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...

The incidence of musculoskeletal injuries was similar between the groups. There was marginal evidence that the CSEP resulted in fewer days of work restriction for low back injuries.

These findings provide a robust data set of muscle thickness values measured by ultrasound imaging and can be used for comparison to those with pain, abnormal function, and pathologic conditions.

Good to excellent reliability was obtained for all measures by novice raters. Minimal differences in reliability were noted between the different measurement techniques to assess lateral abdominal muscle thickness.