
remains somewhat unclear about what constitutes
as meaningful, or a “risky” magnitude of asymmetry.
There are many factors that influence what is
meaningful. Key to this are the characteristics of the
individual and their environmental requirements
(Coutts, 2015). Therefore, physical asymmetries
should only ever be considered a risk indicator and
never a predictor of injury. Despite this, there is a
large amount of empirical evidence investigating
asymmetries and their implications on performance
(Eagle, 2019; Helme, 2021; Hewit, 2012).

Before considering the significance of asymmetries and how they trend over time, it is important to
understand what they look like under normal conditions and more extreme circumstances. It is important

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 87

to note, there is no clear-cut rule on when an asymmetry is significant. Consequently, it is recommended

that when assessing movement performance and asymmetries, peak and mean values drawn from
ForceDecks reporting helps to gain a broader understanding of functional capability and capacity.
Furthermore, these metrics can be further dissected, looking into the differences between the performance
of each limb (e.g., Left side = 1200 N/Right side = 1340 N).

Common questions practitioners seek to answer when considering the implications of asymmetries
include:

Does the individual exhibit a compensatory movement strategy?

Is that strategy of a large enough magnitude to justify intervention?
Are there phase-specific asymmetries that warrant greater attention (e.g., left-dominant in eccentric
phase, but right-dominant in concentric phase)?
Is there any history of injury that warrants more scrutiny?
Is there any movement variability that would signal cause for greater or lesser concern?

It is reasonable to expect to see asymmetries in certain populations over others, due to the demands of their
occupation or sport (e.g., Tennis players, NFL Defensive Linesman, Dog Handlers, or Construction workers).
Therefore, the goal of profiling is to highlight individuals that predominantly fall into one of three categories:

a. They fall outside of what would be considered normal for their population;
b. Have an undisclosed history of injury (Hart, 2019).
c. Disease or neuromuscular disorder; and/or,
d. Even when satisfying a., b., or c., results fall outside the desired bounds to achieve their goals.

Analyzing asymmetries can be a complicated process, and understanding key concepts can help to create
a flexible and straightforward system. Below are 6 considerations to help you understand asymmetry
analysis for effective decision-making:

1. Magnitude of Asymmetry
2. Change in Magnitude of Asymmetry
3. Influence of Previous Injury on Asymmetry
4. Sport/Occupation/Life Stressors
5. Consistency of Inter-Phase Asymmetries
6. Consistency of Inter-Trial Asymmetries

The learn more about asymmetries and their implications on practice, refer to Appendix A.

3.4 Program Design/Intervention

The development of effective programming in performance environments, health and fitness, or
rehabilitation is an intricate process (Wing, 2018; Issurin, 2010). Often there are multiple physical capacities
and capabilities that need addressing, while other technical and tactical tasks are being trained or executed
concurrently, resulting in high volumes and intensities. To best understand the effects of training and
exercise, ForceDecks offers a sophisticated solution for practitioners in all contexts to assess the effects
of their programming interventions through regular monitoring.

ForceDecks is a valuable tool when returning injured athletes and general populations to full function. In
sport, this is broadly termed as, Return to Sport/Play/Participation rehabilitation.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 88

3.4.1 Return to Play/Full Function

Return to play/participation measurement

and monitoring is one of the most popular
applications for force plate technology,
and a common starting point for new
users. This is likely due to the acute nature
of injuries, which often creates a need for
measurement and monitoring that may not
have existed or was not able to be
prioritized previously.

In multidisciplinary team (MDT) settings, it

is common for Doctors, Physiotherapists,
Strength and Conditioning Coaches,
Exercise Physiologists, and Coaches to
collaboratively implement a plan that
incorporates sophisticated processes to
aid progression of the individual towards
full function or return to playing their sport
safely (see Figure 6) (Mujika, 2018).

Figure 6. Example of Return to Sport/ Play MDT process

Using the following principles below, practitioners can decide how best to adopt and apply ForceDecks testing
for their circumstances:

Purpose Use reliable metrics to determine:

• How quickly (or slowly) an individual is recovering from injury
• When the individual’s rehabilitation program should progress (or
regress)
• Finally, if the individual is ready to return to their sport, work, or
other activity
Objectives Perform reliable testing at logical timepoints to:
• (If pre-injury data exists) determine how far the individual has been set
back by the injury
• Set goals for rehabilitation progress and outcomes
• Monitor progress, and if needed, alter rehabilitation programs
accordingly
• Set measurable thresholds to be used for clearance for return to
play/participation
Common tests Rehabilitation tests will vary widely based on the injury and stage of
rehabilitation, for example:
• Lower limb injury, early rehabilitation: SQT (unloaded)
• Lower limb injury, mid-rehabilitation: CMJ
• Lower limb injury, late rehabilitation: DJ

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 89

Frequency of testing Regularly throughout rehabilitation, however often less regular than in
fatigue monitoring, such as:
• Once per fortnight
• During each in-clinic appointment
• At the end of each rehabilitation stage or exercise program
Key considerations • How will progress be measured?
• Are the tests being performed commensurate with the stage of
rehabilitation?
• What will the threshold(s) be for return to play/participation?
• Force plate metrics are usually not enough in isolation to determine
that someone is “rehabilitated”. How will these results be cross-
checked?

3.4.2 Pre-Injury Baseline Data

One of the most valuable assets in implementing a return to sport/play/participation strategy is having pre-
injury data that provides a baseline for what may constitute “healthy” or “normal” for the individual.

