Methodology
How SportsFlow measures, what a score means, where the assessments are in validation, and the research behind them.
Where the assessments stand
SportsFlow's own assessments are in development and have not yet been validated. Their structure and scoring are set; the wording of the questions is still being reviewed. That's why SportsFlow never compares you with other people, and only tells you how you've moved against your own earlier answers.
Two kinds of assessment
SportsFlow assessments (Steadiness, Setup Score, Belonging and the rest) are written by SportsFlow. They describe states and conditions for training. They are not clinical tools.
Licensed clinical screens (WHO-5, GAD-7 and a loneliness screen) are published instruments. SportsFlow doesn't ship their wording: a club loads them from its own licensed copy. They're read only by the club's named wellbeing lead, never by a coach, and they're never offered outside a club.
How a score is made
Each answer is put on a 0 to 100 scale, with reverse-worded questions flipped. A score is the average of your answers, and it only exists when at least 60% of the questions are answered. Nothing is filled in.
Where there's a fair body signal, your wearable reading is blended in at 30% after 10 days of readings, and always against your own last 28 days. Assessments like self-kindness or belonging never use a wearable.
Some readings, such as "held hard" in What Drives It, are reported beside the score and never inside it, because for them a high number is the thing to watch.
How change is judged
A new score is only called a real change when the difference is larger than ordinary measurement wobble, using the reliable change index. Until you have 8 results, that uses a general estimate; after that, your own spread.
The morning word
Ready, Hold and Back off come from your check-in compared with your own last 28 days, and only once you have seven check-ins. Before that you see a 0 to 100 snapshot and your lowest area, with no word and no training advice. A missing check-in reads "No read", never "Ready".
Current thresholds
Version 2026.09-working. These are working values, awaiting formal approval. Any change gets a new version.
| Before a personal baseline | For the first 7 check-ins: a 0 to 100 snapshot and the lowest area. No readiness word and no training advice. |
| Readiness after 7 check-ins | Compared with your last 28 days: within 6 of your usual is Ready; up to 14 below is Hold; further below is Back off. |
| A real change | Larger than 1.96 standard errors of difference; your own spread is used after 8 results. |
| Wearable blending | After 10 days of readings, usually 30% of the score. |
| Minimum answers | 60% of scored questions, or no score. |
| Squad figures | Nothing under 8 athletes; the spread from 15. |
| Read together | High is 65 or more, low is 45 or less, falling is 5 or more down; at most 2 shown. |
| The Other Side gap | Shown once a coach has 5 athletes, with both answers within 60 days. |
| Pods | Nothing shown under 3 check-ins; spread is close up to 10 points, mixed up to 25, wide beyond. |
| WHO-5 | Club only, read by the named wellbeing lead. |
| Partial combined scores | Shown as partial, with the missing inputs named. |
| The Setback | Switched on by the athlete. Clubs without a practitioner are advised not to use it. |
Who reviews this
A named reviewer for the assessments hasn't been appointed yet. Until one is, every instrument stays labelled draft and no score is presented as validated. Each instrument carries a version, an owner, its source and a review status, and a change of wording means a new version, never a quiet edit.
What this doesn't tell you
- It isn't a diagnosis, and it doesn't screen for any condition. The licensed clinical screens are separate, and a club's wellbeing lead reads those.
- It doesn't predict results, selection or injury.
- Scores are meaningful against your own history only. There are no reference ranges yet, so a score can't tell you how you compare with anyone.
- A change smaller than ordinary measurement wobble is not reported as a change.
- Wearable readings are only as good as the device and the nights behind them, and they join a score only after 10 days.
- Answers move with mood, effort and honesty. Answers and body readings are reported side by side, and neither is treated as the truth.
Validation roadmap
- Step 1Done
Constructs and structure
What each assessment measures, its areas, which questions are reversed, how it's scored, and how often it's asked.
- Step 2Next
Expert and athlete review
Sport psychologists and coaches review every question; athletes talk through how they read them, and unclear wording is rewritten.
- Step 3Planned
Pilot
A first group of athletes answers the assessments, to check that questions in the same area hang together and the areas separate as designed.
- Step 4Planned
Test–retest
The same athletes answer twice, a short gap apart, to see how much scores move when nothing has changed.
- Step 5Planned
Comparison with established measures
Scores are compared with published questionnaires that measure related things.
- Step 6Planned
Reference data
Once enough athletes have answered, typical ranges are published. Until then, SportsFlow only compares you with yourself.
Research behind the design
These shaped what SportsFlow measures and how. They are not evidence that SportsFlow's own wording is valid; that's what the roadmap above is for.
- Measuring change. Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19.
- Self-report in athlete monitoring. Saw, A. E., Main, L. C., & Gastin, P. B. (2016). Monitoring the athlete training response: Subjective self-reported measures trump commonly used objective measures: A systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(5), 281–291.
- Heart rate variability. Plews, D. J., Laursen, P. B., Stanley, J., Kilding, A. E., & Buchheit, M. (2013). Training adaptation and heart rate variability in elite endurance athletes: Opening the door to effective monitoring. Sports Medicine, 43(9), 773–781.
- The 3-minute test. Vanhatalo, A., Doust, J. H., & Burnley, M. (2007). Determination of critical power using a 3-min all-out cycling test. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(3), 548–553.
- The 3-minute test, running. Pettitt, R. W., Jamnick, N., & Clark, I. E. (2012). 3-min all-out exercise test for running. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 7(4), 374–379.
- Flow. Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 133–150.
- Self-kindness. Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250.
- Belonging. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
- Motivation. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
- Held well, held hard. Vallerand, R. J., et al. (2003). Les passions de l'âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 756–767.
- Athletic identity. Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules' muscles or Achilles heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 237–254.
- Coach and athlete. Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14(4), 245–257.
- Building and validating scales. Boateng, G. O., et al. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149.
- WHO-5 (licensed screen). Topp, C. W., Østergaard, S. D., Søndergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3), 167–176.
- GAD-7 (licensed screen). Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.
Our own reports
None published yet. Validation reports and white papers will be listed here, and in the site footer, as they're completed. The roadmap above says what each stage will produce.
Safety
SportsFlow is not a medical service. FlowCoach doesn't diagnose, predict results or compare athletes, and those rules run in code before any AI model is called. If you might hurt yourself, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, or call 911 if you're in danger now.