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.
"Movements were scored from 0-3. Scores of 3, 2, 1, and 0, represented, according to relevant criteria: 'performed without compensation', 'performed with a single compensation', 'performed with multiple compensations or could not perform', and 'pain', respectively (Cook et al., 2006a, 2006b; Frost et al., 2012). If there was any scoring discrepancy between the investigators, they reviewed the footage and discussed the result until a resolution was reached. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Dynamic stability is an essential physical component for team sport athletes. Certain Functional Movement Screen (FMS) exercises (deep squat; left-and right-leg hurdle step; left-and right-leg in-line lunge [ILL]; left-and right-leg active straight-leg raise; and trunk stability push-up [TSPU]) have been suggested as providing an indication of dynamic stability. No research has investigated relationships between these screens and an established test of dynamic stability such as the modified Star Excursion Balance Test (mSEBT), which measures lower-limb reach distance in posteromedial, medial, and anteromedial directions, in team sport athletes. Forty-one male and female team sport athletes completed the screens and the mSEBT. Participants were split into high-, intermediate-, and low-performing groups according to the mean of the excursions when both the left and right legs were used for the mSEBT stance. Any between-group differences in the screens and mSEBT were determined via a one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc adjustment (p < 0.05). Data was pooled for a correlation analysis (p < 0.05). There were no between-group differences in any of the screens, and only two positive correlations between the screens and the mSEBT (TSPU and right stance leg posteromedial excursion, r = 0.37; left-leg ILL and left stance leg posteromedial excursion, r = 0.46). The mSEBT clearly indicated participants with different dynamic stability capabilities. In contrast to the mSEBT, the selected FMS exercises investigated in this study have a limited capacity to identify dynamic stability in team sport athletes.
Journal of Human Kinetics 11/2015; 472015(47):19-29. DOI:10.1515/hukin-2015-0058 · 1.03 Impact Factor
"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.
" were collected in this study , it was not possible to implement these analyses a posteriori . It is interesting to note that the FMS did not serve as a good ' transfer test ' in this study . For example , though Shultz et al . ( 2013 ) indicated that the test – retest reliability of FMS scores is satisfactory if captured within a 7 - day period , Frost et al . ( 2012 ) found that the pre - and post - exercise FMS scores of the CON subjects in the current study were sufficiently variable to raise concern about the ability of the FMS to detect exercise adaptations over longer time periods . Previous 6 - and 7 - week intervention studies used the FMS to document exercise adaptations ( Goss et al . 2009 "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The impact of exercise on firefighter job performance and cardiorespiratory fitness has been studied extensively, but its effect on musculoskeletal loading remains unknown. The aim of this study was to contrast the physical fitness and low-back loading outcomes of two groups of firefighters who completed different exercise programmes. Before and after 12 weeks of exercise, subjects performed a physical fitness test battery, the Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) and simulated job tasks during which peak L4/L5 joint compression and reaction shear forces were quantified using a dynamic biomechanical model. Subjects who exercised exhibited statistically significant improvements (p < 0.05) in body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength, power, endurance and flexibility, but FMS scores and occupational low-back loading measures were not consistently affected. Firefighters who are physically fit are better able to perform essential job duties and avoid cardiac events, but short-term improvements in physical fitness may not necessarily translate into reduced low-back injury risk.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.