3. RESULTS. 1. School of Health and Rehabilitation, Keele University, UK 2. Institute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University, UK 3. ORLAU ...
Validating the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) Fraser Philp1, D. Blana2, C. Stewart2,3, E. Chadwick2, A. Pandyan1,2
1. School of Health and Rehabilitation, Keele University, UK 2. Institute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University, UK 3. ORLAU, RJAH Orthopaedic Hospital, Oswestry, Shropshire, UK
1. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
INTRODUCTION The FMS is a screening tool comprised of seven exercise tests. It is considered to be a scale for ranking movement patterns and injury risk measure [1].
RULES FOR THE FMS A maximum of 3 attempts is allowed. In order get the maximum score (3) all the criteria must be met.
VALIDATING THE FMS RULES Scores were awarded by a certified assessor and at the same time the Vicon system (©Vicon Motion Systems Ltd), was used to record the movement of the participants.
The FMS is widely used within football, despite its validity and reliability not having been systematically studied [2]. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of the FMS.
The highest score is taken unless, a lower score is achieved on the other side, or if there is pain during testing and a zero score is given.
The codes could then used to produce an FMS score based on the kinematic variables recorded from the photogrammetric system outputs The assessor scores were then compared to the scores derived from the code.
3. RESULTS
Additionally, data was visually displayed as heat maps to explore the relationship between FMS score and number of injuries. On review of the results, for all subtests, the FMS does not demonstrate itself as a scale in any structured order.
The real-time assessor awarded scores predominantly overestimates participant performance. Bland and Altman plot for comparison of the difference between photogrammetric scores and assessor scores 4
Difference between photogrammetric and real-time scores
Twenty four male footballers (range 19 - 22 years), in a University league, were included. These results demonstrate poor agreement between the real-time assessor awarded scores and those awarded after application of the code to the kinematic measures.
2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mean of the real-time and photogrammetric scores
15
4. CONCLUSION Score allocation error associated with the real-time assessment process may stem from a number of sources: • the assessors’ 2D interpretation of complex 3D movement, • unrealistic and undefined anatomical or biomechanical thresholds, • no standardised operating procedures for the assessment processes, • multiple variables required for assessment and • an inadequate number of attempts to ensure accurate observations. SCHOOL OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATION
These results probably indicate that the existing FMS framework is too complex for a single assessor to score within the constraints placed by the criteria set.
The FMS does not demonstrate the properties essential to be considered as a measurement scale. The evidence, therefore, suggests that the FMS is not valid.
REFERENCES 1. Kiesel, K., et al., (2007). N Am J Sports Phys Ther, 2 (3) p147 2. McCall, A., et al., (2015). Br J Sports Med, 49 (9) p583 3. Philp F., et al., (2018). BMJ Open Sports & Exercise Medicine 0(4) p1