Baselines for return to play/participation are typically not collected discretely, given that practitioners do
not plan for injuries to occur, but rather simply try to be prepared for them. Instead, return to
play/participation baselines are often drawn from data collected previously for profiling, fatigue monitoring
or adaptation monitoring purposes. In this regard, the participant’s data can be used for several different
purposes if the context around the test (discussed previously) is known and has been fully considered (see
Figure 7 below):

Figure 7. Using pre-injury/matched-control normative data to ‘reverse engineer’ and ’backward design’ transferable and context
specific programming. It can roughly be broken down into 4 stages: (1) define the return to performance goal, (2) determine the
key performance indicators (KPIs), (3) assess current performance, (4) plan and program rehabilitation appropriately (Chia, 2022).

However, when a return to play/participation strategy becomes necessary (i.e., after an injury occurs), it is
too late to establish such baselines. This often means that the program must use alternative options for
establishing goals for return to play/participation clearance.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 90

For example, other options for return to play/participation goals may reference:

• Data from research literature; or

• Means from comparable individual populations.

Ultimately, the circumstances of return to play/full function are often imperfect, as the individual’s status is
inherently compromised, and there are often a multitude of other personal, emotional, and social influences
which may introduce additional pressure or urgency to the process. This is why, whenever possible,
establishing data-driven baselines, robust reference points and goals for individual to strive for can assist
in directing focus onto modifiable factors (rather than non-modifiable factors) and removing potentially
detrimental distractions.

Therefore, as a starting point, it is important to ask some fundamental questions that assist with choosing
test types and associated metrics. For example, does your participant need to jump in the sport or work,
and if so, which tests are most applicable and safe during the early stages of rehabilitation? Below is an
example framework that helps to make these decisions.

Is the individual capable of jumping?

NO
No Yes
YES

What do you wish to

ISOT*
evaluate?

Jumping and Lateral Reactive

Peak Force Strength Landing Only
Landing Agility Ability

Mean Force ISOT* CMJ* SJ* LAH* DJ* DJ* HT*

Peak Force ECC Peak Time to Peak Takeoff

RFD CON RFD RSI RSI
Asymmetry Velocity stabilization Force

Mean Force ECC Decel Peak Drop Contact Contact

Peak Force CON Impulse Peak Force
Asymmetry Impulse Landing Force Time Time

Contact CON
Mean Force CM Depth Peak Force Mean Force Impulse Jump Height
Time

RFD ECC Decel Peak Landing Force ECC Duration Jump Height
Asymmetry RFD

Peak Force Lower Limb Stiffness :

Asymmetry CMJ Stiffness

Force @ 0
Velocity

Peak Landing
Force

CON
Impulse

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 91

*Particularly in return to play/participation applications (i.e., often even more so than in profiling and monitoring applications),
practitioners would commonly monitor these tests’ asymmetry metrics as well.

Once decided, the next step is to consider how you will progress testing to reflect the loading (load impact
and velocity) required to move to the next stage of rehabilitation. Below is another example framework
(Figure 8) where objective testing is performed to inform decision-making throughout the rehabilitation-
performance continuum – part of an ongoing process of testing, applying load stimulus, re-testing, and
assessing response:

Figure 8. Example RTS/RTP framework using a criteria-based objective approach to inform the decision-making process
(Taberner, 2020; Ekizos, 2023; Rebelo-Marques, 2019).

A progression/regression framework can then be created to identify the appropriate entry-point for
intervention and objective assessments. The image below (Figure 9) depicts a relative progression within a
continuum of tests that can be utilized throughout the rehabilitation course to assess various qualities and
physical capacities:

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 92

Figure 9. Example progression/regression framework, based on relative intensity/demand.

We can then zoom in further into the left side of that continuum, which at times can be referred to as the
‘early phase’ of the spectrum (figure 10), where tasks are considered to be of relative low load/velocity, non-
ballistic/low impact in nature. Task constraints/conditions can then be manipulated to either increase or
decrease task demands, based on the subject’s current function and capabilities.

If we were to take for example, a patient status post total knee arthroplasty (TKA), one may start early on
within the rehabilitation process assessing static balance and weight distribution in standing with the Quiet
Stand (QSB) test, and possibly measuring bilateral subphase force capacities and interlimb asymmetries
with the Sit to Stand to Sit (STSTS) test. Once the patient demonstrates acceptable outputs and qualities
within those initial tests, one might progress now into an unsupported bilateral Squat Assessment (SQT)
and look to assess unilateral static and dynamic balance/stability with the Single Leg Stand (SLSB) and
Single Leg Range of Stability (SLROSB) tests. The patient can then be progressed to a Single Leg Squat
Assessment (SLSQT) to assess unilateral submaximal dynamic strength and range of movement
asymmetry, along with landing force attenuation capabilities from progressively higher stair riser heights
comparable to daily functional demands.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 93

Figure 10. Example of ‘early phase’ objective testing progression/regression framework for the lower limb.

A similar approach can then be applied to the right side of the continuum, where we can zoom in and dissect
the ‘mid to late phase’ (Figure 11), where higher load demands are placed within the various tissues and
systems. Following a similar approach to the ‘early phase’, pending preset goals and functional demands,
emphasis can then be placed on a progressive increase in the demand of the stimuli, moving from a bilateral
submaximal/maximal isometric strength test (ISOT), like the Isometric Squat (ISOSQT), all the way to a
unilateral reactive strength-based test like the Single Leg Drop Jump (SLDJ). Various physical qualities and
capacities can then be assessed from bilateral to unilateral tasks, manipulating task constrains to either
increase or decrease task demand.

