VALD ForceDecks Integration: What the Data Actually Tells You

ForceDecks is one of the most widely used force plate systems in professional sport, and one of the most underused. Most teams collect data every week and then look at a single number, jump height, in a spreadsheet nobody opens after Monday. The value is not in that number. It is in what the shape of the force trace tells you about the athlete standing on the plates.

This guide covers what ForceDecks measures, which metrics actually change decisions, and how to get the data out of the testing app and into the training session.

What ForceDecks actually measures

A force plate measures force over time. That is all it does. Everything else, jump height, peak power, rate of force development, is calculated from that force-time trace using equations and assumptions.

For an athlete, that means the raw material is a curve. During a countermovement jump the curve rises as the athlete unloads, dips below body mass during the eccentric phase, then spikes during concentric push-off, then returns to body mass as they land. Every phase has a duration and an area underneath it. Duration tells you about intent and strategy. Area (impulse) tells you about total force applied over time.

Two athletes can jump the same height with completely different traces. One produces a short, sharp push. The other takes a long, slow push. Same outcome, different physical qualities, and different training implications. If you only look at jump height, you cannot tell them apart.

ForceDecks also supports isometric tasks such as the mid-thigh pull and the isometric squat, plus drop jumps and landings using the dual plates. Those tests give you information a countermovement jump cannot, particularly about maximal force production and about limb symmetry during landing.

The metrics worth your attention

There are dozens of metrics available in the software. Most of them are interesting once, then ignored. These are the ones that reliably change a decision.

| Metric | What it reflects | When it changes a decision | | --- | --- | --- | | Jump height | Overall neuromuscular readiness and power output | Weekly monitoring, comparison against the athlete's own baseline | | Peak power | Ability to produce force quickly against body mass | Programme emphasis, power versus strength focus | | Contraction time | Time spent applying force during concentric phase | Intent and strategy, identifies slow pushers | | Time to peak force | How quickly maximal force is reached | Rate of force development priority in programming | | Countermovement depth | Strategy, eccentric loading, and knee dominance | Technique coaching, identifying compensation patterns | | Asymmetry (left vs right) | Limb differences in force or impulse | Return to play, screening, rehabilitation progression | | Peak landing force | Impact absorption on landing | Landing mechanics, eccentric strength work |

A practical rule: pick three to five metrics and review them the same way every week. Consistency beats breadth. A coach who understands five metrics deeply will outperform one who glances at twenty.

Jump height

Still the anchor metric, and for good reason. It is reliable, athletes understand it, and it responds to both training load and fatigue. The mistake is treating a single session as a verdict. What matters is the trend relative to that athlete's own baseline and the smallest worthwhile change, usually somewhere between two and five percent depending on the test and the athlete.

Rate of force development and time to peak force

These separate the athletes who are strong from the athletes who are strong quickly. If an athlete produces high peak force but takes a long time to reach it, adding more maximal strength work may not help. Ballistic work, loaded jumps, and intent-focused plyometrics are more likely to shift that metric.

Asymmetry

Asymmetry is the most over interpreted number in the system. A 10 percent difference between limbs is a flag, not a diagnosis. It matters when it appears alongside a clinical finding, a training history that explains it, or a meaningful change from that athlete's own baseline. It should never be used as a standalone pass or fail for return to play.

Where the integration usually breaks down

The problem is rarely the plates. It is the path between the testing session and the training session.

The typical workflow looks like this. Athletes test. The practitioner exports a spreadsheet. Screenshots go into a group chat. Someone builds a summary slide for a meeting three days later. By the time anyone acts, the training week has already been planned.

That gap has three costs. Data gets collected and never used, which erodes athlete buy in. Decisions get made on the loudest number rather than the most relevant one. And the practitioner spends their session time in a spreadsheet instead of coaching.

A workable flow has four properties. The test is quick enough that it does not disrupt the warm up. The results land in the same place as the rest of the athlete's data. The practitioner can see a flag without opening a second application. And the flag connects to an action, whether that is a modified session, a conversation, or a referral to the physio.

Getting from testing to training

Three principles make the difference.

Test with a purpose. Every metric should have a downstream decision attached to it before the test happens. If you cannot say what you would do differently when a number moves, do not test it.

Keep the athlete's history in one view. Force plate output sitting next to session load, wellness responses, and medical notes tells a story. Force plate output sitting alone in a separate app tells you nothing about why.

Close the loop with the athlete. The number only becomes useful when the athlete understands what it means for their week. A short conversation about one metric, in plain language, builds more trust than a dashboard.

Common mistakes

• Testing too often and reviewing too rarely. Weekly is enough for most team settings.
• Comparing athletes to each other rather than to their own baseline. The strongest athlete on the team is not the reference point for everyone else.
• Using asymmetry as a single gate for return to play. Pair it with clinical criteria and progressive loading.
• Changing the protocol between tests. Swap the jump type, the arm swing, or the instruction, and you lose the ability to compare.
• Collecting data with no owner. Someone has to be responsible for reviewing and acting on it within 24 hours.

Where this fits in Prospect

Prospect pulls VALD ForceDecks assessment results into the same athlete profile as programme completion, session load, and medical status. That means a drop in jump height can be read next to the training week that preceded it, rather than in isolation. For a practitioner, the goal is simple. One place to look, one version of the truth, and a decision you can make before the session starts.

The short version

Force plates measure force over time. Jump height is the headline, but contraction time, time to peak force, and landing forces are where the coaching insight lives. Pick a handful of metrics, test consistently, compare athletes to themselves, and put the results where your other athlete data already lives. The system only earns its keep when the number reaches the person who plans the session.