Force Plate Testing for Coaches: CMJ, SJ, and What the Numbers Mean

Force plates measure what your eyes cannot

A coach can watch an athlete jump and tell you whether it looked good. A force plate can tell you that the athlete produced 2,847 Newtons of peak force in 0.31 seconds, generated 28.4 watts per kilogram of power, and pushed 12% harder through the left leg than the right.

This is not a technology flex. It is the difference between subjective assessment and objective measurement. The same difference that separates a biomechanical assessment from watching someone squat and guessing what looks “off.”

Force plates have dropped from $15,000+ (laboratory-grade AMTI or Kistler systems) to $1,500-5,000 for coaching-grade portable units (ForceDecks, Hawkin Dynamics, VALD). At that price point, the question is no longer “can we afford force plates?” but “do we know what to do with the data?”

This guide covers the two primary jump tests (CMJ and SJ), the metrics that matter for coaching decisions, the metrics that do not, and how to integrate force plate data into programming.

The countermovement jump (CMJ)

The CMJ is the single most researched and widely used force plate test. The athlete stands on the plates, dips into a countermovement (squats down), and jumps as high as possible. It is simple, reliable, and sensitive to fatigue, training status, and neuromuscular function.

How to administer it

1. Setup: Athlete stands quietly on the force plates for 2-3 seconds (the system captures body weight during this quiet standing phase — this is the baseline for all calculations)
2. Instructions: “When I say go, jump as high as you can. Dip to whatever depth feels natural. Hands on your hips.” (Hands on hips eliminates arm swing contribution, isolating lower body output)
3. Trials: 3 jumps with 30-60 seconds rest between trials. Use the best trial or the average of the best two.
4. Consistency: Same time of day, same warm-up, same instructions, same footwear (or barefoot). Testing conditions must be standardized for longitudinal tracking to mean anything.

The metrics that matter

Not every number that a force plate software package generates is useful for coaching decisions. Here are the ones that drive programming:

Jump height (cm)

The headline number. Calculated from flight time or takeoff velocity (velocity method is more accurate). A male collegiate athlete typically jumps 35-45 cm. A female collegiate athlete typically jumps 25-35 cm. Elite power/speed athletes exceed 50 cm (male) and 40 cm (female).

Jump height is the outcome metric. It tells you what happened. The following metrics tell you how and why.

Peak force (N and N/kg)

The maximum force applied to the plates during the jump. Absolute peak force (Newtons) is dominated by body mass — heavier athletes produce more force. Relative peak force (N/kg) normalizes for body mass and allows comparison across athletes.

Population	Relative Peak Force (N/kg)
Untrained adult	18-22
Recreational athlete	22-26
Collegiate athlete	26-30
Elite power athlete	30-38

Rate of force development (RFD) (N/s)

How fast the athlete produces force. RFD is the slope of the force-time curve — it tells you whether the athlete is powerful (produces force quickly) or strong-slow (produces high force but takes time to get there).

This metric drives exercise selection. An athlete with high peak force but low RFD needs explosive training (plyometrics, Olympic lifts, ballistic throws). An athlete with high RFD but low peak force needs strength training (heavy squats, deadlifts, loaded carries).

Concentric impulse (N.s)

The area under the force-time curve during the upward (concentric) phase. Impulse = force x time, and it determines velocity at takeoff, which determines jump height. Two athletes can achieve the same jump height with different force-time strategies: one with high force and short duration, another with moderate force and longer duration.

Eccentric deceleration RFD (N/s)

How quickly the athlete decelerates the downward phase before reversing into the upward phase. This metric is sensitive to tendon stiffness, stretch-shortening cycle efficiency, and neuromuscular readiness. It is one of the first metrics to change when an athlete is fatigued or under-recovered.

Coaches use this metric for readiness monitoring: if an athlete’s eccentric deceleration RFD drops more than 10-15% below their baseline, it indicates fatigue that may warrant load reduction.

