Study of the measurement and predictive validity of the Functional Movement Screen

Fraser Philp, Dimitra Blana, Edward K Chadwick, Caroline Stewart, Claire Stapleton, Kim Major, Anand D Pandyan, Fraser Philp, Dimitra Blana, Edward K Chadwick, Caroline Stewart, Claire Stapleton, Kim Major, Anand D Pandyan

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the reported measurement capabilities and predictive validity of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) for injury.

Methods: This was a prospective observational longitudinal study of 24 male footballers from a single team in England, alongside analysis of an existing database over one season (September 2015-May 2016). A preseason FMS was carried out with scores recorded by an experienced assessor and derived, retrospectively, from the three-dimensional movement data that were simultaneously captured. The assessor scores were compared with the photogrammetric system to determine measurement validity, and predictive validity was quantified by assessing sensitivity and specificity (cut-off score of 14).

Results: The real-time assessor score matched the photogrammetric score awarded for one of the participants, was higher than the photogrammetric system for 22 participants and was lower than the photogrammetric system in 1 participant. There was no discernible relationship between FMS scores and the competencies required to be met as per the rules articulated for the allocation of a score. A higher number of total injuries were associated with higher FMS scores, whether determined through real-time assessment or codification of kinematic variables. Additionally, neither method of score determination was able to prospectively identify players at risk of serious injury.

Conclusion: The FMS does not demonstrate the properties essential to be considered as a measurement scale and has neither measurement nor predictive validity. A possible reason for these observations could be the complexity in the instructions associated with the scale. Further work on eliminating redundancies and improving the measurement properties is recommended.

Keywords: FMS; exercise; football; functional movement screen; injury; injury prediction; motion analysis; validation.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bland and Altman plot for comparison of the difference between the score based on the kinematic variables recorded from the photogrammetric system outputs and the real-time assessor-awarded score and against the mean of both scores.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Interpretation of results presented as heat maps and heat map results for the exercise subtests, ranked by the total Functional Movement Screen (FMS) score achieved during the real-time assessment process.

References

    1. McCall A, Carling C, Nedelec M, et al. . Risk factors, testing and preventative strategies for non-contact injuries in professional football: current perceptions and practices of 44 teams from various premier leagues. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:1352–7. 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093439
    1. Bakken A, Targett S, Bere T, et al. . Interseason variability of a functional movement test, the 9+ screening battery, in professional male football players. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1081–6. 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096570
    1. Newton F, McCall A, Ryan D, et al. . Functional Movement Screen (FMS™) score does not predict injury in English Premier League youth academy football players. Science and Medicine in Football 2017;1:102–6. 10.1080/24733938.2017.1283436
    1. Rusling C, Edwards K, Bhattacharya A, et al. . The functional movement screening tool does not predict injury in football. Progress in Orthopedic Science 2015;1:41–6. 10.5455/pos.20150803113054
    1. Schroeder J, Wellmann K, Stein D, et al. . The functional movement screen for injury prediction in male amateur football. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin 2016;67.
    1. Smith PD, Hanlon MP. Assessing the effectiveness of the functional movement screen in predicting noncontact injury rates in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 2017;31:3327–32. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001757
    1. Zalai D, Panics G, Bobak P, et al. . Quality of functional movement patterns and injury examination in elite-level male professional football players. Acta Physiol Hung 2015;102:34–42. 10.1556/APhysiol.101.2014.010
    1. Knapik JJ, Cosio-Lima LM, Reynolds KL, et al. . Efficacy of functional movement screening for predicting injuries in coast guard cadets. J Strength Cond Res 2015;29:1157–62. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000704
    1. Kodesh E, Shargal E, Kislev-Cohen R, et al. . Examination of the effectiveness of predictors for musculoskeletal injuries in female soldiers. J Sports Sci Med 2015;14:515.
    1. Letafatkar A, Hadadnezhad M, Shojaedin S, et al. . Relationship between functional movement screening score and history of injury. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2014;9:21.
    1. Shojaedin SS, Letafatkar A, Hadadnezhad M, et al. . Relationship between functional movement screening score and history of injury and identifying the predictive value of the FMS for injury. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot 2014;21:355–60. 10.1080/17457300.2013.833942
    1. Wiese BW, Boone JK, Mattacola CG, et al. . Determination of the functional movement screen to predict musculoskeletal injury in intercollegiate athletics. Athletic Training & Sports Health Care 2014;6:161–9. 10.3928/19425864-20140717-01
    1. 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;45:725–32. 10.1177/0363546516641937
    1. Dorrel BS, Long T, Shaffer S, et al. . Evaluation of the functional movement screen as an injury prediction tool among active adult populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Health 2015;7:532–7. 10.1177/1941738115607445
    1. 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;51:1661–9. 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096938
    1. Whiteside D, Deneweth JM, Pohorence MA, et al. . Grading the functional movement screen: a comparison of manual (Real-Time) and objective methods. J Strength Cond Res 2016;30:924–33. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000654
    1. Functional Movement Systems and Gray Cook. Functional movement systems level 1 manual version 4. 2012.
    1. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2006;1:62.
    1. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 2. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2006;1:132.
    1. Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight ML. Can serious injury in professional football be predicted by a preseason functional movement screen? N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2007;2:147.
    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. 10.1016/j.ptsp.2015.12.002
    1. Moran RW, Schneiders AG, Major KM, et al. . How reliable are functional movement screening scores? A systematic review of rater reliability. Br J Sports Med 2016;50:527–36. 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094913
    1. Kazman JB, Galecki JM, Lisman P, et al. . Factor structure of the functional movement screen in marine officer candidates. J Strength Cond Res 2014;28:672–8. 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182a6dd83
    1. Pandyan AD, Johnson GR, Price CI, et al. . A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and modified ashworth scales as measures of spasticity. Clin Rehabil 1999;13:373–83. 10.1191/026921599677595404
    1. Fuller CW, Ekstrand J, Junge A, et al. . Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures in studies of football (soccer) injuries. Br J Sports Med 2006;40:193–201. 10.1136/bjsm.2005.025270
    1. Woltring HJ. A Fortran package for generalized, cross-validatory spline smoothing and differentiation. Advances in Engineering Software 1986;8:104–13. 10.1016/0141-1195(86)90098-7
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10. 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
    1. Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Radnor JM, et al. . Relationships between functional movement screen scores, maturation and physical performance in young soccer players. J Sports Sci 2015;33:11–19. 10.1080/02640414.2014.918642
    1. O'Connor FG, Deuster PA, Davis J, et al. . Functional movement screening: predicting injuries in officer candidates. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011;43:2224–30. 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318223522d
    1. Portas MD, Parkin G, Roberts J, et al. . Maturational effect on Functional Movement Screen™ score in adolescent soccer players. J Sci Med Sport 2016;19:854–8. 10.1016/j.jsams.2015.12.001

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe