## 1 Introduction  
Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is a multifactorial condition broadly associated with anterior knee pain that likely stems from altered biomechanical dynamics, causing a loss of tissue homeostasis rather than actual damage to the knee [1, 2]. Moreover, it is a condition that affects both athletic and sedentary populations, accounting for 25-40% of knee complications reported in sports injury clinics [3, 4] and 12-17% in general practice [5]. The evaluation and diagnosis of PFP, however, remains imprecise due to the variable sensitivity and specificity scores of most clinical tests, which typically rely on a combination of patient history (e.g., age, activity), physical examination (e.g., patellar tilt, Q-angle, crepitus, strength), and functional testing (e.g., squatting, lunging, stair descent) [6, 7, 8, 4]. If the provocation of symptoms is a key factor in the evaluation process, then functional movements that intensify knee joint loading, such as squatting and jumping, should be selected [9]. More specifically, weight-bearing exercises involving higher knee flexion angles, such as countermovement (CM) and/or drop jumping (DJ) manoeuvres, tend to generate higher patellofemoral loads and would therefore be good candidates for differentiating those with PFP from those who do not [9, 10]. Recent research has shown that the unilateral DJ typically yields higher patellofemoral joint peak forces (6.6 \(\pm\) 1.8 bodyweights) compared to the unilateral CMJ (6.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 bodyweights), yet the use of the DJ within the evaluation of PFP cohorts has received limited attention [9]. Whether the functional assessment of clinically compromisedgroups could be enhanced with the use of newer technologies such as force plates that can provide access to insightful metrics linked to nuanced variations and compensations in performance has also received limited attention [11]. Moreover, to ensure an unbiased and consistent assessment, any test or metric used in the evaluation of PFP should be standardized and independent of the specific exercise or rehabilitation program implemented. This means that the evaluation tools must not be influenced by variations in rehabilitation protocols, allowing for accurate comparisons and reliable measurements of patient outcomes. As such, the literature has shown that metrics such jumping height, ground contact time (GCT), the reactive strength index (RSI), and impulse exhibit high levels of consistency (ICC = 0.85, 0.94, 0.87, and 0.91, respectively), thereby making these reliable metrics to track performance [12]. Presently, no research has evaluated whether jumping-based force plate metrics could provide diagnostic insights for distinguishing PFP patients from healthy controls by providing performance thresholds, thereby presenting a gap in the current literature. Given that people with PFP experience more physical, emotional, and social limitations during sport activities and activities of daily living [13] and PFP may persist over several years [14] and may lead to patellofemoral osteoarthritis [15], early identification and rehabilitation is important. The need for better diagnostic tools is also motivated by the fact that, despite a large body of research dedicated to PFP, the recurrence rates remain high (40-79%) [14; 16]. Although multiple factors may contribute toward the development of PFP, the evaluation of PFP should also be qualitatively evaluated through the use of questionnaires, such as the anterior knee pain scale (AKPS), to capture patient-specific perceptions of pain and functional performance outcomes. The AKPS is a validated questionnaire used to determine the functional disability of PFP patients [17], but presently, no research has evaluated whether AKPS scores are associated with kinetic and kinematic variables in people with PFP, thereby requiring further research.