Materials: Functional Movement Screen (FMS) Test Kit
Reliability:
| Type | ICC | 95% CI | |
| Cuchna et al., 2016 | Inter-Rater Reliability | 0.843 | 0.640, 0.936 |
| Intra-Rater Reliability | 0.870 | 0.790, 0.920 | |
| Bonazza et al., 2016 | Inter-Rater Reliability | 0.810 | 0.700, 0.920 |
| Intra-Rater Reliability | 0.770 | 0.580-0.960 |
Injury Prediction:
| Study | Participants | Cut-Off | Sn | Sp | +LR | -LR | AUC | Odds Ratio | Relative Risk |
| Moran et al., 2017 | 3 Studies (3,036 Subjects) | < 14 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1.47 |
| Whittaker at al., 2017 | 15 Studies | < 14 | 0.54-0.83 | 0.61-0.91 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Bonazza et al., 2016 | 9 Studies (2,696 Subjects) | < 14 | – | – | – | – | – | 2.74 | – |
| Dorrel et al., 2015 | 6 Studies (1,729 Subjects) | < 14 | 0.247 | 0.857 | 1.65 | 0.87 | 0.58 | – | 1.5 |
Validity (Bonanza et al., 2016):
| Study | Study Design | Population | Validity | Significance |
| Whiteside et al., 2015 | Cross-sectional | NCAA Div. 1 Basketball Players | External | Grading not sensitive enough to detect cues for defects in joint angles and is subjective to raters. |
| Kazman et al., 2014 | Cohort | Marine Officers | Internal | FMS movements not interrelated as a unitary sum. Individual movement scores may be more informative |
| Beach et al., 2014 | Case Control | Male Firefighters | External | FMS movements are difficult to replicate and question external validity. |
| Clifton et al., 2013 | Prospective Cohort | General Population | Internal | Postural fatigue after exercise did not alter FMS scores |
| Frost et al., 2013 | Prospective Cohort | Firefighters | Internal | Subjects able to increase score with knowledge of scoring criteria |
Research:
1. Cuchna JW, Hoch MC, Hoch JM. The interrater and intrarater reliability of the functional movement screen: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Phys Ther Sport. 2016;19:57-65. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2015.12.002.
2. Moran RW, Schneiders AG, Major KM, Sullivan SJ. How reliable are Functional Movement Screening scores? A systematic review of rater reliability. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;50(9):527-536. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094913.
3. Bonazza NA, Smuin D, Onks CA, Silvis ML, Dhawan A. Reliability, Validity, and Injury Predictive Value of the Functional Movement Screen: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. April 2016. doi:10.1177/0363546516641937.
4. Dorrel BS, Long T, Shaffer S, Myer GD. Evaluation of the Functional Movement Screen as an Injury Prediction Tool Among Active Adult Populations. Sports Health. 2015;7(6):532-537. doi:10.1177/1941738115607445.
5. Moran RW, Schneiders AG, Mason J, Sullivan SJ. Do Functional Movement Screen (FMS) composite scores predict subsequent injury? A systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. March 2017. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096938.
6. Whittaker JL, Booysen N, la Motte de S, et al. Predicting sport and occupational lower extremity injury risk through movement quality screening: a systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017;51(7):580-585. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096760.
Continued Reading…
John Snyder, DPT 