## 3 Results
The ECCMP variable significantly predicted performance in 0-10 m (\(p\) = 0.030, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.294) and 0-20 m sprints (\(p\) = 0.046, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.255). ECCPP demonstrated a strong and significant association with CMJ height (\(p\) = 0.002, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.519). The Reactive Strength Index (RSI) showed significant relationships with CMJ (\(p\) = 0.013, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.366), 0-10 m sprint (\(p\) = 0.007, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.403), 0-20 m sprint (\(p\) = 0.032, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.321), and CODD% (\(p\) = 0.007, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.398). The stiffness variable was significantly associated with 10-20 m sprint performance (\(p\) = 0.048, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.191). In addition, PSAP significantly predicted sprint performance at 10-20 m (\(p\) = 0.015, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.353) and 20-30 m (\(p\) = 0.038, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.206). Conversely, other parameters--such as CONMP, ECCPF/BM, PP, and CONPF/BM--did not demonstrate statistically significant associations with sprint, vertical jump, COD, or CODD% performance outcomes (\(p\) > 0.05). While several variables exhibited statistically significant associations with performance outcomes in female athletes, the relatively modest R\({}^{2}\) values in some models (e.g., for stiffness and PSAP) indicate limited explanatory strength, suggesting the need for complementary assessments. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **SJ** & **CMJ** & **COD** & **CODD\%** & **0-10 m** & **10-20 m** & **0-20 m** & **20-30 m** & **0-30 m** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**EUR**} & \(\beta\) & 0.051 & 0.587 & 0.062 & \(-\)0.427 & 0.516 & 0.122 & 0.494 & 0.269 & 0.423 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(p\) & 0.852 & **0.017** & 0.819 & 0.099 & **0.041** & 0.654 & 0.052 & 0.313 & 0.103 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(\mathbf{R}^{2}\) & 0.003 & 0.345 & 0.004 & 0.183 & 0.267 & 0.015 & 0.244 & 0.072 & 0.179 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**CONMP**} & \(\beta\) & \(-\)0.098 & 0.274 & 0.258 & \(-\)0.126 & 0.419 & \(-\)0.059 & 0.344 & 0.261 & 0.323 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(p\) & 0.718 & 0.304 & 0.334 & 0.641 & 0.106 & 0.828 & 0.192 & 0.328 & 0.222 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(\mathbf{R}^{2}\) & 0.010 & 0.009 & 0.067 & 0.016 & 0.176 & 0.003 & 0.118 & 0.068 & 0.104 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**CONPF/BM**} & \(\beta\) & 0.048 & 0.132 & 0.188 & 0.041 & 0.087 & \(-\)0.024 & 0.065 & \(-\)0.084 & 0.011 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(p\) & 0.859 & 0.627 & 0.485 & 0.881 & 0.749 & 0.928 & 0.812 & 0.758 & 0.968 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(\mathbf{R}^{2}\) & 0.002 & 0.017 & 0.035 & 0.002 & 0.008 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.007 & 0.000 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**ECCMP**} & \(\beta\) & 0.186 & 0.488 & \(-\)0.203 & \(-\)0.352 & 0.542 & 0.107 & 0.505 & 0.406 & 0.483 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(p\) & 0.491 & 0.055 & 0.450 & 0.181 & **0.030** & 0.693 & **0.046** & 0.119 & 0.058 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(\mathbf{R}^{2}\) & 0.034 & 0.238 & 0.041 & 0.124 & 0.294 & 0.011 & 0.255 & 0.165 & 0.234 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**ECCPP**} & \(\beta\) & 0.458 & 0.720 & \(-\)0.297 & \(-\)0.468 & 0.385 & 0.256 & 0.429 & 0.089 & 0.311 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(p\) & 0.074 & **0.002** & 0.264 & 0.068 & 0.141 & 0.339 & 0.097 & 0.744 & 0.242 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(\mathbf{R}^{2}\) & 0.210 & 0.519 & 0.088 & 0.219 & 0.148 & 0.065 & 0.184 & 0.008 & 0.096 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**ECCPF/BM**} & \(\beta\) & 0.051 & 0.587 & 0.062 & \(-\)0.427 & 0.516 & 0.122 & 0.494 & 0.269 & 0.423 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(p\) & 0.852 & **0.017** & 0.819 & 0.099 & 0.041 & 0.654 & 0.052 & 0.313 & 0.103 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(\mathbf{R}^{2}\) & 0.003 & 0.345 & 0.004 & 0.183 & 0.267 & 0.015 & 0.244 & 0.072 & 0.179 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**PP**} & \(\beta\) & \(-\)0.002 & 0.199 & 0.204 & \(-\)0.248 & 0.466 & \(-\)0.201 & 0.311 & 0.442 & 0.376 \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(p\) & 0.994 & 0.460 & 0.448 & 0.355 & 0.069 & 0.456 & 0.241 & 0.087 & 0.151 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-11}  & \(\mathbf{R}^{2}\) & 0.000 & 0.040 & 0.042 & 0.061 & 0.218 & 0.040 & 0.097 & 0.195 & 0.141 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Simple linear regression analyses for performance variables—female athletes (n = 16).