Figure 11. Example ‘mid to late phase’ objective testing progression/regression framework for the lower limb.

In a very simplistic manner, return to play testing can be disseminated into 4 ‘main’ specific buckets of
VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide
 94

physical capacities or qualities (Figure 12), looking to guide and optimize programming and decision-
making:

1. How strong are they?

2. How well can they absorb landing force?
3. How ‘explosive’/dynamic are they?
4. How reactive/elastic are they?

In the absence of pre-injury data, the uninvolved limb should be monitored throughout the rehabilitation
process (including from initial onset of injury), and both limbs should reach matched-control normative
values (Kotsifaki, 2023).

Figure 12. Physical qualities and capacities within the RTS/RTP process for the lower limb.

Lastly, the image below (Figure 13) is an example of ‘mid-to-end stage’ testing after a medial meniscus
knee injury looking at specific qualities and capacities as delineated above, including some possible ‘key
metrics’ for initial analysis and interpretation:

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 95

Figure 13. Example objective testing for RTP post ‘knee injury’.

3.5 Monitoring

The body seeks to maintain a state of

homeostasis and constantly aims to adapt to
stress (physical and mental) from its
environment (Soligard, 2016). Regular
exercise and work challenge this
homeostatic state and the use of
ForceDecks provides a sophisticated
solution to better understand the physical
effects, within and between training bouts,
i.e., examining the dose-response
relationship. Choosing valid metrics that look
at neuromuscular responses/fatigue, acute
and chronic, are relevant when trying to Figure 6. Biological maladaptation through cycles of excessive loading and/
or inadequate recovery (Adapted from Soligard et al., 2016)
understand over-reaching and over-training.

The Supercompensation Theory (see Figure 6) is a phenomenon that explains how the body responds to
stress (physical and mental), leading to improvements in performance over time. The theory suggests that
after a period of training, the body undergoes a cycle of stress, fatigue, recovery, and if training is structured
appropriately, Supercompensation occurs. Inappropriate training stimulus (too much, too often) can have
the opposite effect and causes the individual to be more susceptible to loss of performance, and susceptible
to injury and illness, as they have a reduced ability to recover/ return to homeostasis.

It's essential to tailor the monitoring approach to the individual’s needs and goals, considering factors such
as age, fitness level, and specific sport or activity. Regularly monitoring, reviewing, and adjusting
programming is key to long-term success and avoiding potential issues related to overtraining or inadequate

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 96

adaptation. Using the following guidelines below, practitioners can decide what and how to monitor physical
responses to training, competition, and job demands.

3.5.1 Monitoring Training Adaptations

Purpose Use comparable metrics, measured at specific timepoints to determine if:

• The individual is improving
• The exercise program is having the intended effect
Objectives Perform reliable testing at logical timepoints to:
• Measure changes in metrics directly related to the individual’s
goals
• Determine level of progress relative to expected progress
• Make decisions to tailor upcoming programs accordingly
Common tests Tests that are easy to perform quickly and reliably to ensure compliance
over time:
• CMJ
• SQT (Loaded)
• ISOT
Frequency of testing At least at the beginning and end of (and often at interim time points
within) an exercise program or training block such as:
• Start and end of preseason
• Start and end of a 12-week training block
• Start and end of an exercise intervention
Key considerations • What are the individual’s goals for the exercise program?
• Is the exercise program likely to yield measurable results?
• Which metrics can be measured that are most closely related to the
Individual’s goals?

Adaptation monitoring is quite different when compared to fatigue monitoring, as it proactively anticipates
change, rather than waiting for and reacting to change. For this reason, adaptation monitoring typically
involves less frequent testing – albeit still pre-planned – than fatigue monitoring. This application is
commonly used in performance environments.

Turner et al. (2019) suggests that adaptations should be measured at the end of each training block or
exercise program to assess whether the desired outcomes were achieved, and to confirm or adapt plans for
the next program.

For example, consider an American Football Wide Receiver (a position requiring extreme speed, agility, and
coordination) and an Offensive Lineman (a position requiring extreme strength and power). In this scenario,
both individuals play the same sport, however positionally, they likely have significantly different goals.

The Lineman may need to be as maximally strong as possible, possess as much relative power as possible,
and need to overcome a static start explosively. Meanwhile, the wide receiver may need to be powerful, fast,
quick to accelerate and elastic, and all these metrics may need to be improved while minimizing weight
gain.

Both Individuals will perform tests that assess common traits that both require, such as:
VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide
 97

IMTP CMJ

The Lineman will then perform tests tailored to the demands of their position, such as:

SQUAT EXPLOSIVE
JUMP PUSH UP

Likewise, the Receiver will perform different tests tailors to their position, such as:

SINGLE
DROP LEG
JUMP JUMP

The purpose of this example is to explain the rationale that, while all tests have merit, tests need to be
carefully selected for every individual, pathology, or person.

With initial data collected, a first block/ program of training can be constructed to target general and specific
qualities that are relevant to the individual and their sport and job. At the end of the program, re-testing
(along with other agreed performance measures) will allow the effectiveness of the program to be judged
as successful or not.

For example, the Lineman could show poor Peak Vertical Force in the IMTP but good RFD at 100 ms, and
high peak power in the CMJ and SJ. This, in turn, might help steer the next training block/ program towards
strength development as the key performance indicator.

On the other hand, the receiver might have improved in all categories except elastic qualities as measured
CMJ and DJ, and under further inspection, showed he gained body mass over the course of the program,
which was considered a contributing factor. This case may suggest that a subsequent program target more
plyometric training, while reducing body mass.

