Functional Movement Screening in the Physical Fitness Test in High School Adolescents

Abstract

Introduction: Functional Movement Screening is a qualitative triage of human movement based on a classification and scoring system which includes seven tests to evaluate basic movement patterns where muscle limitations or asymmetries are identified. Its scale has 21 points, with 14 being the limit of normality. Adolescence is critical to improving athletic ability, and the validity of applying this screening technique to discover potential injuries is questioned. Objective: To verify the validity of functional movement screening on the early detection and correction of dysfunctional movements to implement physical fitness in adolescents. Methods: Functional movement screening was performed on students from a school. According to the screening requirements, functional movement examinations were performed before (October 2017) and after (December 2017) intervention with individual demand functional training. Results: After functional training, students’ physical fitness increased from 13.00±0.44 to 14.77±0.28 points (p<0.05). Conclusion: The results of functional movement assessment can analyze the physical problems of adolescents in universities and colleges. Targeted functional training can effectively improve the physical fitness of adolescents in schools and colleges. Evidence Level II; Therapeutic Studies – Investigating the results.

Effects of functional training on sprinting, jumping, and functional movement in athletes: A systematic review

“…Most studies reported information on respondents’ weight, height, and/or body mass index (BM). The subjects’ height and weight were recorded in ten studies ( Sander et al, 2013 ; Yildiz et al, 2019 ; Keiner et al, 2020 ), the subjects’ BMI was mentioned in three studies ( Alonso-Fernández et al, 2017 ; Baron et al, 2020 ; Teixeira et al, 2020 ), and four studies did not mention the subjects’ body weight, height, and/or BMI ( Tomljanović et al, 2011 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ; Elvin Chacko Philip et al, 2022 ; Li, 2022 ). The BMIs of participants in the studies were estimated from weight and height data.…”

“…Intervention length: the shortest intervention length reported is 8 days (reported in one study) ( Sander et al, 2013 ); one study reported a 5-week intervention length ( Tomljanović et al, 2011 ); three studies reported 6-week intervention lengths ( Teixeira et al, 2020 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ; Kovac et al, 2022 ); six studies reported 8-week intervention lengths ( Elbadry, 2014 ; Alonso-Fernández et al, 2017 ; Yildiz et al, 2019 ; Turna and Alp, 2020 ; Elvin Chacko Philip et al, 2022 ); one study reported a 12-week intervention length ( Baron et al, 2020 ); one study reported a 20-week intervention length ( Usgu et al, 2020 ), and one study reported 10 months intervention length (the longest) ( Keiner et al, 2020 ). Training duration: four studies did not report the duration of intervention ( Tomljanović et al, 2011 ; Sander et al, 2013 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ; Li, 2022 ) while the rest did—the duration of training sessions ranged from a minimum of 10 min ( Alonso-Fernández et al, 2017 ) to a maximum of 120 min ( Abdel-Aziz Habib, 2018 ). Training frequency: studies reported that the frequency of exercise ranges from a minimum of 2 days per week ( Alonso-Fernández et al, 2017 ; Keiner et al, 2020 ; Usgu et al, 2020 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ; Elvin Chacko Philip et al, 2022 ) to a maximum 5 days per week ( Turna and Alp, 2020 ).…”

“…Intervention length: the shortest intervention length reported is 8 days (reported in one study) (Sander et al, 2013); one study reported a 5-week intervention length (Tomljanović et al, 2011); three studies reported 6week intervention lengths (Teixeira et al, 2020;Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021;Kovac et al, 2022); six studies reported 8week intervention lengths (Elbadry, 2014;Alonso-Fernández et al, 2017;Yildiz et al, 2019;Turna and Alp, 2020; Elvin (Baron et al, 2020); one study reported a 20-week intervention length (Usgu et al, 2020), and one study reported 10 months intervention length (the longest) (Keiner et al, 2020). Training duration: four studies did not report the duration of intervention (Tomljanović et al, 2011;Sander et al, 2013;Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021;Li, 2022) (Turna and Alp, 2020). Four studies did not report the frequency of training (Sander et al, 2013;Baron et al, 2020;Teixeira et al, 2020;Li, 2022).…”

“…Training duration: four studies did not report the duration of intervention (Tomljanović et al, 2011;Sander et al, 2013;Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021;Li, 2022) (Turna and Alp, 2020). Four studies did not report the frequency of training (Sander et al, 2013;Baron et al, 2020;Teixeira et al, 2020;Li, 2022). Training intensity: Out of 15 including studies, only two studies reported training intensity 80% (Tomljanović et al, 2011) and 50%-70% (Yildiz et al, 2019).…”

“…In the past decade, there has been a greater focus on the value of functional movement for both health and athletic performance ( Barnett et al, 2021 ). Recent research indicates the importance of FT interventions for improving sprinting ( Sander et al, 2013 ; Alonso-Fernández et al, 2017 ; Yildiz et al, 2019 ; Baron et al, 2020 ; Keiner et al, 2020 ; Usgu et al, 2020 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ; Elvin Chacko Philip et al, 2022 ) and jumping performance ( Baron et al, 2020 ; Kovac et al, 2022 ; Li, 2022 ). With such a broad description, research studies have different exercise programs with different designs (e.g., mini band exercises, Chop with squat position with plantar flex, plank exercises and core exercises) focuses have been included in the study on FT ( Sander et al, 2013 ; Yildiz et al, 2019 ; Keiner et al, 2020 ).…”