Countermovement depth (cm)

How deep the athlete dips before jumping. This is not a performance metric — it is a strategy metric. Athletes who dip deeper use more range of motion and typically produce higher impulse but lower RFD. Athletes who dip shallow produce less impulse but higher RFD.

Changes in countermovement depth without changes in jump height suggest a strategy shift, which may indicate fatigue (the athlete dips deeper to compensate for reduced force production) or improved stiffness (the athlete produces the same height from a shallower dip).

The metrics to ignore (or deprioritize)

Flight time:contraction time ratio: Mathematically derived, influenced by countermovement depth strategy. Sounds important, provides little actionable information beyond what RFD and impulse already tell you.

Time to peak force: Variable between athletes and influenced by countermovement strategy. Not useful for cross-athlete comparison. Marginal utility for within-athlete tracking.

Peak power (W): Calculated from force and velocity, but the velocity is often estimated from integration rather than directly measured. The constituent metrics (force and RFD) are more reliable and more actionable.

The squat jump (SJ)

The SJ removes the stretch-shortening cycle. The athlete holds a half-squat position (knee angle approximately 90°) for 2-3 seconds, then jumps from that static position. No countermovement, no dip, no eccentric loading.

Why test both CMJ and SJ

The comparison between CMJ and SJ reveals the contribution of the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) to jump performance. The ratio is calculated as:

Eccentric utilization ratio (EUR) = CMJ height / SJ height

EUR Value	Interpretation	Programming Implication
< 1.05	Poor SSC utilization	Athlete needs plyometric training, reactive strength work
1.05-1.15	Normal SSC utilization	Balanced programming
> 1.15	Excellent SSC utilization	Athlete may benefit from max-strength focus (they are already reactive)
> 1.25	Unusually high — recheck SJ technique	May indicate poor isometric strength or SJ technique error

A power athlete with an EUR of 1.02 is leaving performance on the table. They have the strength (SJ is high) but cannot use elastic energy effectively. Plyometrics and drop jumps will produce more transfer than additional strength training.

A team sport athlete with an EUR of 1.20 has excellent reactive capacity but may be understrength. Heavy barbell work will produce more transfer than additional reactive training.

SJ protocol specifics

1. Athlete descends to a 90° knee angle (measure with a goniometer if strict standardization is needed)
2. Holds the position for 2-3 seconds (the force trace should show a stable, flat line — any pre-jump countermovement invalidates the trial)
3. Jumps maximally from the static position
4. 3 trials, 60 seconds rest between trials

The SJ is harder to administer reliably. Athletes instinctively want to dip before jumping. Watch the force trace — any downward deflection before the upward phase indicates a countermovement, and the trial should be repeated.

Asymmetry: the metric coaches ask about most

Bilateral force plates (two separate plates, one per foot) measure left-right asymmetry. This is the metric that generates the most questions and the most confusion.

What asymmetry actually tells you

An asymmetry of 5-8% between limbs is normal in healthy, uninjured athletes. The body is not symmetrical — hand dominance, sport-specific demands, and minor structural differences all create baseline asymmetry.

Asymmetries exceeding 10-15% are worth investigating, particularly if:

• They were not present at previous testing (new asymmetry = something changed)
• They are present across multiple metrics (force, RFD, and impulse all skewed to the same side)
• They correlate with structural findings from a biomechanical assessment (e.g., 15° difference in hip IR maps to 12% force production asymmetry on the same side)

What asymmetry does not tell you

Asymmetry alone does not predict injury. The research on this is mixed — some studies show correlation between asymmetry and injury risk, others do not. What asymmetry does reliably is:

1. Flag a side that is underperforming (which may respond to unilateral training)
2. Track recovery from injury (the injured side should progressively close the gap toward the uninjured side)
3. Provide a structural conversation — if the force asymmetry matches a ROM asymmetry, addressing the ROM deficit may resolve the force deficit

Connecting force plate asymmetry to structural assessment

This is where force plates and biomechanical assessment intersect. An athlete with 14% peak force asymmetry (right > left) and a structural assessment showing left hip IR 10° below right hip IR has a structural explanation for the force asymmetry. The left hip cannot access the same mechanical position as the right, so it cannot produce the same force.

