###### Abstract
Furthermore, when applying the DSI, it is essential to account for the relative contribution of each component because simultaneous improvements in both components would lead to minimal changes in the DSI itself but would likely enhance overall physical performance. Additionally, when considering which test protocols to utilize in evaluating independent assessments of physical performance, sports demands should be kept in mind. More precisely, sprints, jumps and CoD actions seem to be crucial movements in basketball [18]. Jumping assessments are among the most popular methods to assess neuromuscular function in basketball [19; 20], as the ability to produce high amounts of force into the ground to vertically displace the center of mass is an important ability in basketball for movements such as dunks, rebounds and lay-ups. It must be stressed that jump height alone does not always indicate superior athlete performance as the time component may also play a role in the players being in optimal positions to gather competitive advantages (e.g., grab a rebound) [21]. Additionally, when individuals are not in an optimal physical state, they may change movement strategies to achieve comparable outputs but within a longer time window [22]. Thus, monitoring additional metrics beyond jump height alone is recommended for examining jumping performance in basketball players [23; 24]. Along with jumping, running speed is also an important characteristic in basketball [25], as top speeds and rates of acceleration can present important advantages in the game [21]. Additionally, basketball involves not only linear movements but also dynamic, multi-directional actions [3; 26] and movements in curvilinear trajectories [27]. More precisely, 31% of total sprints performed without the ball and 59% with the ball are curvilinear [28; 29]. Therefore, improving curvilinear qualities may be important to optimize basketball performance. Based on that, optimizing basketball performance relies on addressing other critical movement patterns, such as linear and curvilinear sprints, explosive jumps, rapid CoD and multi-directional force production. A comprehensive evaluation of these parameters ensures a well-rounded physical profile, enabling athletes to adapt their training in order to meet the diverse demands of the game. While DSI-guided training was recently shown to be potentially more effective in enhancing or maintaining the physical performance of highly trained basketball players during the season compared to non-individualized resistance training [11], there is still a gap in the literature regarding the question about its relationship with physical performance. Previous research provides some information on the relationship between DSI and measures of strength and power derived from the component tests of the DSI metric (IMPT and CMJ) [12, 30, 31]. However, such results must be questioned, as CMJ, IMPT and DSI metrics do not represent truly independent variables. In contrast, assessing the relationship between CMJ, IMPT and DSI with other independent measures of physical performance (e.g., linear or curvilinear and CoD speed) would be more informative to practitioners, as it would help determine whether the DSI and its constituent variables could serve as useful measurements in practice. To the authors' knowledge, there are only two studies to date that have examined the relationship between DSI and performance during a completely different task [16, 32]. A study on surfers reported that upper body DSI (from the push-up task, isometric push up and dynamic push-up on force plates) had no relationship with sport-specific physical performance (\(r=-0.57\)-(\(-0.59\)); \(p=0.10\)-\(0.12\)), while on the other hand, both isometric and dynamic strength qualities underpinning the DSI were significantly greater in the better-performing group [33].