Article

Using the Functional Movement Screen™ to evaluate the effectiveness of training.

Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Impact Factor: 1.86). 09/2011; 26(6):1620-30. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318234ec59
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) has demonstrated some efficacy in the prediction of injuries and is thus used by many practitioners to make recommendations for exercise. However, questions remain regarding its utility as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of training. Sixty firefighters volunteered to participate, and their FMS scores were examined before and after 12 weeks of training. Individuals were graded on how they chose to perform rather than how they could perform. The participants were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: intervention 1, intervention 2, or control. The 2 intervention groups received three 1.5-hour training sessions each week and differed in the emphasis that was placed on movement quality. Sagittal and frontal plane videos were used to grade the FMS with 3 methods: the standard 0-3 scale, a 100-point scale that weighted specific compensations (research standard), and a modified 100-point scale whereby grades were assigned based on the total number of compensations present. There were no significant differences in the total FMS scores for any group posttraining. However, the scores of 85% of the firefighters who did not receive training did change. The 100-point scale methods resulted in more FMS score changes posttraining, but the between-group interactions were identical to those found with the standard scoring method. The control group's scores were not consistent pretraining and posttraining; thus, the influence of each intervention could not be evaluated. Currently, the FMS might provide a momentary impression of general movement quality, although further efforts would likely assist in the development of better ways to implement the test, interpret the results, and generate reliable scores.

15 Followers
 · 
333 Views
  • Source
    • "Some investigators described the normative functional movement screen scores in different populations (Fox et al., 2014; Loudon et al., 2014; Perry & Koehle, 2013; Schneiders et al., 2011; Teyhen et al., 2014). A few investigators studied the effects of interventions on the functional movement screen scores (Beach et al., 2014; Bodden et al., 2013; Frost et al., 2012; Kiesel et al., 2011). Several prospective studies identified that a sum score of 14 or less for the functional movement screen was associated with increased risks for injuries in American professional football players (Kiesel, Plisky, & Voight, 2007), female collegiate athletes (Chorba et al., 2010), Marine officers (Lisman et al., 2013) and firefighters (Butler et al., 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The functional movement screen is developed to examine individuals' movement patterns through 7 functional tasks. The purpose of this study was to identify the internal consistency and factor structure of the 7 tasks of the functional movement screen in elite athletes; 290 elite athletes from a variety of Chinese national teams were assessed using the functional movement screen. Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the scores of the 7 tasks. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to explore the factor structure of the functional movement screen. The mean and standard deviation of the sum score were 15.2 ± 3.0. A low Cronbach's alpha (0.58) was found for the scores of the 7 tasks. Exploratory factor analysis extracted 2 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, and these 2 factors explained 47.3% of the total variance. The first factor had a high loading on the rotatory stability (loading = 0.99) and low loadings on the other 6 tasks (loading range: 0.04-0.34). The second factor had high loadings on the deep squat, hurdle step and inline lunge (loading range: 0.46-0.61) and low loadings on the other 3 tasks (loading range: 0.12-0.32). The 7 tasks of the functional movement screen had low internal consistency and were not indicators of a single factor. Evidence for unidimensionality was not found for the functional movement screen in elite athletes. More attention should be paid to the score of each task rather than the sum score when we interpret the functional movement screen scores.
    Journal of Sports Sciences 07/2015; 33(11):1166-1172. DOI:10.1080/02640414.2014.986505 · 2.10 Impact Factor
    • "" Clearing " tests are also included with the SHR, PSH and ROT to expose other painful movements that may be overlooked while performing the primary FMS tasks. Additional details of each task have been published previously (Butler et al., 2013; Cook et al., 2006a, 2010, 2006b; Cowen, 2010; Frost, Beach, Callaghan, & McGill, 2012; Onate et al., 2012). Composite FMS scores are reliable when graded by experienced observers using video recordings (Gribble, Brigle, Pietrosimone, Pfile, & Webster, 2013; Minick, Kiesel, Burton, Taylor, Plisky, & Butler, 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the relationship between the composite Functional Movement Screen (FMS) score and performers' spine and frontal plane knee motion. Examined the spine and frontal plane knee motion exhibited by performers who received high (>14) and low (<14) composite FMS scores. Participants' body motions were quantified while they performed the FMS. Biomechanics laboratory. Twelve men who received composite FMS scores greater than 14 were assigned to a high-scoring group. Twelve age-, height- and weight-matched men with FMS scores below 14 were assigned to a low-scoring group. Composite FMS scores and peak lumbar spine flexion/extension, lateral bend and axial twist, and left and right frontal plane knee motion. Significant differences (p < 0.05) and large effect sizes (>0.8) were noted between the high- and low-scoring groups when performing the FMS tasks; high-scorers employed less spine and frontal plane knee motion. Substantial variation was also observed amongst participants. Participants with high composite FMS scores exhibited less spine and frontal plane knee motion while performing the FMS in comparison to their low-scoring counterparts. However, because substantial variation was observed amongst performers, the FMS may not provide the specificity needed for individualized injury risk assessment and exercise prescription. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Physical Therapy in Sport 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.ptsp.2015.02.001 · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Background: The trunk stability push-up (TSPU) is a closed-chain test that can measure upper-body functional strength, but may not relate to sport-specific performance. The bilateral medicine ball chest pass (MBCP) is a more sport-specific open-chain assessment. This research investigated whether the TSPU related to bilateral MBCP to determine whether it was a valid test of team sport upper-body function. Methods: 32 male team sport athletes were assessed in the TSPU, and completed bilateral and unilateral MBCP with a 1-kilogram ball. Between-arm asymmetries were calculated for the unilateral MBCP. Participants were split into groups (high, intermediate, low) according to TSPU scores, and bilateral MBCP performance (smallest worthwhile change above or below group mean). This determined whether either test gave a clearer indication of upper-body function. Between-group differences were determined by a one-way analysis of variance (p < 0.05), with Bonferroni post hoc. Data was pooled for a Spearman’s correlation analysis (p < 0.05). Results: For the TSPU, 10 participants scored 3; 20 scored 2; 2 scored 1. When TSPU performance split the groups, the low performers had poorer bilateral and left-arm MBCP when compared to the high performers (p = 0.005-0.016). When bilateral MBCP performance divided the sample, high performers (n = 12) were superior in bilateral and unilateral MBCP, and the TSPU (p ≤ 0.001-0.023), when compared to low performers (n = 14). The high performers also had a better bilateral MBCP when compared to intermediate (n = 6) performers (p = 0.003). Between-arm asymmetries did not differentiate performance ability. Large-to-very large correlations were found between bilateral and unilateral MBCP. Conclusion: The bilateral MBCP is a more effective test of upper-body function than the TSPU, and can discriminate between athletes with different upper-body function. This assessment related to the unilateral MBCP and TSPU, indicating its applicability for team sports.
Show more