Reliability, Validity, and Injury Predictive Value of the Functional Movement Screen: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

The FMS has excellent interrater and intrarater reliability. Participants with composite scores of ≤14 had a significantly higher likelihood of an injury compared with those with higher scores, demonstrating the injury predictive value of the test. Significant concerns remain regarding the validity of the FMS.

Interseason variability of a functional movement test, the 9+ screening battery, in professional male football players

“…However, the validity of the FMS as an injury prediction tool has been scrutinised recently, and with conflicting results 8 13 31 32. Based on the initial study by Kiesel et al 33 on the FMS in professional American football players, a total score below 67% was believed to represent an increased risk of injury 33.…”

“…The validity of the 9+ in predicting injury is still unknown. However, athletes with scores below 67% of the total score on the FMS have shown a significantly higher injury risk compared with athletes who score above 67% 13. For 9+ to be clinically useful as a potential predictor, it is important to document the normal variation, in the absence of any intervention or injury, to be able to meaningfully interpret differences in a test result 14…”

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

“…Dorell et al 20 included seven prospective cohort studies in their 2015 review, while Bonazza et al ’s16 2016 review included nine prospective studies but did not assess individual studies for risk of bias, instead pooling all studies, regardless of quality. Moreover, both previous reviews aggregated data from studies with diverse participant ages, sex, occupation and sports settings and injury definitions, which may bias the conclusions or limit their interpretation 21.…”

Usporedba dinamičke stabilnosti nogometaša i rukometaša

“…FMS se preporučuje kao instrument procjene dinamič-ke stabilnosti jer je pouzdan, osjetljiv i jednostavan za primjenu 7 . U istraživanju Minicka i suradnika 8 nije se pokazala razlika u ocjenjivanju kod iskusnih ispitivača i studenata koji su ukratko podučeni načinu ocjenjivanja i procjene.…”

“…bonazza i suradnici utvrdili su da rezultat ≤ 14 predstavlja više nego dvostruko veći rizik za ozljede mišićno-koštanog sustava 7 . budući da je u našem istraživanju prosječan ukupni rezultat FMS testa za cjelokupni uzorak 17,31, za nogometaše 17,46, a za rukometaše 17,09, zaključujemo da sudionici u prosjeku nisu u riziku za ozljedu.…”