Functional movement screen test: A reliable screening test for young elite ice hockey players

How reliable are Functional Movement Screening scores? A systematic review of rater reliability

“…Smith et al 51 report an intra-rater κ for each rater: b=rater 1, c=rater 2, d=rater 3, e=rater 4. Parenteau et al 49 report an intra-rater κ for each rater: f=rater 1, g=rater 2.…”

Reliability and Association with Injury of Movement Screens: A Critical Review

“…For the purposes of this review, the questions included were 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11,12,18,20,21,22, and 25 as previously used [60,61]. Following the protocol outlined by McCall et al [60], a percentage score was awarded for each article (see ESM Appendix S2 for raw data).…”

“…Atkinson and Nevill [10] stated that various qualitative interpretations of ICC values exist, yet none were related to ''analytical goals for research'' and so it is difficult to say exactly what value constitutes 'good' or 'excellent' reliability. Some of the identified studies classified an ICC value of C0.75 as good [11], whereas others [12,13] classified scores of C0.80 and C0.90 as good and excellent, respectively. Shultz et al [14] reported ICC values of 0.40-0.75 as fair to good and[0.75 as excellent.…”

“…As can be seen from Table 3, a total of 16 studies were identified that reported either the intra-or inter-rater reliability of the FMS or related variations [11][12][13][14][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Seven of the eight studies that investigated the intra-rater reliability reported ICC values C0.…”

“…The detailed scoring criteria employed by the LESS likely explain this high level of agreement between raters. The drawback to such a thorough scoring system is inevitably the time it takes to Hotta et al [17] Gulgin and Hoogenboom [18] Letafatkar et al [19] Parenteau-G et al [12] Elias [20] Gribble et al [21] Smith et al [11] Frohm et al [22] Klusemann et al [23] Onate et al [13] Schneiders et al [26] Chorba et al [27] Shultz et al [14] Butler et al [25] Minick et al [28] Teyhen et al inter-rater [24] LESS Smith et al [31] Onate et al [33] Padua et al [32] Padua et al [34] Single-leg squat screens Ö rtqvist et al inter-rater [37] Crossley et al [36] Ageberg et al [38] Chmielewski et al [39] Ö rtqvist et al intra-rater [37] Junge et al [35] DVJ screens Whatman et al [45] Ekegren et al [46] Nilstad et al [44] Tuck jump assessment Herrington et al [ SEBT movement quality screen Ness et al [58] AAA athletic ability assessment, COSMIN consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments, CSMT conditioning specific movement tasks, DVJ drop vertical jump, FMS functional movement screen, LESS Landing Error Scoring System, NMST Netball Movement Screening Tool, PPM physical performance measures, SEBT Star Excursion Balance Test a A quality rating of 'Excellent' is possible but was not achieved by any of the listed studies Taken collectively, the initial evidence is promising with regard to the reliability of the test.…”