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

Abstract

This review found 'moderate' evidence that raters can achieve acceptable levels of inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of composite FMS scores when using live ratings. Overall, there were few high-quality studies, and the quality of several studies was impacted by poor study reporting particularly in relation to rater blinding.

Do Functional Movement Screen (FMS) composite scores predict subsequent injury? A systematic review with meta-analysis

“…Consistent with a previous systematic review of rater reliability for FMS composite scores that noted poor quality of study reporting,15 we also observed deficits in reporting quality, with essential study characteristics such as participant age and loss to follow-up not reported in some studies. Several studies also lacked precision in reporting the duration of injury surveillance, which was often limited to descriptions such as ‘one season’.…”

Automated Quantification of the Landing Error Scoring System With a Markerless Motion-Capture System

“…In addition, the j values that we observed were similar to those reported for interrater reliability between expert and novice raters (j range ¼ 0.46-0.88). 26 In a recent literature review, Moran et al 27 examined the reliability of another common movement assessment, the Functional Movement Screen (FMS), and reported moderate evidence of acceptable live interrater scoring of the FMS (j 0.4). Novice raters had moderate to high reliability (j range ¼ 0.54-1.00; j avg ¼ 0.74 6 0.15), with associated percentage agreement ranging from 74.4% to 100.0%, whereas expert FMS raters had slightly lower reliability (j range ¼ 0.40-0.95; j avg ¼ 0.68 6 0.17), with associated percentage agreement ranging from 69.2% to 97.4%.…”

Can the Functional Movement Screen™ be used to capture changes in spine and knee motion control following 12 weeks of training?

“…The FMS is a seven task test (5, 6) comprising the following whole-body movements: 1) acceptable (20).…”