# Applying Force Plate Technology to Inform Human Performance Programming in Tactical Populations
## 2 Important Data Considerations for Implementing Force Plate Testing
Generally, instructions include a statement similar to \"perform this movement as explosively as possible or jump as high as possible.\" For CMJs, an external locus of control, such as \"perform the countermovement jump as explosively as possible in attempt to jump towards the ceiling as high as possible\" [64], or a competition for achieving personal or group best performances (e.g., displaying and updating leaderboards during a testing session), may ensure maximal effort. Another consideration is selecting the most adequate force plate for a given scenario based on the specifications, such as portability, dimensions, software specifications, and pricing (USD 3500-50,000). For example, despite their portability, some force plate dimensions are too small, which increases occurrences of invalid trials due to the difficulty of landing with each foot completely on the plates (i.e., part of one or both feet land off of the platform). If testing will be conducted on deployment or at various training sites, adequate portability is necessary, as well as the ability of software to collect data offline. Financial considerations must be accounted for as well, as there is likely both a hardware and a software cost (often with annual licensing fees) associated with the force plate. Force plates without software license subscriptions require manually built software and expertise to analyze the raw force-time data. Without coding expertise to develop automated scripts in programs, such as Python, R, MATLAB, or LabVIEW, manual computations will be more time-consuming than the relatively expensive software options. With increased automation comes a yearly software license cost that can be an order of magnitude difference between companies. Additionally, some force plate software products contain proprietary algorithms to calculate metrics, which must be considered as they will impact the results of testing for reasons stated elsewhere [41]. The use of proprietary and especially unitless metrics also creates an issue when the inevitable change in technology arises years down the road. In order to compare new data to old, the same force-time curve metrics must be compared for longitudinal data analysis. This requires the software manufacturers to use similar units of variables (e.g., reactive strength index) and phases of the force-time curve (i.e., concentric/propulsive, eccentric/braking) and provide adequate definitions to allow appropriate comparisons. Interest in asymmetries requires the use of bipedal force plates equipped with the ability to separate individual force-time curves across upper or lower body limbs. Testing frequency, sample sizes, and time availability will also drive decisions on the aforementioned considerations. For example, testing bi-annually or quarterly may allow robust testing batteries comprising less portable equipment (i.e., large force plates or an isometric mid- thigh pull (IMTP) rack), while frequently testing large groups may require more portable options (Table 1).