부산대학교 도서관

Considering the growing prevalence of commercial force plates providing automated force-time analyses, understanding levels of agreement across force plate systems is warranted. Countermovement jump (CMJ) metrics across Vald ForceDecks (FD), Hawkin Dynamics (HD), and Sparta Science (SS) force plate systems were compared. Twenty-two subjects completed CMJ testing (â128 comparisons) on each force plate system separately with rest between jumps. Baseline testing occurred 3 times and demonstrated poor test-retest reliability for modified reactive strength index (mRSI) and rate of force development (RFD). ForceDecks and HD comparisons yielded acceptable agreement for concentric/propulsive relative force and net impulse, jump height, eccentric/braking RFD, and mRSI, but systematic and proportionate bias existed for RFD. Sparta Science jump height and reactive strength index (RSI) demonstrated systematic overestimations compared with HD and FD, but jump height had acceptable agreement according to concordance correlation coefficients (CCC = 0.92-0.95). Agreement between SS load (eccentric RFD) and HD braking RFD was acceptable (CCC = 0.91), whereas agreement between SS load and FD deceleration RFD was considered acceptable (CCC = 0.81-0.87) but demonstrated systematic and proportionate bias. ForceDecks (CCC = 0.89) and HD (CCC = 0.85) average relative concentric/propulsive force yielded acceptable agreement with SS explode (average relative concentric force), but SS explode demonstrated systematically lower values than FD and HD. Sparta Science drive (concentric impulse) yielded acceptable agreement with HD relative propulsive impulse (CCC = 0.85), but not FD concentric impulse. Human performance practitioners need to be aware of inconsistencies among testing procedures and analyses across force plate systems, such as differences in metric definitions and units of measurement, before making comparisons across systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]