Methodology
Fair comparison is a scientific problem. We treat it like one.
Bodies mature on different clocks, tests carry measurement noise, and a single number without context misleads. This page is how the platform handles all three — the science behind every report.
Biological maturation
Age tells you when an athlete was born. Not how far their body has come.
Reference: 12-year-olds worldwide (chronological age). Maturity offset per Mirwald et al. (2002).
Three athletes. Same age. Same jump.
All three are exactly 12.0 years old, and all three jump the same 28 cm. Compared with 12-year-olds worldwide, they are identical — the 55th percentile, three times over. A chronological-age table has nothing more to say.
Adjust for biological maturation, and the picture changes.
Bodies mature on different clocks. Read the same jump against athletes at the same stage of development (years from peak height velocity, Mirwald et al. 2002) and the early maturer drops to the 38th percentile — the head start was doing the work. The late maturer rises to the 74th.
This is the athlete traditional scouting quietly buries.
Early maturers often look talented simply because they mature sooner. Late maturers may hold equal or greater long-term potential — and are the first to be released. Every report we produce reads every result through both lenses, so nobody gets overrated or overlooked for their birthday.
Three lenses
Every result, read three ways.
A single number means little on its own. The same jump can be ordinary for the squad, average for the age group, and outstanding for the athlete's stage of development — all at once. Our reports show all three, so the interpretation is never left to chance.
Where they stand inside their own squad — the day-to-day selection context.
Published international data for the same sex and age group.
Athletes at the same stage of biological development — the fairest lens for a developing body.
From data to meaning
The interpretation rules the platform never breaks.
Three reference frames
Every result is expressed as a percentile against the athlete's own team, published chronological-age norms, and PHV-adjusted (biological) norms. One number means little; three frames give it context a coach can act on.
A jump can be 62nd for the squad, 55th for the age group and 74th for the maturity stage — all true at once.
Meaningful change, not noise
Every test varies a little between sessions even when nothing has really changed. Each metric carries a smallest-meaningful-change threshold — changes below it are labelled “within typical variation”, never sold as progress or decline.
A sprint 0.01 s faster is noise; 0.08 s faster is a meaningful improvement.
Honest data gates
Comparisons appear only when the data supports them: team percentiles require at least eight peers, metrics without published norms say so plainly, and approximate maturity matches are flagged — no manufactured certainty.
“Not enough peers yet (n=5, needs 8)” is a feature, not a bug.
Scientific foundation
Grounded in sports science. Cited on every page.
Literature-driven test selection
Every test in the battery earns its place from peer-reviewed research — and the battery is revised as the evidence moves.
Evidence-based norms
Results are compared against published international datasets — by sex, age group and maturity stage — with the source cited on every metric.
Interpretation, not opinion
Percentiles, meaningful-change thresholds and maturity adjustment replace eyeballing. The report says what the data supports — and no more.
A sample of the references behind the battery
See the methodology applied to your athletes.
Every report shows its percentiles, its maturity adjustment and its meaningful-change flags on your own athletes' data.