The overarching principle of adaptation monitoring is to allow assessment and adaptation to occur more
quickly and reliably.

3.4.2 Monitoring Fatigue

Using ForceDecks, we can also measure the response to training, including fatigue. Most commonly, the
CMJ and DJ have been used to assess athletic populations and provide insights into neuromuscular fatigue,
VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide
 98

focusing on explosive leg power and is considered relatable for high-speed running, jumping, and change of
direction.

Monitoring fatigue typically requires frequent testing, and in turn, requires consistency and repeatability in
testing procedures to ensure that any data collected is reliable enough to be acted upon. The following
recommendations can be used to help ensure monitoring data is collected reliably:

1. Where possible, schedule testing for the same time of day (or as close to the same time of day as
possible). This limits the effect that natural body/circadian rhythms have on both neural and
hormonal outputs. Evidence suggests that, on average, outputs can be expected to be better in the
afternoon than in the morning (Jordan, 2017; Bishop, 2022)

2. Review and “clean” your data and be willing to discard data that does not meet a satisfactory
quality standard. Elements that can affect data quality can include incorrect bodyweight
measurements, unstable periods prior to start of movement and sub-maximal efforts in maximal
tests. These elements can lead to inaccurate dependent metrics, such as contraction time, flight
time and displacement which can in turn drastically alter means, CVs, and SDs (Stone, 2019;
Cohen, 2020)

3. Apply a consistent statistical method that suits the data you collect. This may involve always using
the mean of a certain number of trials and applying the Smallest Worthwhile Change, Standard
Deviation change, or another pre-set threshold considered to be important (Gorard, 2015; Bailey,
2019; Wing, 2018).

Overall, time-based metrics are more sensitive to change (and therefore more suitable for fatigue
monitoring) than outcome-based metrics [citation]. Below are brief example summaries of commonly used
time-based CMJ metrics that have been shown to be useful in fatigue monitoring:

a. Flight Time: Contraction Time (FT:CT) – FT:CT is a commonly-used assessment ratio for
monitoring neuromuscular fatigue, originally popularized in Australian Rules Football (Cormack,
2008). Subsequent research has supported these conclusions for FT:CT (Gathercole R. S., 2015)
along with other duration-based metrics such as RSImod (Martinez, 2016). Common logic suggests
this may be due to metrics such as Flight Time (or Jump Height) typically being more stable than
the time it takes to jump (Contraction Time). Therefore, while Jump Height is a very reliable and
stable measure, FT:CT may provide a more sensitive measure of change, due to fluctuations in
Contraction Time.

b. Eccentric Duration – Another time-based measure, Eccentric Duration is the time spent in the
Eccentric Phase of the jump (this phase is also referred to as “Unweighting Phase” plus “Braking
Phase” in some literature (McMahon, 2018). This is another metric shown by Gathercole to be a
sensitive measure of Neuromuscular Fatigue (Gathercole R. S., 2015; Gathercole R. J., 2015), which
follows logic given that Eccentric Duration makes up a portion of Contraction Time (discussed
above), again suggesting that a lengthening of time may indicate the presence of neuromuscular
fatigue.

While many other metrics can also be used in a fatigue monitoring program, the metrics discussed above
are some of the most-used and most-supported by research.

Jump Height is also a useful indicator of fatigue, and can be an easy variable to collect, i.e., using a jump
mat (despite their limitations in measurement) (Whitmer, 2015). However, the reliability of Jump Height

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 99

must not be confused with sensitivity. While decrements in Jump Height are likely indicators of fatigue, and
is a very reliable measure, it may also be less sensitive to change than some time-based measures. This
means that a decrease in Jump Height may happen later than some of the time-based metrics discussed
above (RSImod, FT:CT, ECC Duration) making it less suitable for fatigue monitoring (Cormack, 2008).

As our industry of exercise science evolves and becomes more analytics-driven, many organizations now
employ dedicated data analysts, data scientists, and machine learning specialists, for the purposes of
performing significantly more robust analysis than has been common in the past. It is highly likely that, as
these professions develop, more and more metrics will be proven (and perhaps disproven) as being valuable
in contexts such as fatigue monitoring.

Purpose Use comparable metrics, measured over time to determine if:

• The individual is fatigued
• This fatigue poses a risk
• A program modification might be appropriate (if any)
Objectives Perform regular testing to provide results that are:
• Reliable
• Sensitive to fatigue
• Support informed decision making through targeted interventions
Common Tests Tests that are easy to perform quickly and reliably to ensure compliance
over time:
• CMJ
• SJ
• DJ
• ISOT
Frequency of Testing As often as possible when fatigue is an important consideration, at
consistent time points, such as:
• Every week, 48 hours after competition
• Twice per week, once 48 hours after competition and once 24 hours
before competition
• Every weekday, when first arriving at training
• At the start of each appointment
Key Considerations • Are the metrics being measured sensitive to fatigue?
• If so, are they being measured at consistent times, with the
individual in consistent states of fatigue, that will show if the
performance is different from typical results?
• If the results are different, is it feasible to modify the training program
to account for the fatigue and prevent injury or other issues from
occurring?

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 100

3.6 Re-evaluate Progress or Completion of Intervention?

The value of assessing the responses to
exercise/training and rehabilitation lies in
the ability to use valid and reliable data to
effectively manipulate future training
bouts [8]. The success of a program is
likely to be the highest with the use of
minimally invasive tools and without
requiring a specific session devoted to
data collection.

