## 3 Results
### Kinetics  
The time histories of all kinetic variables were similar, with increasing magnitudes at higher drop heights (Figure 2). There was a significant drop height X shoe hardness interaction for rearfoot peak force (Table 3). The interaction graph and planned contrasts revealed that the softer midsole led to a lower rearfoot peak force than the harder midsole when dropping from 46 cm and 61 cm, however midsole hardness had no effect on the 31-cm drop height. No significant interaction effects were detected for the other vGRF variables.  
With the increase in drop height, the peak forces, loading rates, joint moments and work consistently increased (\(p<0.001\), Table 3). Peak force at the forefoot increased by 5% when wearing basketball shoes with the softer midsole compared with the harder midsole (\(p=0.028\)). Peak flexion moments were lower at the ankle (\(p=0.024\)) and hip joint (\(p=0.029\)) when wearing softer shoes compared with harder shoes.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Drop** \\ **Height** \\ **[cm]** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Midsole Hardness**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**ANOVA**} \\ \cline{3-14}  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Height**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Hardness**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Interaction**} \\ \cline{3-14}  & & **50 Asker C** & **60 Asker C** & \(p\) & \(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\) & \(\beta\) & \(p\) & \(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\) & \(\beta\) & \(p\) & \(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\) & \(\beta\) \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{14}{c}{_Range of motion_} \\ \hline Ankle & 31 & 50.2 (9.1) & 49.1 (8.3) & & & & & & & & & \\
[”] & 46 & 52.4 (7.9) & 52.2 (7.5) & **0.002** \(\times\)1 & 0.381 & 0.935 & 0.083 & 0.166 & 0.411 & 0.481 & 0.042 & 0.166 \\ \hline Knee & 31 & 74.1 (14.7) & 74.1 (13.3) & & & & & & & & & \\
[”] & 46 & 75.8 (11.6) & 75.1 (13.0) & 0.093 & 0.148 & 0.415 & 0.927 & 0.001 & 0.051 & 0.372 & 0.056 & 0.213 \\ \hline Hip & 31 & 46.5 (11.9) & 47.2 (11.6) & & & & & & & & & \\
[”] & 46 & 48.8 (10.6) & 48.5 (11.7) & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Notes: The range of motion (ROM) of lower limb joints was considered to be the net dorsiflexion (ankle) flexion (knee, hip) across the landing phase. Positive joint angles represent flexion/dorsiflexion; negative joint angles represent extension/plantarkeflexion. Significant \(p\)-values (\(p<0.05\)) are shown in bold. Effect size (partial eta-squared, \(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\)) was interpreted as small (\(0.01<\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\leq 0.09\)), medium (\(0.09<\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\leq 0.25\)), or large (\(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}>0.25\)); \(\beta\) denotes observed power. * Significant difference between 31-cm and 46-cm drop height. \({}^{\ddagger}\) Significant difference between 46-cm and 61-cm drop height. \({}^{\ddagger}\) Significant difference between 31-cm and 61-cm drop height.  
\end{table}
Table 2: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Drop** \\ **Height** \\ **[cm]** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Midsole Hardness**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**ANOVA**} \\ \cline{3-14}  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Height**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Hardness**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Interaction**} \\ \cline{3-14}  & & **50 Asker C** & **60 Asker C** & \(p\) & \(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\) & \(\beta\) & \(p\) & \(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\) & \(\beta\) & \(p\) & \(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\) & \(\beta\) \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{14}{c}{_Forward vGRF_} \\ \hline Peak & 31 & 0.83 (0.23) & 0.83 (0.23) & & & & & & & & & \\ force & 46 & 1.27 (0.30) & 1.21 (