Per-test specs
Major test types have written analysis rules: metrics at ingest, interpretation logic, flag IDs, and severity levels.
Methodology and trust
Not a black box.
Starke Force uses documented analysis rules, literature-backed thresholds where applicable, raw trial retention, and editable clinical copy. When a flag says investigate, a defined condition fired.
Cross-test Overview
DSI, EUR, SSC, arm swing, baseline deviation, and composite readiness answer questions a single test cannot.
Raw data retained
Force-time trials are stored so summaries can be rebuilt when methodology improves.
Athlete Overview
The battery your sports scientist would build in Excel, updated automatically.
Overview combines tests within the organization comparison window, defaulting to 7 days, to explain profile and readiness.
DSI
CMJ peak force divided by IMTP peak force. It helps separate strength-dominant, balanced, and ballistic-dominant profiles.
EUR
CMJ height divided by squat jump height to show stretch-shortening cycle use and programming bias.
SSC spectrum
Slow and fast stretch-shortening signals can fail separately. Full failure points to a broader elastic deficit.
Arm swing index
Abalakov jump height compared with CMJ height to show upper-body contribution.
Baseline deviation
Recent results compared with rolling personal baselines to separate readiness troughs from long-term profile.
Strength floor
When IMTP relative force falls below documented floor, jump metrics may be unreliable for clearance decisions.
CMJ force-time analysis
When recordings are available, staff can inspect the jump shape—not just the score.
Countermovement jump analysis in Starke Force can include force/work-loop style views, phase segmentation, classification, and symmetry context. That matters when similar jump heights come from very different movement strategies.
- Force and velocity across quiet stance, unweighting, braking, and propulsion
- Classification that uses jump strategy, force-time shape, historical deviation, and plyometric stage
- Left-right force contribution views for asymmetry review
- More decision context for coaches and sports scientists than a single CMJ output line
Norms and baselines
Know where athletes sit against peers and against themselves.
IMTP and grip use VALD Practitioner Guide percentile anchors stratified by sex and age band. Norms provide population context. Personal baselines and triage flags still drive the daily decision.
| Severity | Staff meaning |
|---|---|
| Investigate | Act or clarify before progressing load as planned. |
| Monitor | Watch; may influence programming emphasis. |
| Passing | Context; not the main action driver. |
| Collecting baseline | Not enough history yet. Honest uncertainty beats false alarms. |
Dual-audience copy
Same truth, appropriate depth.
Coaches see threshold detail, clinical interpretation, and programming actions. Athletes see simplified explanations without prescription instructions. Operators can edit both sides in administration.
AI programming
Grounded, constrained, validated.
Programming recommendations are flag-driven, allowlist-constrained, validator-enforced, and intake-aware. Severely degraded readiness defers to coach review.
AI-generated training suggestions are not medical advice. They support, not replace, coach and clinician judgment.