Whether it be Performance or Health

environments, it is recommended that
practitioners use a combination of
objective and subjective information to
formulate their action-plan. In doing so,
all stakeholders can be better informed,
while communicating with confidence
that their intervention(s), individual and
collectively, has best practice impact for
the athlete/client/worker.

Re-evaluation
Decision: Progress,
Modify, or Complete
Intervention?

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 101

Glossary
Force plate terminology can be confusing, so we have compiled an alphabetical glossary of terms you’ll see
commonly used both in this guide and in other force plate literature.

Term Definition

Inequality or imbalance between left and right. In reference to force plate testing,
Asymmetry
asymmetry refers to the difference in output or strategy between left and right limbs.

ForceDecks software uses algorithms to “Auto-Analyze” results immediately after a

repetition and/or test is completed. This means that after a rep or test is completed, up to
Auto-Analysis
200 summary metrics are calculated and displayed immediately and automatically, without
requiring any further post-processing or analysis work from the user.

ForceDecks software uses algorithms to “Auto-Detect” what type of movement is being

performed, as well as when it starts and ends. This means that ForceDecks can detect a
Auto-Detection movement, highlight it on-screen and categorize it as the correct type of movement (e.g.,
CMJ, DJ, ISOT), all without any manual input from the user. Most (but not all) tests that
can be Auto-Analyzed can be Auto-Detected.

A process whereby electronic monitoring of a normally internalized bodily function (such

as the expression of force) is used to provide real time or near-real time feedback on
Biofeedback
performance. Biofeedback is typically used to train the subject to improve their
understanding - and subsequently their performance - of that function/movement.

The precise point within the pelvic/torso region at which an applied force will move the
body in a linear direction without creating any rotation movement. This point is generally
Centre of Mass (CoM)
located between the naval and the sacrum. It is often used as a reference for vertical jump
height and squat depth changes in biomechanics.

Describes a muscle contraction that produces force as it shortens, during either flexion or
extension of a specific joint. In terms of jump analysis, the concentric phase represents the
Concentric (CON)
time period between the lowest point of the CoM depth and take off from the force plates.
This is the upward phase or triple extension component of a jump.

The time spent in contact with the force plates during a rapid single jump after landing or a
Contact Time repeat jump test (measures each contact individually). The most prominent examples are
the Drop Jump and Hop Tests, respectively.

Total measured time from the Start of Movement until Takeoff. For a movement such as a
Contraction Time (CT)
Countermovement Jump, this encapsulates both eccentric and concentric phases.

The downward movement of the body performed in preparation for a vertical jump. The
intention of this initial movement is to accelerate the body mass downward and use
Countermovement
eccentric muscle force to decelerate the body, thus generating elastic potential for the
jump.

A number (or Metric) based on the calculations from other such numbers. In the context
Derivative of force plate analysis, Force and Time are used as the basis for calculating a range of
different derivates such as power, velocity, displacement (height) and impulse.

In a Drop Jump, this is the first landing impact on the force plates after the drop, prior to
Drop Landing
jumping.

Describes a muscle contraction that produces force as it lengthens, during either flexion or
extension of a specific joint. In terms of jump analysis, the eccentric phase represents the
Eccentric (ECC) time between the start of the movement and the lowest point of the CoM depth.
This is the downward phase that generates/builds elastic energy for use during the
concentric phase (i.e.: stretch shorten cycle).

Elastic Ability to rapidly resume the original state spontaneously after contraction.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 102

Flight Time (FT) Total measured time spent in the Flight Phase (time from Takeoff until Landing).

A simple ratio of jump performance to preparation time needed. In a sporting context, it is

desirable for an individual to achieve significant vertical jump performance (i.e.: elevated
Flight Time: Contraction
flight time, power output, and peak velocity) with the least amount of time required.
Time (FT:CT)
Increases in this ratio are due to improved jump ability and/or reduced preparation time
(defined as from start of movement to take off).

A comparative, multi-stage jump testing protocol intended to determine if an individual is

more proficient in force production or movement velocity. Several loads are used, (based
Force: Velocity (F:V)
on a specific weight (20kg, 40kg etc.), a % of body weight or %’s of 1RM), and a maximal
Profile
CMJ is performed with each. Results are calculated and can be compared to ideal power
output equations using participant biometrics.

The action of a force over a period which leads to a change in momentum (velocity) of the
individual. Impulse reflects the area under the Force-time curve. ForceDecks splits impulse
Impulse (Imp)
into phases such as braking, deceleration, concentric denoting the effect of the force
application in different phases of jumps.

Related to or having no change in muscle-tendon length or joint angles during force

production. This is achieved by maintaining the exact position of involved joints at the
Isometric (ISO)
onset of contraction until the end of the repetition. Common tests include the Isometric
Squat, IMTP, the ASH Test, and numerous hamstring variations.

The net displacement of the CoM from the instant of take-off to the peak displacement (as
Jump Height a result of the net concentric impulse generated on the ForceDecks in the preceding
movement). This can be measured from impulse-momentum equations or from flight time.

Key Moment A single key time point within a movement. E.g., Start of Movement.

Amount of force applied to the individual and their bodily structures. Can also refer to
Load
the ‘additional’ load in the form of extra weights on a bar for loaded jumps.

A comparative, multi-stage testing protocol intended to determine the ideal external load
for producing peak performance in one or more metrics. One common example is
Load: Velocity Profile
performing a Squat Assessment using different weights to identify CON Peak Power and
Velocity.

Any (usually but not exclusively exercise-induced) decrease in a muscle's ability to develop
Neuromuscular Fatigue
force or power.

