Surface-Dependent Variability in Force Plate-Derived Countermovement Jump Metrics

Authors

  • Abir Guha Author
  • Dr. N. Amitrasen Singh Author
  • Suraj Kumar Bharali Author
  • Tiyasa Hoom Author
  • Dr. Pulen Das Author

Keywords:

Keywords: countermovement jump; force plate methodology; flooring surface; neuromuscular compensation; testing standardization

Abstract

The force plate has become a standard tool for assessment of neuromuscular readiness in athletes; however, most validation and testing protocols assume a fixed, rigid surface. That luxury is seldom afforded by field-based testing. The purpose of this study was to determine if the floor on which a portable dual force plate sits influences the countermovement jump (CMJ) output of professional male footballers. Fifteen players (age 22.3 ± 2.1 years) performed maximal akimbo CMJs on six surfaces (concrete, gym mat, judo mat, natural grass, mud court and synthetic track) after a standardized warm-up. Repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction compared system weight, jump height, countermovement depth, braking rate of force development, braking phase duration, and peak propulsive and landing forces (absolute and relative) among surfaces. Three metrics changed meaningfully with surface: system weight (p = .001, ηp2 = .333), countermovement depth (p = .035, ηp2 = .190), and braking phase duration (p = .033, ηp2 = .156). Concrete yielded the highest values for system-weight, judo mat the greatest countermovement depth, and gym mat the shortest braking phase. Braking rate of force development had a significant univariate effect that did not survive multivariate testing or post-hoc correction - noisy rather than surface-driven. Notably, jump height, peak propulsive force, and peak landing force did not differ statistically across all 6 surfaces. That split matters more than any p-value. Players experimented with the mechanics of entering and leaving the jump – how deep they loaded it, how quickly they changed direction – while the actual output remained the same. The neuromuscular system seems to treat surface compliance as a parameter to be compensated for, not as a constraint that dictates performance. The takeaway for practitioners is not as broad as “surfaces don’t matter”: jump height and peak force appear robust to testing location, but any metric related to loading strategy — depth, braking timing, system weight — needs a consistent surface across sessions if a change in score is going to mean anything.

References

Badby, A. J., Mundy, P. D., Comfort, P., Lake, J. P., & McMahon, J. J. (2023). The validity of Hawkin Dynamics wireless dual force plates for measuring countermovement jump and drop jump variables. Sensors, 23(10), Article 4820. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23104820

Baltich, J., Maurer, C., & Nigg, B. M. (2015). Increased vertical impact forces and altered running mechanics with softer midsole shoes. PLoS ONE, 10(4), Article e0125196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125196

Dos'Santos, T., Evans, D. T., & Read, D. B. (2024). Validity of the Hawkin Dynamics wireless dual force platform system against a piezoelectric laboratory grade system for vertical countermovement jump variables. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 38(6), 1144–1148. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004785

Earl, J. E., Monteiro, S. K., & Snyder, K. R. (2007). Differences in lower extremity kinematics between a bilateral drop-vertical jump and a single-leg step-down. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 37(5), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2007.2202

Fu, W., Liu, Y., & Zhang, S. (2013). Effects of footwear on impact forces and soft tissue vibrations during drop jumps and unanticipated drop landings. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 34(6), 477–482. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1327696

Gathercole, R., Sporer, B., Stellingwerff, T., & Sleivert, G. (2015). Alternative countermovement-jump analysis to quantify acute neuromuscular fatigue. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 10(1), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2013-0413

Lake, J., Mundy, P., Comfort, P., McMahon, J. J., Suchomel, T. J., & Carden, P. (2018). Concurrent validity of a portable force plate using vertical jump force-time characteristics. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 34(5), 410–413. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.2017-0371

Moir, G. L. (2008). Three different methods of calculating vertical jump height from force platform data in men and women. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12(4), 207–218.

Pedley, J. S., Lloyd, R. S., Read, P. J., Moore, I. S., De Ste Croix, M., Myer, G. D., & Oliver, J. L. (2020). Utility of kinetic and kinematic jumping and landing variables as predictors of injury risk. Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise, 2(4), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42978-020-00090-1

Yeow, C. H., Lee, P. V. S., & Goh, J. C. H. (2011). Shod landing provides enhanced energy dissipation at the knee joint relative to barefoot landing from different heights. The Knee, 18(6), 407–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.07.011

Downloads

Published

2026-10-15

How to Cite

Surface-Dependent Variability in Force Plate-Derived Countermovement Jump Metrics. (2026). Bulletin of Czech Econometric Society, 33(Sp Is. 1 (September), 1-8. https://bulletin-ces.cz/index.php/bulletin/article/view/27

Similar Articles

1-10 of 11

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.