Correcting the hip IR deficit (weeks 4-8 of targeted work) and retesting the CMJ provides a clear cause-effect chain: structural change → force change. This is evidence-based coaching at its most direct.

Reactive Strength Index (RSI)

RSI is calculated from a drop jump: the athlete steps off a box (typically 30-40 cm), lands, and immediately rebounds for maximum height. RSI = jump height / ground contact time.

RSI measures the ability to absorb and redirect force quickly. High RSI = the athlete spent minimal time on the ground and jumped high. Low RSI = the athlete spent too long on the ground, too short a jump, or both.

Population	RSI (m/s)
Untrained	0.8-1.2
Team sport athlete	1.2-1.8
Sprint/jump athlete	1.8-2.5
Elite sprinter	2.5-3.2

RSI is highly specific to elastic/reactive performance. It correlates strongly with sprint acceleration, change-of-direction speed, and sport-specific agility. For team sport athletes, RSI is often more valuable than CMJ height as a performance indicator.

Practical integration: testing schedule and decision framework

When to test

• Baseline: At the start of a training block or season
• Post-training block: End of each 4-6 week block to assess training effect
• Weekly monitoring: Some programs test CMJ 2-3 times per week as a readiness indicator (same protocol, first thing in the session, before training)
• Return to play: Post-injury, tracked until asymmetry returns to pre-injury levels

Decision framework

After testing, the data drives three categories of decisions:

1. Training emphasis (from CMJ/SJ comparison)

• Low EUR → more reactive/plyometric work
• High EUR → more max-strength work
• Both low → general physical preparation needed

2. Readiness monitoring (from CMJ trends)

• Jump height drops > 5% below 2-week rolling average → consider load reduction
• Eccentric deceleration RFD drops > 10% → fatigue indicator, reduce intensity or volume
• Concentric impulse drops while jump height is maintained → strategy shift, monitor closely

3. Asymmetry management (from bilateral data)

• New asymmetry > 10% → investigate (structural assessment, injury screening)
• Persistent asymmetry > 15% → add unilateral training emphasis
• Asymmetry closing over time post-injury → clearance criterion for return to bilateral loading

Equipment recommendations for coaches

The force plate market has matured significantly. Here is the current landscape:

System	Price	Best For
Hawkin Dynamics	$3,500-5,000	Private coaches, small facilities. Excellent software, portable
ForceDecks (VALD)	$5,000-8,000	Multi-sport facilities. Research-grade accuracy, team management features
Gymaware ForceDecks	$8,000-12,000	Professional teams. Dual plate standard, integrated with VALD ecosystem
Kistler Quattro	$15,000+	Research labs. Gold standard accuracy, overkill for most coaching applications

For a coach starting out, a single-plate system ($1,500-3,000) provides CMJ and SJ data without asymmetry. A dual-plate system ($3,500-8,000) adds asymmetry metrics. The investment pays for itself in client retention and programming precision — athletes who see their numbers improve stay longer and refer more.

The data-to-decision pipeline

Force plates generate data. Data without interpretation is noise. The pipeline that turns force plate numbers into better programs looks like this:

1. Test — standardized protocol, consistent conditions
2. Compare — to normative data, to the athlete’s own baseline, to the previous test
3. Contextualize — with structural assessment data, training history, subjective recovery ratings
4. Decide — training emphasis, load management, exercise selection
5. Retest — at the end of the training block to confirm the decision produced the expected change

If you skip step 3 (contextualization), you end up making decisions based on numbers without context. A 5% drop in jump height after a deliberate overreaching phase is expected. The same drop during a taper phase is a problem. The number is the same; the context determines the response.

The coaches who get the most value from force plates are the ones who integrate the data with everything else they know about the athlete. The plate tells you what the athlete produced. The structural assessment tells you what the athlete’s joints allow. The training log tells you what the athlete has been doing. Together, they tell you what to do next.

---

Ready to add objective measurement to your coaching? See how AKMI integrates assessment data with performance testing or explore the AKMI platform features.