Phase A period of movement within a test, typically bound by 2 key moments (e.g.: Eccentric
Phase).
The amount of force applied to a bar (or other immovable setup) prior to a maximum effort
isometric test. Pre-tension is intended to remove elastic give from key body segments,
Pre-Tension
thus creating a truly isometric testing condition and safely preparing the individual for
larger amounts of force production.

The recording and analysis of a person’s neuromuscular characteristics, for the purpose of
Profiling categorizing or triaging. In large cohorts, profiling is typically done to assist with grouping
similar subjects together to streamline exercise programming or treatments.

The change in force applied as a function of time (i.e.: N/s). This can be ‘instantaneous’ (I.e.,
Rate of Force
every 0.001s for a 1000Hz sample frequency), or ‘average’ (between specific key moments
Development (RFD)
within a movement, e.g., SoM to peak force).

Reactive Strength Index

A commonly used Drop Jump metric, RSI is Flight Time divided by Contact Time.
(RSI)

Reactive Strength Index A commonly used Countermovement Jump metric, RSImod is Jump Height divided by
Modified (RSImod) Contraction Time.

Return to Play (RTP) The process of returning to play/compete a given sport or exercise after injury.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 103

Stable Period The baseline BW readings immediately prior to the onset of movement

Key moment at which Force and Time begin being calculated together to produce new
Start of Integration (SoI)
“derivatives” or metrics such as displacement or power.

Key moment where the individual begins to move. In ForceDecks, for the CMJ, this is a
Start of Movement (SoM)
20N threshold change from bodyweight.

The extent to which an object resists deformation (such as muscle lengthening) in

Stiffness
response to an applied force, calculated by Peak Force / displacement.

In the context of this manual – strategy refers to the idiosyncratic way in which an
Strategy individual completes a task (jump/isometric/squat). For example, a subject’s strategy in a
CMJ may be to consistently exhibit a long eccentric phase with large asymmetry.

Stretch Shorten Cycle A muscle action where active muscle lengthening is immediately followed by active muscle
(SSC) shortening (e.g., demonstrated in a countermovement jump but not in a squat jump)

Depending on the test being performed, system weight is the total weight of the subject,
partial subject and/or any additional load that will be directly on the force plate/s during a
test. For example:
• For a CMJ, system weight is simply the individual’s bodyweight;
• For a Loaded Squat Assessment, system weight is the individual’s bodyweight,
plus, the external load they are holding/carrying; or
System Weight • For a Single Limb Isometric Test where part of the individual will rest on the floor (i.e.,
not on the force plates), such as a posterior chain or shoulder I/Y/T isometric test,
system weight is the weight of the individual’s limb*
*While precise bodyweight measurements are critical for jumping tests, precise
measurements for limb weights in Single Limb Isometric Tests are less critical, as these
tests typically rely less on relative force measurements and more on absolute force
measurements.

For the purposes of this document, “test” refers to a single ForceDecks test recording, of a
Test
single test type, which may involve one or more trials.

For the purposes of this document a “test type” is a single type of movement, able to be
Test Type
auto analyzed by ForceDecks software. For example, CMJ, DJ and SQT are all test types.

Sequence of data taken in equally spaced points in time. ForceDecks collects time series
Time Series
data on force, at a default sampling rate of 1,000 Hz (samples per second).

Trial Synonymous with “rep” or “repetition”, a trial is one rep of a test.

The actions that describe the proximal to distal sequencing of joint movements across the
ankle, knee, and hip joints during the CON phase of a jump. Although the ankle is
Triple Extension technically performing plantar flexion, it assists in raising the CoM upward just as knee and
hip extension do. The term expresses these three coordinated joint actions in displacing
the body away from the ground.

To “Zero” a force plate (also known as “taring”) means to reset the point of zero weight.
Zeroing is used to cancel out any errors in starting measurement, which may be introduced
by factors such as the weight of the force plates themselves, any external fixings, and/or
any sensor drift over time.
Zeroing
For example, if you have a force plate that registers 2kg despite having no weight applied,
performing a test could be expected to produce downstream measurement and calculation
errors. Zeroing the platform will perform an offset, adjusting the starting reading to 0kg
and in turn ensuring that downstream data is more accurate.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 104

