PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int J Sports Med 2022; 43(07): 648-656
DOI: 10.1055/a-1708-9735
Clinical Sciences

Functional Movement Screen Task Scores and Joint Range-of-motion: A Construct Validity Study

Cesar A. Hincapié 
1   Department of Chiropractic Medicine, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
2   Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
,
George A. Tomlinson
3   Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto Department of Medicine, Toronto, Canada
,
Malinda Hapuarachchi
4   Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Tatjana Stankovic
4   Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Steven Hirsch
4   Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Danielle Carnegie
4   Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Doug Richards
4   Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
David Frost
4   Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Tyson A.C. Beach
5   Department of Kinesiology & Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Little is known about the construct validity of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS). We aimed to assess associations between FMS task scores and measures of maximum joint range-of-motion (ROM) among university varsity student-athletes from 4 sports (volleyball, basketball, ice hockey, and soccer). Athletes performed FMS tasks and had their maximum ankle, hip and shoulder ROM measured. Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate associations between FMS task scores and ROM measurements. 101 university student-athletes were recruited (52 W/49 M; mean age 20.4±1.9 years). In general, athletes with higher FMS task scores had greater ROM compared to those with lower task scores. For example, athletes who scored 2 on the FMS squat task had 4° (95% CI, 1° to 7°) more uni-articular ankle dorsiflexion ROM compared with those who scored 1, while those who scored 3 on the FMS squat task had 10° (4° to 17°) more uni-articular ankle dorsiflexion ROM compared with those who scored 1. Large variation in ROM measurements was observed. In sum, substantial overlap in joint ROM between groups of athletes with different FMS task scores weakens the construct validity of the FMS as an indicator of specific joint ROM.

Key words

construct validity - functional movement screen - measurement - mobility - range-of-motion - stability

Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 15. Juni 2021

Angenommen: 22. November 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
29. November 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
27. Januar 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bunn PDS, Rodrigues AI, Bezerra da Silva E. The association between the functional movement screen outcome and the incidence of musculoskeletal injuries: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Phys Ther Sport 2019; 35: 146-158
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bonazza NA, Smuin D, Onks CA. et al. Reliability, validity, and injury predictive value of the functional movement screen: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45: 725-732
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bodden JG, Needham RA, Chockalingam N. The effect of an intervention program on functional movement screen test scores in mixed martial arts athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 219-225
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Campa F, Spiga F, Toselli S. The effect of a 20-week corrective exercise program on functional movement patterns in youth elite male soccer players. J Sport Rehabil 2019; 28: 746-751
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Stanek JM, Dodd DJ, Kelly AR. et al. Active duty firefighters can improve functional movement screen (FMS) scores following an 8-week individualized client workout program. Work 2017; 56: 213-220
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom BJ. et al. Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - Part 1. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2014; 9: 396-409
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom BJ. et al. Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - Part 2. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2014; 9: 549-563
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Frost D, Andersen J, Lam T. et al. The relationship between general measures of fitness, passive range of motion and whole-body movement quality. Ergonomics 2013; 56: 637-649
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Chimera NJ, Knoeller S, Cooper R. et al. Prediction of functional movement screen performance from lower extremity range of motion and core tests. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2017; 12: 173-181
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Rabin A, Kozol Z. Utility of the overhead squat and forward arm squat in screening for limited ankle dorsiflexion. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31: 1251-1258
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Oleksiak J, Sobianek A, Janiszewski M. The effect of corrective exercises on the range of motion of the hip joints and the result obtained in the deep squat of FMS test. Cent Eur J Sport Sci Med 2019; 26: 31-40
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Gomes J, Neto T, Vaz JR. et al. Is there a relationship between back squat depth, ankle flexibility, and Achilles tendon stiffness?. Sports Biomech 2020; Online ahead of print.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Kelleher LK, Beach TAC, Frost DM. et al. Factor structure, stability, and congruence in the functional movement screen. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2018; 22: 109-115
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Wright MD, Chesterton P. Functional movement screen total score does not present a gestalt measure of movement quality in youth athletes. J Sports Sci 2019; 37: 1393-1402
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Frost DM, Beach TAC, Callaghan JP. et al. FMS scores change with performers’ knowledge of the grading criteria – Are general whole-body movement screens capturing ‘dysfunction’?. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 3037-3044
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL. et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 539-549
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Stankovic T. Assessing the Interrater Reliability of Goniometric Measurements of a Range-of-motion Battery [Masters thesis]. 2017 Mar; Available from: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/76670
    PubMed
  • 18 Marras WS, Davis KG, Ferguson SA. et al. Spine loading characteristics of patients with low back pain compared with asymptomatic individuals. Spine 2001; 26: 2566-2574
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1990; 1: 43-46
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 R Core Team. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
    PubMed
  • 21 Harriss DJ, MacSween A, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2020 update. Int J Sports Med 2019; 40: 813-817
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Noda T, Verscheure S. Individual goniometric measurements correlated with observations of the deep overhead squat. Athl Train Sports Health Care 2009; 1: 114-119
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Sprague PA, Mokha GM, Gatens DR. et al. The relationship between glenohumeral joint total rotational range of motion and the functional movement screen shoulder mobility test. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2014; 9: 657-664
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 McCunn R, Aus der Fünten K, Fullagar HHK. et al. Reliability and association with injury of movement screens: a critical review. Sports Med 2016; 46: 763-781
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Moran RW, Schneiders AG, Mason J. et al. Do functional movement screen (FMS) composite scores predict subsequent injury? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2017; 51: 1661-1669
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Dorrel B, Long T, Shaffer S. et al. The functional movement screen as a predictor of injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II athletes. J Athl Train 2018; 53: 29-34
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Karuc J, Mišigoj-Duraković M, Šarlija M. et al. Can injuries be predicted by functional movement screen in adolescents? The application of machine learning. J Strength Cond Res 2021; 35: 910-919
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Schweda S, Leyhr D, Krauß I. The functional movement screen as an injury prediction tool for German physical education and exercise science students: a prospective cohort-study. physioscience 2021; 17: 103-112
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Everard E, Lyons M, Harrison AJ. An examination of the relationship between the functional movement screen, landing error scoring system, and 3D kinematic data during a drop jump task. J Strength Cond Res 2019; Online ahead of print. doi:
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Lockie RG, Schultz AB, Jordan CA. et al. Can selected functional movement screen assessments be used to identify movement deficiencies that could affect multidirectional speed and jump performance?. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 195-205
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Parchmann CJ, McBride JM. Relationship between functional movement screen and athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 3378-3384
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Bahr R. Why screening tests to predict injury do not work-and probably never will…: a critical review. Br J Sports Med 2016; 50: 776-780
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Davids K, Glazier P, Araújo D. et al. Movement systems as dynamical systems: the functional role of variability and its implications for sports medicine. Sports Med 2003; 33: 245-260
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Brown P. Movement: Functional Movement Systems - Screening, Assessing, Corrective Strategies On Target Publications. J Can Chiropr Assoc 2012; 316
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar