Reliability and Validity of the Functional Movement Screen
Abstract
After assessing validity and reliability of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS), the evidence suggests moderate to good level of intrarater reliability and low level of interrater reliability. The evidence also suggests the FMS has poor predictive validity for future risk of injury, however, when used in conjunction with other functional outcomes such as physical fitness test and injury questionnaires such as self-reported exercise and previous injury history the predictive power may increase. The studies also indicated that scores between novice and experienced administrators did not vary significantly. However, the studies also showed that scores less than 14 on the FMS had a greater correlation to injury than those scores that were above 14. Additionally, the reliability and the validity of the FMS appear to be a function of the population being tested with respect to age and level of activity. Although widely employed in performance and rehabilitation settings, the reliability and validity of the FMS remain uncertain and in need of larger, higher quality studies. Practitioners are cautioned against overestimating the informative value of the FMS. Alternative instruments or tests may be used in conjunction with or in place of the FMS.
Reliability and Validity of the Functional Movement Screen
Hopwood Auditorium
After assessing validity and reliability of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS), the evidence suggests moderate to good level of intrarater reliability and low level of interrater reliability. The evidence also suggests the FMS has poor predictive validity for future risk of injury, however, when used in conjunction with other functional outcomes such as physical fitness test and injury questionnaires such as self-reported exercise and previous injury history the predictive power may increase. The studies also indicated that scores between novice and experienced administrators did not vary significantly. However, the studies also showed that scores less than 14 on the FMS had a greater correlation to injury than those scores that were above 14. Additionally, the reliability and the validity of the FMS appear to be a function of the population being tested with respect to age and level of activity. Although widely employed in performance and rehabilitation settings, the reliability and validity of the FMS remain uncertain and in need of larger, higher quality studies. Practitioners are cautioned against overestimating the informative value of the FMS. Alternative instruments or tests may be used in conjunction with or in place of the FMS.
https://digitalshowcase.lynchburg.edu/studentshowcase/2017/presentations/95