References
Atkinson, G. &. (1996). Circadian Variation in Sports Performance. Sports Med, 21, 292-312.
Bailey, C. (2019). Longitudinal Monitoring of Athletes: Statistical Issues and Best Practices. Journal of Science
in Sport and Exercise, 1(3), 217-227.
Bishop, C. T. (2022). A framework to guide practitioners for selecting metrics during the countermovement
and drop jump tests. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 44(4), 95-103.
Bourreau, P. Y. (2015). Circadian Rhythm in Heart Rate Variability Contributes to the Increased Cardia
Sympathovagal Response to Awakening in the Morning. Chronobiology International , 1-12.
Chassé, E. T.-B. (2019). Factors affecting performance on an army urban operation casualty evacuation for
male and female soldiers. Military Medicine, 184, 11-12. doi:e856-e862
Chia, L. T. (2022). Beginning With the End in Mind: Implementing Backward Design to Improve Sports Injury
Rehabilitation Practices. journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy, 52(12), 770-776.
Cohen, D. D.-S. (2020). Single v double leg countermovement jump tests; not half an apple. Aspetar Sports
Med Journal, 9, 34-41.
Cormack, S. J. (2008). Neuromuscular and endocrine responses of elite players during an Australian rules
football season. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 3(4), 439-453.
Coutts, A. &. (2015). Monitoring training load. In Sports Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation: Integrating
Medicine and Science for Performance Solutions (pp. 380 -391). Routledge.
Eagle, S. R. (2019). Bilateral strength asymmetries and unilateral strength imbalance: predicting ankle injury
when considered with higher body mass in US special forces. Journal of athletic training, 54(5), 497 -
504.
Ekizos, A. &. (2023, June 12th). Biofeedback-based return to sport: individualization through objective
assessments, 14, 1185556. Frontiers in Physiology, 14, 1185556.
Gathercole, R. J. (2015). Effect of Acute Fatigue and Training Adaptation on Countermovement Jump
Performance in Elite Snowboard Cross Athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 29, 37-46.
Gathercole, R. S. (2015). Alternative Countermovement-Jump Analysis to Quantify Acute Neuromuscular
Fatigue. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance(10), 84–92.
Gorard, S. (2015). Introducing the mean absolute deviation ‘effect’size, . International Journal of Research &
Method in Education, 38(2), 105-114.
Hart, L. M. (2019). Previous injury is associated with heightened countermovement jump force‐time
asymmetries in professional soccer players. Translational Sports Medicine, 2(5), 256.
Haugen, T. &. (2016). Sprint running performance monitoring: methodological and practical considerations.
Sports Medicine. (46), 641-656.
Helme, M. T. (2021). Does lower-limb asymmetry increase injury risk in sport? A systematic review. Physical
Therapy in Sport, 49, 204-213.
Henry, F. M. (1967). “Best” versus “average” individual scores. Research Quarterly. American Association for
Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 38(2), 317-320.
Hewit, J. C. (2012). Multidirectional leg asymmetry assessment in sport. Strength & Conditioning Journal,
34(1), 82-86.
Issurin, V. B. (2010). New Horizons for the Methodology and Physiology of Training Periodization. Sports
Medicine, 40, 189-206.
James, L. P. (2023). Strength Classification and Diagnosis: Not All Strength Is Created Equal. Strength and
Conditioning Journal, 45(3), 333-341.
Jordan, M. J. (2017). Asymmetry and thigh muscle coactivity in fatigued anterior cruciate ligament–
reconstructed elite skiers. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 49(1), 11-20.
Joyce, D. &. (2015). The injury risk profiling process. In Sports Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation . London:
Routledge.
Knezevic, O. M. (2014). Asymmetries in explosive strength following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
The Knee, 21(6), 1039-1045.
Kotsifaki, R. S. (2023). Performance and symmetry measures during vertical jump testing at return to sport
after ACL reconstruction. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 1.
Kotsifaki, R. S. (2023, June). Performance and symmetry measures during vertical jump testing at return to
sport after ACL reconstruction. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 0, 1-8. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2022-

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 105

106588
Kraska, J. M. (2009). Relationship between strength characteristics and unweighted and weighted vertical
jump height. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 4(4), 461-473.
Martinez, D. (2016). FROM THE FIELD - DIRECTED TOPIC | THE USE OF REACTIVE STRENGTH INDEX,
REACTIVE STRENGTH INDEX MODIFIED, AND FLIGHT TIME: CONTRACTION TIME AS MONITORING
TOOLS. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning , 1-83.
McGuigan, M. (2014). Evaluating athletic capacities. High-performance training for sports. United States:
Human Kinetics.
McMahon, J. J. (2018). Understanding the Key Phases of the Countermovement Jump Force-Time Curve.
Strength and Conditioning Journal, 40(1), 96-106.
Mujika, I. H. (2018). An integrated, multifactorial approach to periodization for optimal performance in
individual and team sports. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 13(5), 538-561.
Rebelo-Marques, A. A.-M. (2019). Return to Play (RTP). The Sports Medicine Physician, 149-169.
Sheppard, J. M.-N. (2021). Performance diagnostics. In Strength and Conditioning for Sports Performance.
208-221.
Soligard, T. S. (2016). How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement
on load in sport and risk of injury. British journal of sports medicine, 1030-1041.
Stone, M. H. (2019). The use of the isometric mid-thigh pull in the monitoring of weightlifters: 25+ years of
experience. UKSCA Journal: Professional Strength and Conditi. UKSCA Journal: Professional Strength
and Conditioning, 10-15.
Taberner, M. V. (2020). Physical preparation and return to performance of an elite female football player
following ACL reconstruction: a journey to the FIFA Women’s World Cup. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise
Medicine, 6(1), e000843.
Thun, E. B. (2015, October). Sleep, circadian rhythms, and athletic performance. Sleep Med Review, 23, 1-9.
doi:10.1016
Turner, A. N. (2019). Total score of athleticism: Holistic athlete profiling to enhance decision-making. Strength
& Conditioning Journal, 41(6), 91-101.
VALD. (2023). VALD Performance. Retrieved from https://valdperformance.com/forceDecks/
Whitmer, T. D. (2015). Accuracy of a vertical jump contact mat for determining jump height and flight time. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(4), 877-881.
Whitmer, T. D. (2015). Accuracy of a vertical jump contact mat for determining jump height and flight time. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(4), 877-881.
Wing, C. (2018). Monitoring athlete load: Data collection methods and practical recommendationsl. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 40(4), 26-39.
Zarrouk, N. C. (2012). Time of day effects on repeated sprint ability. International journal of sports medicine,
975-980.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 106

Appendices
A. Asymmetries

1. Magnitude of Asymmetry

Magnitude simply refers to the size of an observed asymmetry, without consideration for the direction of
asymmetry. At 0% asymmetry for a given metric, it could be safely assumed that the individual is not
favoring one limb over the contralateral limb. However, if magnitude of asymmetry is greater than 0%, further
consideration of whether an asymmetry is problematic or not, is far less clear-cut. A typical asymmetry for
a cohort is unlikely to be indicative of all the populations, and therefore, results must be interpreted with
caution.

