Do Normative Composite Scores on the Functional Movement Screen Differ Across High School, Collegiate, and Professional Athletes? A Critical Review

2018 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis R. Pollen ◽  
Frazier Keitt ◽  
Thomas H. Trojian
2017 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 17-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura J. Smith ◽  
James R. Creps ◽  
Ryan Bean ◽  
Becky Rodda ◽  
Bara Alsalaheen

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong-Sun Song ◽  
Seung-Seok Woo ◽  
Wi-Young So ◽  
Kwang-Jun Kim ◽  
Joohyung Lee ◽  
...  

Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 100 (14) ◽  
pp. e25423
Author(s):  
Kenta Suzuki ◽  
Kiyokazu Akasaka ◽  
Takahiro Otsudo ◽  
Yutaka Sawada ◽  
Hiroshi Hattori ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Lun Lee ◽  
Mei-Chich Hsu ◽  
Wen-Dien Chang ◽  
Szu-Chieh Wang ◽  
Chao-Yen Chen ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 1106-1114
Author(s):  
Alex T. Strauss ◽  
Austin J. Parr ◽  
Daniel J. Desmond ◽  
Ashmel T. Vargas ◽  
Russell T. Baker

Context: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS™) provides clinicians with objective criteria to assess movement patterns and overall movement quality. A relationship between low FMS™ composite scores and increased risk of injury has been reported, and researchers have begun to test the effect of interventions to improve FMS™ composite scores. Total Motion Release (TMR®), a novel active movement intervention, has been found to produce improvements in range of motion, as well as patient-reported pain and dysfunction. The effect of TMR® on movement patterns or movement quality is unknown. Objective: To assess the effect of a single treatment application of TMR® on FMS™ composite scores in participants with low baselines FMS™ composite scores. Design: Single-blind randomized controlled study. Setting: Athletic training laboratory. Participants: Twenty-four participants (12 males and 12 females) with FMS™ composite scores of 13 or lower were randomly assigned to either a treatment group or control group. The FMS™ screening procedure was completed on all participants in a pretest and posttest design. Interventions: In between FMS™ testing sessions, participants assigned to the treatment group completed the TMR® FAB 6-treatment protocol, whereas the control group participants did not receive an intervention. Following the treatment period (ie, 20 min), participants again completed the FMS™. Main Outcome Measure: FMS™ composite scores. Results: The improvement in FMS™ composite scores was significantly better (P ≤ .001, Cohen’s d = 1.69) in the TMR® group (mean change = 3.7 [2.2]) compared with the control group (mean change = 0.7 [1.2]). Conclusions: A single application of the TMR® FAB 6 protocol produced immediate acute improvements in FMS™ composite scores in a young, physically active population compared with no intervention. Clinical Relevance: Research evidence exists to suggest impaired or dysfunctional movement patterns or movement quality increases risk of injury. The FMS™ is commonly utilized to assess movement quality and risk of injury. This study provides initial evidence that the use of TMR® rapidly produces acute improvements in movement quality, as measured by the FMS™.


2020 ◽  
Vol 185 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 493-498
Author(s):  
Eric M Scudamore ◽  
Sandra L Stevens ◽  
Dana K Fuller ◽  
John M Coons ◽  
Don W Morgan

Abstract Introduction Musculoskeletal injuries threaten military readiness and impose a significant financial burden. The functional movement screen (FMS), a 7-item, preparticipation screening tool, may aid in identifying compensatory movement patterns that can hinder physical performance and lead to injuries in active-duty military personnel. The primary aim of our study was to determine if items scores from the traditional FMS or a modified FMS (mFMS) obtained under loaded conditions can predict dynamic balance scores while wearing a military load. Materials and Methods Thirty physically active adults (19 males and 11 females) who qualified for Army basic training completed unloaded and loaded FMS testing. Loaded balance was assessed using the Y balance test and the Biodex balance system. The mFMS and both loaded balance assessment protocols included a military load consisting of a standard issue rucksack (M.O.L.L.E.), kevlar helmet, and weighted vest (mass = 24.2 kg). Results mFMS item scores were significantly lower than FMS scores for six of the seven movement items. Both FMS and mFMS composite scores were correlated with Y balance scores (FMS: r = 0.53, P = 0.003; mFMS: r = 0.37, P = 0.043). Participants with higher composite scores (≥15) outperformed those with lower composite scores (≤14) for the FMS (P =0.006, d = 1.16) and mFMS (P = 0.031, d = 0.75). Lasso penalized regression analyses revealed that (1) higher unloaded in-line lunge subscores predicted better Y balance scores, (2) loaded trunk stability push-up scores of three predicted worse balance on the Biodex, and (3) unloaded and loaded shoulder mobility scores of 3 predicted better performance on the Biodex balance system. Conclusions The in-line lunge subscore from the FMS was the strongest predictor of torso-loaded balance, and the FMS may be more appropriate than a torso-loaded FMS battery when predicting torso-loaded balance among adults with body composition and fitness profiles similar to those of entering military recruits. These findings provide evidence supporting the use of the conventional FMS to identify active-duty personnel who exhibit greater balance deficits and may develop related musculoskeletal injuries while performing operational tasks that require the transport of heavy loads over long distances.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document