The Functional Movement Screen: a reliability study.

STUDY DESIGN Reliability study. OBJECTIVES To determine intrarater test-retest and interrater reliability of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) among novice raters. BACKGROUND The FMS is used by various examiners to assess movement and predict time-loss injuries in diverse populations (eg, youth to professional athletes, firefighters, military service members) of active participants. Unfortunately, critical analysis of the reliability of the FMS is currently limited to 1 sample of active college-age participants. METHODS Sixty-four active-duty service members (mean ± SD age, 25.2 ± 3.8 years; body mass index, 25.1 ± 3.1 kg/m2) without a history of injury were enrolled. Participants completed the 7 component tests of the FMS in a counterbalanced order. Each component test was scored on an ordinal scale (0 to 3 points), resulting in a composite score ranging from 0 to 21 points. Intrarater test-retest reliability was assessed between baseline scores and those obtained with repeated testing performed 48 to 72 hours later. Interrater reliability was based on the assessment from 2 raters, selected from a pool of 8 novice raters, who assessed the same movements on day 2 simultaneously. Descriptive statistics, weighted kappa (κw), and percent agreement were calculated on component scores. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of the measurement, minimal detectable change (MDC95), and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated on composite scores. RESULTS The average ± SD score on the FMS was 15.7 ± 0.2 points, with 15.6% (n = 10) of the participants scoring less than or equal to 14 points, the recommended cutoff for predicting time-loss injuries. The intrarater test-retest and interrater reliability of the FMS composite score resulted in an ICC3,1 of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.85) and an ICC2,1 of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.83), respectively. The standard error of the measurement of the composite test was within 1 point, and the MDC95 values were 2.1 and 2.5 points on the 21-point scale for interrater and intrarater reliability, respectively. The interrater agreement of the component scores ranged from moderate to excellent (κw = 0.45-0.82). CONCLUSION Among novice raters, the FMS composite score demonstrated moderate to good interrater and intrarater reliability, with acceptable levels of measurement error. The measures of reliability and measurement error were similar for both intrarater reliability that repeated the assessment of the movement patterns over a 48-to-72-hour period and interrater reliability that had 2 raters assess the same movement pattern simultaneously. The interrater agreement of the FMS component scores was good to excellent for the push-up, quadruped, shoulder mobility, straight leg raise, squat, hurdle, and lunge. Only 15.6% (n = 10) of the participants were identified to be at risk for injury based on previously published cutoff values.

[1]  Nathaly Gaudreault,et al.  Functional movement screen test: a reliable screening test for young elite ice hockey players. , 2014, Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine.

[2]  R. Butler,et al.  Field‐expedient screening and injury risk algorithm categories as predictors of noncontact lower extremity injury , 2013, Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports.

[3]  B. Chesworth,et al.  IFOMPT 2012: a rendez-vous of hands and minds. , 2012, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[4]  J. Knapik,et al.  Functional movement screening: predicting injuries in officer candidates. , 2011, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[5]  R. Butler,et al.  Functional movement test scores improve following a standardized off‐season intervention program in professional football players , 2011, Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports.

[6]  T. Nesser,et al.  Relationship Between Core Stability, Functional Movement, and Performance , 2011, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[7]  Lee Burton,et al.  Movement: Functional Movement Systems: Screening, Assessment, and Corrective Strategies , 2011 .

[8]  L. Bouillon,et al.  Use of a functional movement screening tool to determine injury risk in female collegiate athletes. , 2010, North American journal of sports physical therapy : NAJSPT.

[9]  Lee Burton,et al.  Interrater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen , 2010, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[10]  Virginia S. Cowen Functional fitness improvements after a worksite-based yoga initiative. , 2010, Journal of bodywork and movement therapies.

[11]  Donald L Goss,et al.  Functional training program bridges rehabilitation and return to duty. , 2009, Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals.

[12]  Phillip J Plisky,et al.  Can Serious Injury in Professional Football be Predicted by a Preseason Functional Movement Screen? , 2007, North American journal of sports physical therapy : NAJSPT.

[13]  Jay Hertel,et al.  The effect of a 4-week comprehensive rehabilitation program on postural control and lower extremity function in individuals with chronic ankle instability. , 2007, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[14]  WF Peate,et al.  Core strength: A new model for injury prediction and prevention , 2007, Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology (London, England).

[15]  C. Emery,et al.  A Prevention Strategy to Reduce the Incidence of Injury in High School Basketball: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial , 2007, Clinical journal of sport medicine : official journal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine.

[16]  Lee Burton,et al.  Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 2. , 2006, North American journal of sports physical therapy : NAJSPT.

[17]  Kevin R Ford,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF PLYOMETRIC VS.DYNAMIC STABILIZATION AND BALANCE TRAINING ON POWER, BALANCE, AND LANDING FORCE IN FEMALE ATHLETES , 2006, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[18]  Lee Burton,et al.  Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1. , 2006, North American journal of sports physical therapy : NAJSPT.

[19]  Kevin R Ford,et al.  The Effects of Plyometric versus Dynamic Stabilization and Balance Training on Lower Extremity Biomechanics , 2006, The American journal of sports medicine.

[20]  D. Kirkendall,et al.  Effectiveness of a Neuromuscular and Proprioceptive Training Program in Preventing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Female Athletes , 2005, The American journal of sports medicine.

[21]  T. Hewett,et al.  NEUROMUSCULAR TRAINING IMPROVES PERFORMANCE AND LOWER‐EXTREMITY BIOMECHANICS IN FEMALE ATHLETES , 2005, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[22]  G. Myklebust,et al.  Effect of Neuromuscular Training on Proprioception, Balance, Muscle Strength, and Lower Limb Function in Female Team Handball Players , 2004, Clinical journal of sport medicine : official journal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine.

[23]  Orit Shechtman,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, 2nd Edition, Leslie Gross Portney, Mary P. Watkins. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2000), 752 pages. $60 , 2001 .

[24]  S. A. Almeida,et al.  Epidemiological patterns of musculoskeletal injuries and physical training. , 1999, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[25]  B H Jones,et al.  Physical Training and Exercise-Related Injuries , 1999, Sports medicine.

[26]  John R. Robinson,et al.  Epidemiology of injuries associated with physical training among young men in the army. , 1993, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[27]  W. van Mechelen Running injuries. A review of the epidemiological literature. , 1992, Sports medicine.