Literature DB >> 35321135

Comparison of Lower Extremity Kinematics during the Overhead Deep Squat by Functional Movement Screen Score.

Caitlyn Heredia1, Robert G Lockie2, Scott K Lynn2, Derek N Pamukoff3.   

Abstract

It is unclear if the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) scoring criteria identify kinematics that have been associated with lower extremity injury risk. The purpose was to compare lower extremity kinematics of the overhead deep squat (OHDS) during the FMS between individuals who were grouped on FMS scoring. Forty-five adults who were free of injury and without knowledge of the FMS or its scoring criteria (males = 19, females = 26; height = 1.68 0.08 m; mass = 70.7 7 13.0 kg). Three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics during an OHDS were measured using a motion capture system. One-way MANOVA was used to compare kinematic outcomes (peak hip flexion angle, hip adduction angle, knee flexion angle, knee abduction angle, knee internal rotation angle, and ankle dorsiflexion angle) between FMS groups. Those who scored a 3 had greater peak hip flexion angle (F2,42 = 8.75; p = 0.001), knee flexion angle (F2,42 = 13.53; p = 0.001), knee internal rotation angle (F2,42 = 12.91; p = 0.001), and dorsiflexion angle (F2,42 = 9.00; p = 0.001) compared to those who scored a 2 or a 1. However, no differences were found in any outcome between those who scored a 2 and those who scored a 1, or in frontal plane hip or knee kinematics. FMS scoring for the OHDS identified differences in squat depth, which was characterized by larger peak hip, knee, and dorsi- flexion angles in those who scored a 3 compared with those who scored 2 or 1. However, no differences were found between those who scored a 2 or 1, and caution is recommended when interpreting these scores. Despite a different FMS score, few differences were observed in frontal or transverse plane hip and knee kinematics, and other tasks may be needed to assess frontal plane kinematics. © Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FMS; biomechanics; injury

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 35321135      PMCID: PMC8488845          DOI: 10.52082/jssm.2021.759

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci Med        ISSN: 1303-2968            Impact factor:   2.988


  29 in total

1.  Sex Differences During an Overhead Squat Assessment.

Authors:  Timothy C Mauntel; Eric G Post; Darin A Padua; David R Bell
Journal:  J Appl Biomech       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 1.833

2.  Comparison of lower limb muscle architecture and geometry in distance runners with rearfoot and forefoot strike pattern.

Authors:  Joseph M Gonzales; Andrew J Galpin; Melissa M Montgomery; Derek N Pamukoff
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 3.337

3.  Grading the Functional Movement Screen: A Comparison of Manual (Real-Time) and Objective Methods.

Authors:  David Whiteside; Jessica M Deneweth; Melissa A Pohorence; Bo Sandoval; Jason R Russell; Scott G McLean; Ronald F Zernicke; Grant C Goulet
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Can selected functional movement screen assessments be used to identify movement deficiencies that could affect multidirectional speed and jump performance?

Authors:  Robert G Lockie; Adrian B Schultz; Corrin A Jordan; Samuel J Callaghan; Matthew D Jeffriess; Tawni M Luczo
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 5.  Hip Musculoskeletal Conditions and Associated Factors That Influence Squat Performance: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Scott W Cheatham; Kyle R Stull; Mike Fantigrassi; Ian Montel
Journal:  J Sport Rehabil       Date:  2018-05-25       Impact factor: 1.931

6.  Biomechanical analysis of the different classifications of the Functional Movement Screen deep squat test.

Authors:  Robert J Butler; Phillip J Plisky; Corey Southers; Christopher Scoma; Kyle B Kiesel
Journal:  Sports Biomech       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.832

7.  Test-retest and interrater reliability of the functional movement screen.

Authors:  Rebecca Shultz; Scott C Anderson; Gordon O Matheson; Brandon Marcello; Thor Besier
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Predicting Musculoskeletal Injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Athletes From Asymmetries and Individual-Test Versus Composite Functional Movement Screen Scores.

Authors:  Monique Mokha; Peter A Sprague; Dustin R Gatens
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Gait Biomechanics in Anterior Cruciate Ligament-reconstructed Knees at Different Time Frames Postsurgery.

Authors:  John Goetschius; Jay Hertel; Susan A Saliba; Stephen F Brockmeier; Joseph M Hart
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 5.411

10.  The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) Is a valid and reliable clinical assessment tool of jump-landing biomechanics: The JUMP-ACL study.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.