Movement Screen developed by Cook et al ( 3 ). Because the Functional Movement Screen was originally implemented as a preexercise prescription screen for adults, meaningful changes in movement quality following training interventions and relationships of scores to sports performance remain uncertain ( 8
Simon A. Rogers, Peter Hassmén, Alexandra H. Roberts, Alison Alcock, Wendy L. Gilleard and John S. Warmenhoven
Brittany R. Crosby, Justin M. Stanek, Daniel J. Dodd and Rebecca L. Begalle
Key Points ▸ Movement screens are commonly used in athletic populations. ▸ Footwear has previously been shown to affect an individual’s stability. ▸ Footwear has no effect on Functional Movement Screen ® scores. A popular screening method used throughout sports medicine, specific to analysis of
Mahsa Jafari, Vahid Zolaktaf and Gholamali Ghasemi
physical dysfunctions exposing people to injury. Second, you need an effective program to train them to overcome such dysfunctions. To achieve these objectives, it is recommended to use functional movement screen (FMS). 4 It determines the mobility and stability deficits, caused by asymmetry and
Constantine P. Nicolozakes, Daniel K. Schneider, Benjamin D. Roewer, James R. Borchers and Timothy E. Hewett
accurately predict football-related injuries are an important step toward identifying factors that may reduce injury risk. The functional movement screen (FMS™) is a screening method that was developed to identify movement asymmetries and deficiencies using fundamental exercises to assess the whole
Kanako Shimoura, Yasuaki Nakayama, Yuto Tashiro, Takayuki Hotta, Yusuke Suzuki, Seishiro Tasaka, Tomofumi Matsushita, Keisuke Matsubara, Mirei Kawagoe, Takuya Sonoda, Yuki Yokota and Tomoki Aoyama
and single-leg hop 10 or static balance. 11 However, a comprehensive assessment is needed for basketball due to the variety of injuries and risk factors. In the present study, we used the functional movement screen (FMS), 12 , 13 which comprehensively assesses movement dysfunction and is used to
Marissa J. Basar, Justin M. Stanek, Daniel D. Dodd and Rebecca L. Begalle
Regulation 670-1; this included: (1) black, moisture-wicking running trunks; (2) gray, short sleeve Improved Physical Fitness Uniform T-shirt; (3) commercial running shoes; (4) calf-length or ankle-length, plain white or black socks with no logos; and (5) reflective belt. 32 Functional Movement Screen The 7
Eric A. Sorenson
The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) consists of a battery of seven tests that are widely used to systematically evaluate movement.
To evaluate the interrater agreement and intrarater reliability of FMS scores assigned by athletic trainers who reviewed video recordings of the movements.
Interrater agreement and test–retest intrarater reliability.
Eight athletic trainers rated the movements of 15 college-aged participants.
Component and composite FMS scores.
Median values for interrater agreement (0.90) and intrarater reliability (0.88) of the FMS composite score were acceptable. With the exception of the rotary stability test, all of the component scores demonstrated acceptable values for scoring consistency (> 0.80).
Both component and composite FMS scores assigned by athletic trainers were highly consistent, both in terms of scores assigned by different raters and scores assigned by the same raters on two different occasions.
Lisa M. Stobierski, Shirleeah D. Fayson, Lindsay M. Minthorn, Tamara C. Valovich McLeod and Cailee E. Welch
Injuries are inevitable in the physically active population. As a part of preventive medicine, health care professionals often seek clinical tools that can be used in real time to identify factors that may predispose individuals to these injuries. The Functional Movement Screen (FMS), a clinical tool consisting of 7 individual tasks, has been reported as useful in identifying individuals in various populations that may be susceptible to musculoskeletal injuries. If factors that may predispose physically active individuals to injury could be identified before participation, clinicians may be able to develop a training plan based on FMS scores, which could potentially decrease the likelihood of injury and overall time missed from physical activities. However, in order for a screening tool to be used clinically, it must demonstrate acceptable reliability.
Focused Clinical Question:
Are clinicians reliable at scoring the FMS, in real time, to assess movement patterns of physically active individuals?
Lindsay M. Minthorn, Shirleeah D. Fayson, Lisa M. Stobierski, Cailee E. Welch and Barton E. Anderson
Appropriate movement patterns during sports and physical activities are important for both athletic performance and injury prevention. The assessment of movement dysfunction can assist clinicians in implementing appropriate rehabilitation programs after injury, as well as developing injury-prevention plans. No gold standard test exists for the evaluation of movement capacity; however, the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) has been recommended as a tool to screen for movement-pattern limitations and side-to-side movement asymmetries. Limited research has suggested that movement limitations and asymmetries may be linked to increased risk for injury. While this line of research is continuing to evolve, the use of the FMS to measure movement capacity and the development of intervention programs to improve movement patterns has become popular. Recently, additional research examining changes in movement patterns after standardized intervention programs has emerged.
Does an individualized training program improve movement patterns in adults who participate in high-intensity activities?
Meghan Warren, Craig A. Smith and Nicole J. Chimera
The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) evaluates performance in 7 fundamental movement patterns using a 4-point scale. Previous studies have reported increased injury risk with a composite score (CS) of 14/21 or less; these studies were limited to specific sports and injury definition.
To examine the association between FMS CS and movement pattern scores and acute noncontact and overuse musculoskeletal injuries in division I college athletes. An exploratory objective was to assess the association between injury and FMS movement pattern asymmetry.
College athletic facilities.
167 injury-free, college basketball, football, volleyball, cross country, track and field, swimming/diving, soccer, golf, and tennis athletes (males = 89).
The FMS was administered during preparticipation examination.
Main Outcome Measure:
Noncontact or overuse injuries that required intervention from the athletic trainer during the sport season.
FMS CS was not different between those injured (n = 74; 14.3 ± 2.5) and those not (14.1 ± 2.4; P = .57). No point on the ROC curve maximized sensitivity and specificity; therefore previously published cut-point was used for analysis with injury (≤14 [n = 92]). After adjustment, no statistically significant association between FMS CS and injury (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% CI 0.53–1.91) existed. Lunge was the only movement pattern that was associated with injury; those scoring 2 were less likely to have an injury vs those who scored 3 (OR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.08–0.59). There was also no association between FMS movement pattern asymmetry and injury.
FMS CS, movement patterns, and asymmetry were poor predictors of noncontact and overuse injury in this cohort of division I athletes.