The Y-balance test (YBT) is one of the few field expedient tests that have shown predictive validity for injury risk in an athletic population. However, analysis of the YBT in a heterogeneous population of active adults (e.g., military, specific occupations) involving multiple raters with limited experience in a mass screening setting is lacking. The primary purpose of this study was to determine interrater test-retest reliability of the YBT in a military setting using multiple raters. Sixty-four service members (53 males, 11 females) actively conducting military training volunteered to participate. Interrater test-retest reliability of the maximal reach had intraclass correlation coefficients (2,1) of 0.80 to 0.85 with a standard error of measurement ranging from 3.1 to 4.2 cm for the 3 reach directions (anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral). Interrater test-retest reliability of the average reach of 3 trails had an intraclass correlation coefficients (2,3) range of 0.85 to 0.93 with an associated standard error of measurement ranging from 2.0 to 3.5cm. The YBT showed good interrater test-retest reliability with an acceptable level of measurement error among multiple raters screening active duty service members. In addition, 31.3% (n = 20 of 64) of participants exhibited an anterior reach asymmetry of >4cm, suggesting impaired balance symmetry and potentially increased risk for injury.

More than 10 000 Americans seek medical treatment for sports, recreational activity, and exercise-related injuries on a daily basis. 20 Researchers have estimated that 50% to 80% of these injuries are overuse in nature and involve the lower extremity. 1,11,25 In the military, physical training and exercise-related injuries account for 30% of hospitalizations and 40% to 60% of all outpatient visits, with 10 to 12 injuries per 100 soldier-months.12 Although the risk of musculoskeletal conditions and injuries is multifactorial, 7,9,10,15,[17][18][19] preliminary evidence suggests that neuromuscular and strength training programs may be beneficial for preventing the occurrence of these conditions. 7,9,10,15,[17][18][19] However, tools that assess movement to help predict those at highest risk for musculoskeletal conditions and injuries have been lacking for both athletic and military populations. The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a relatively new tool that attempts to address multiple movement factors, with the goal of predicting general risk of musculoskeletal T T STUDY DESIGN: Reliability study. T T OBJECTIVES:To determine intrarater testretest and interrater reliability of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) among novice raters. T T BACKGROUND:The FMS is used by various examiners to assess movement and predict timeloss injuries in diverse populations (eg, youth to professional athletes, firefighters, military service members) of active participants. Unfortunately, critical analysis of the reliability of the FMS is currently limited to 1 sample of active college-age participants. T T METHODS:Sixty-four active-duty service members (mean  SD age, 25.2  3.8 years; body mass index, 25.1  3.1 kg/m 2 ) without a history of injury were enrolled. Participants completed the 7 component tests of the FMS in a counterbalanced order. Each component test was scored on an ordinal scale (0 to 3 points), resulting in a composite score ranging from 0 to 21 points. Intrarater test-retest reliability was assessed between baseline scores and those obtained with repeated testing performed 48 to 72 hours later. Interrater reliability was based on the assessment from 2 raters, selected from a pool of 8 novice raters, who assessed the same movements on day 2 simultaneously. Descriptive statistics, weighted kappa (κ w ), and percent agreement were calculated on component scores. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of the measurement, minimal detectable change (MDC 95 ), and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated on composite scores. T T RESULTS:The average  SD score on the FMS was 15.7  0.2 points, with 15.6% (n = 10) of the participants scoring less than or equal to 14 points, the recommended cutoff for predicting time-loss injuries. The intrarater test-retest and interrater reliability of the FMS composite score resulted in an ICC 3,1 of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.85) and an ICC 2,1 of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.83), respectively. The standard error of the measurement of the composite test was...

Decreased balance and impaired functional movement have been linked with increased injury risk. The purpose of our study was to determine the association between specific measures of power, strength, flexibility, balance, and endurance compared with more global measures of dynamic balance, using the Y-Balance Test (YBT), and functional movement, using the functional movement screen (FMS), in healthy soldiers. Our participants (n = 64; 53 men, 11 women) were healthy active duty service members (25.2 ± 3.8 years, 25.1 ± 3.1 kg·m(-2)). Seventeen tests with 38 associated measures of strength, power, flexibility, endurance, balance, and functional measures were assessed. A significant Pearson product moment correlation (r > 0.2 and p < 0.01) was used to narrow the number of variables of interest. Two hierarchical stepwise regression analyses were performed to determine the most parsimonious set of variables associated with the YBT and FMS performance scores. Our results included a 4 variable model (F = 13.4, p < 0.001) that was associated with YBT scores (R = 0.72, R2 = 0.51). Superior performance on the YBT was associated with better performance on the FMS lunge and upper trunk mobility tests, decreased number of hops during a 6-m hop test, and greater gastrocnemius flexibility. A second 4 variable model (F = 11.813, p < 0.001) was associated with FMS scores (R = 0.70, R2 = 0.50). Superior performance on the FMS was associated with greater anterior reach on the YBT, greater distance on the crossover hop test, increased hamstring flexibility, and higher levels of self-reported function through the lower-extremity functional scale. Physical fitness leaders and clinicians could use these models to inform decision making when developing and assessing the outcomes of a personalized intervention program for those with low FMS and YBT scores.