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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s