Jennifer W Cuchna1, Matthew C Hoch2, Johanna M Hoch3. 1. Health Services Research, College of Health Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA. 2. School of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA. Electronic address: mhoch@odu.edu. 3. School of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA. Electronic address: jhoch@odu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the literature and perform a meta-analysis for both the interrater and intrarater reliability of the FMS™. METHODS: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Medline and SportsDiscus databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2015. Studies were included if the primary purpose was to determine the interrater or intrarater reliability of the FMS™, assessed and scored all 7-items using the standard scoring criteria, provided a composite score and employed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Studies were excluded if reliability was not the primary aim, participants were injured at data collection, or a modified FMS™ or scoring system was utilized. RESULTS: Seven papers were included; 6 assessing interrater and 6 assessing intrarater reliability. There was moderate evidence in good interrater reliability with a summary ICC of 0.843 (95% CI = 0.640, 0.936; Q7 = 84.915, p < 0.0001). There was moderate evidence in good intrarater reliability with a summary ICC of 0.869 (95% CI = 0.785, 0.921; Q12 = 60.763, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was moderate evidence for both forms of reliability. The sensitivity assessments revealed this interpretation is stable and not influenced by any one study. Overall, the FMS™ is a reliable tool for clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the literature and perform a meta-analysis for both the interrater and intrarater reliability of the FMS™. METHODS: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Medline and SportsDiscus databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2015. Studies were included if the primary purpose was to determine the interrater or intrarater reliability of the FMS™, assessed and scored all 7-items using the standard scoring criteria, provided a composite score and employed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Studies were excluded if reliability was not the primary aim, participants were injured at data collection, or a modified FMS™ or scoring system was utilized. RESULTS: Seven papers were included; 6 assessing interrater and 6 assessing intrarater reliability. There was moderate evidence in good interrater reliability with a summary ICC of 0.843 (95% CI = 0.640, 0.936; Q7 = 84.915, p < 0.0001). There was moderate evidence in good intrarater reliability with a summary ICC of 0.869 (95% CI = 0.785, 0.921; Q12 = 60.763, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was moderate evidence for both forms of reliability. The sensitivity assessments revealed this interpretation is stable and not influenced by any one study. Overall, the FMS™ is a reliable tool for clinical practice.
Authors: Rodrigo Ribeiro de Oliveira; Shalimá Figueirêdo Chaves; Yuri Lopes Lima; Márcio Almeida Bezerra; Gabriel Peixoto Leão Almeida; Pedro Olavo de Paula Lima Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2017-08
Authors: Sarah M Coogan; Catherine S Schock; Jena Hansen-Honeycutt; Shane Caswell; Nelson Cortes; Jatin P Ambegaonkar Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2020-12
Authors: Fraser Philp; Dimitra Blana; Edward K Chadwick; Caroline Stewart; Claire Stapleton; Kim Major; Anand D Pandyan Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2018-05-07