In large, diverse organizations, cross-disciplinary analysis can help create magnitude rating systems, such
as ranking asymmetry ranges from low to moderate to high concern. However, this is not possible in all
organizations, and some practitioners must instead rely on intra-subject asymmetry monitoring alone.

2. Change in Magnitude of Asymmetry

Changes in asymmetry can be a powerful factor to monitor, given that asymmetry may be influenced by
fatigue and/or ongoing adaptations to physical stimulus. Consider an individual who typically averages 10%
asymmetry for a given test and selected metrics. The same individual is tested the day after heavy
exercise or a demanding working day, registering a 25% asymmetry for the same tests and metrics. This
might suggest that when in a fatigued state, the individual’s asymmetry is magnified and may be interpreted
as the individual is at an increased risk of injury. Therefore, timing of testing needs to be carefully
considered.

Similarly, changes in magnitude over time can help identify improvements or warn practitioners of a
developing problem. For example, if an individual displays a 5% asymmetry on day 1 of testing (multi-day/
high frequency testing) and the magnitude of asymmetry is amplified as days pass, this may indicate an
issue is developing. Conversely, if a client recovering from ACL reconstruction begins their rehabilitation at
40% asymmetry, but consistently reduces this asymmetry over time, this may indicate positive progress.

Often, these changes are imperceptible to the individual. However, using dual force plate measurement, we
can identify changes magnitude and intervene earlier than would otherwise be possible with subjective
analysis only.

3. Influence of Previous Injury on Asymmetry

Following an injury, movement mechanics and force production capacity may be altered immediately (i.e.,
acute responses), leading to obvious asymmetries in many metrics.

Further, the effects of an injury may go on to affect an individual’s asymmetry indefinitely (i.e., chronic
adaptations). Depending on the chronic nature of the injury, there may be limits with the amount of
improvement possible. Examples of this are observed commonly following severe injuries such as ACL
rupture.

In general, an asymmetry analysis should consider how previous setbacks may still affect the individual and
how that may change the goals of their exercise program.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 107

4. Sport/Occupation/Life Stressors

Aside from injury events and/or the influence of chronic overuse, asymmetries can also develop naturally in
response to repetitive actions and may not necessarily be cause for concern. Take for example, a Tennis
player exhibits significant asymmetries due to the physical demands of repetitive training and playing where
forces are constantly being channeled through their dominant side, whereas road cyclists and weightlifters
move more symmetrically. While a Tennis player shows substantial asymmetries between their arm used
for a forehand shot, linking to their back, hip, and leg, this does not necessarily mean that they will experience
injuries, as there are multiple factors that influence the player’s response. Cormack and Coutts (2015) argue
that the practitioner needs to consider the combination of physiological and psychological traits and issues
related to the specifics of the player’s training and competition environment, and not focus on the test alone.
Therefore, if the tennis player is generally healthy - physically, mentally, and emotionally, and their
magnitudes of asymmetry do not fluctuate greatly over time with good management, any asymmetry can
be deemed within acceptable limits,

5. Consistency of Inter-Phase Asymmetries

Asymmetries can occur within any given metric, whether it is a singular point (e.g., peak takeoff force), a
value of force over time (e.g.: eccentric braking impulse), or a rate of force applied (e.g., eccentric
deceleration rate of force development).

To thoroughly understand asymmetries, it is important to analyze an entire movement, looking for

similarities and differences across phases and/or key moments. For example, consider the three major
phases of the CMJ test:

• Eccentric;
• Concentric; and
• Landing.

It is common for an individual to exhibit minimal or no asymmetry in one or more phases (e.g., concentric
phase), while showing significant asymmetry in other phase/s (e.g., eccentric and landing phases).

Such a phenomenon may be explained by several different factors. For example, the individual
may be subconsciously “protecting” one limb from:

• Rapid movements (which may manifest in RFD and peak force asymmetry metrics); and/or
• Heavy loading (which may manifest in higher average force or impulse asymmetries).

In either case, the specific phase or variable can provide significant insights for the practitioner about
asymmetries while their athlete/client, or staff member executes a movement.

6. Consistency of Inter-Trial Asymmetries

Performing several repetitions of a jump or movement often yields asymmetry results of significantly
different magnitudes and directions.

For example, consider someone who performs 5 Drop Jump (DJ) tests and registers a consistent asymmetry
of 15% right-dominance across a variety of metrics and phases. Although this might not be cause for
concern in isolation, the fact that the individual consistently stresses one limb more than the other may
warrant greater investigation.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide

 108

Conversely, compare this to someone else who performs the same test and has similar results (e.g., average
jump height and RSI). These individual exhibits asymmetries that vary between 2% - 40%, randomly
alternating between left and right sides. Although peak asymmetry magnitudes appear higher on this
occasion, average relative asymmetry (i.e., factoring in direction of imbalance) may be closer to 0%.

This large variance may be completely normal, resulting from variations in movement strategies (e.g., poor
jump technique) from trial to trial, suggesting the participant might be comfortable in accepting load and
producing force on both limbs equally. Therefore, while these results seem highly variable, this client’s
performance profile might be protective, showing they may be well-prepared to tolerate variable loading on
both limbs.

VALD FORCEDECKS User Guide