Agreement of Clinical Grade and Laboratory Grade Force Plates for Countermovement Jump Metrics in Youth Athletes.
Elliot Greenberg, Eric Greenberg, Joshua Riesenberg and 2 others
PMID 41346844WHAT IT FOUND
Clinical force plates agree with lab equipment on jump height and peak force in youth athletes, but differ significantly on impulse measures.
Do not swap impulse data between systems, as the numbers are not interchangeable.
Key findings
01Jump height and peak ground reaction force showed no statistical difference between the clinical and laboratory systems.
02Eccentric and concentric impulse values differed significantly between devices, with percent differences of nearly 10% and over 17% respectively.
03Correlations were strong for only three of ten metrics: jump height, peak GRF, and total eccentric rate of force development.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Each participant performed only one jump per device, which increases the chance that natural variability in performance skewed the results. The jumps were performed separately on each device rather than simultaneously, so differences might reflect how the athlete jumped rather than how the devices measured. The study used custom software to analyze raw data rather than the devices' proprietary algorithms, which may not reflect how clinicians typically use these systems. Results apply only to these specific force plate models and may not extend to other clinical devices.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume all advanced metrics from clinical force plates match laboratory standards. While jump height and peak force are comparable, impulse and some rate of force development measures differ significantly and cannot be used interchangeably.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →