PURPOSE: To determine the reliability and variability of the Dynamic Strength Index (DSI) calculated from squat-jump (SJ) vs countermovement-jump (CMJ) peak force (PF) and to compare DSI values between methods. METHODS: Male youth soccer and rugby league players (N = 27; age 17.2 ± 0.7 y, height 173.9 ± 5.7 cm, body mass 71.1 ± 7.2 kg) performed 3 trials of the SJ, CMJ, and isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) on 2 separate days. DSI was calculated by dividing the PF during each jump by the IMTP PF. RESULTS: DSI-SJ exhibited moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .419) within-session reliability and high variability (percentage coefficient of variation [%CV] = 15.91) during session 1; however, this improved noticeably during session 2 (ICC = .948, %CV = 4.03). In contrast, DSI-CMJ showed nearly perfect within-session reliability (ICC = .920-.952) and low variability (%CV = 3.80-4.57) for both sessions. Moreover, DSI-SJ values demonstrated a small yet significant increase between sessions (P = .01, d = 0.37), whereas only a trivial and nonsignificant increase was observed for DSI-CMJ between sessions (P = .796, d = 0.07). Between-sessions reliability was very high for the DSI-SJ (ICC = .741) and nearly perfect for the DSI-CMJ (ICC = .924). There was no significant or meaningful difference (P = .261, d = 0.12) between DSI-SJ (0.82 ± 0.18) and DSI-CMJ (0.84 ± 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners should use DSI-CMJ, as it is a more reliable measure than DSI-SJ, although it produces similar ratios.
PURPOSE: To determine the reliability and variability of the Dynamic Strength Index (DSI) calculated from squat-jump (SJ) vs countermovement-jump (CMJ) peak force (PF) and to compare DSI values between methods. METHODS: Male youth soccer and rugby league players (N = 27; age 17.2 ± 0.7 y, height 173.9 ± 5.7 cm, body mass 71.1 ± 7.2 kg) performed 3 trials of the SJ, CMJ, and isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) on 2 separate days. DSI was calculated by dividing the PF during each jump by the IMTP PF. RESULTS: DSI-SJ exhibited moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .419) within-session reliability and high variability (percentage coefficient of variation [%CV] = 15.91) during session 1; however, this improved noticeably during session 2 (ICC = .948, %CV = 4.03). In contrast, DSI-CMJ showed nearly perfect within-session reliability (ICC = .920-.952) and low variability (%CV = 3.80-4.57) for both sessions. Moreover, DSI-SJ values demonstrated a small yet significant increase between sessions (P = .01, d = 0.37), whereas only a trivial and nonsignificant increase was observed for DSI-CMJ between sessions (P = .796, d = 0.07). Between-sessions reliability was very high for the DSI-SJ (ICC = .741) and nearly perfect for the DSI-CMJ (ICC = .924). There was no significant or meaningful difference (P = .261, d = 0.12) between DSI-SJ (0.82 ± 0.18) and DSI-CMJ (0.84 ± 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners should use DSI-CMJ, as it is a more reliable measure than DSI-SJ, although it produces similar ratios.