CONTEXT: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a popular test to evaluate the degree of painful, dysfunctional, and asymmetric movement patterns. Despite great interest in the FMS, test-retest reliability data have not been published. OBJECTIVE: To assess the test-retest and interrater reliability of the FMS and to compare the scoring by 1 rater during a live session and the same session on video. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Human performance laboratory in the sports medicine center. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 21 female (age = 19.6 ± 1.5 years, height = 1.7 ± 0.1 m, mass = 64.4 ± 5.1 kg) and 18 male (age = 19.7 ± 1.0 years, height = 1.9 ± 0.1 m, mass = 80.1 ± 9.9 kg) National Collegiate Athletic Association Division IA varsity athletes volunteered. INTERVENTION(S): Each athlete was tested and retested 1 week later by the same rater who also scored the athlete's first session from a video recording. Five other raters scored the video from the first session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The Krippendorff α (K α) was used to assess the interrater reliability, whereas intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess the test-retest reliability and reliability of live-versus-video scoring. RESULTS: Good reliability was found for the test-retest (ICC = 0.6), and excellent reliability was found for the live-versus-video sessions (ICC = 0.92). Poor reliability was found for the interrater reliability (K α = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The good test-retest and high live-versus-video session reliability show that the FMS is a usable tool within 1 rater. However, the low interrater K α values suggest that the FMS within the limits of generalization should not be used indiscriminately to detect deficiencies that place the athlete at greater risk for injury. The FMS interrater reliability may be improved with better training for the rater.
CONTEXT: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a popular test to evaluate the degree of painful, dysfunctional, and asymmetric movement patterns. Despite great interest in the FMS, test-retest reliability data have not been published. OBJECTIVE: To assess the test-retest and interrater reliability of the FMS and to compare the scoring by 1 rater during a live session and the same session on video. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING:Human performance laboratory in the sports medicine center. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 21 female (age = 19.6 ± 1.5 years, height = 1.7 ± 0.1 m, mass = 64.4 ± 5.1 kg) and 18 male (age = 19.7 ± 1.0 years, height = 1.9 ± 0.1 m, mass = 80.1 ± 9.9 kg) National Collegiate Athletic Association Division IA varsity athletes volunteered. INTERVENTION(S): Each athlete was tested and retested 1 week later by the same rater who also scored the athlete's first session from a video recording. Five other raters scored the video from the first session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The Krippendorff α (K α) was used to assess the interrater reliability, whereas intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess the test-retest reliability and reliability of live-versus-video scoring. RESULTS: Good reliability was found for the test-retest (ICC = 0.6), and excellent reliability was found for the live-versus-video sessions (ICC = 0.92). Poor reliability was found for the interrater reliability (K α = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The good test-retest and high live-versus-video session reliability show that the FMS is a usable tool within 1 rater. However, the low interrater K α values suggest that the FMS within the limits of generalization should not be used indiscriminately to detect deficiencies that place the athlete at greater risk for injury. The FMS interrater reliability may be improved with better training for the rater.
Authors: Kate I Minick; Kyle B Kiesel; Lee Burton; Aaron Taylor; Phil Plisky; Robert J Butler Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Gregory D Myer; Kevin R Ford; Jane Khoury; Paul Succop; Timothy E Hewett Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Darin A Padua; Stephen W Marshall; Michelle C Boling; Charles A Thigpen; William E Garrett; Anthony I Beutler Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 6.202