8 Three broad categories of movement screens have been reported in the literature: jump testing, balance with reaching tests, and movement quality against a standard criterion. Movement screens are developed using different methods including known pathomechanics 4 and injury mechanisms, 5, 6 sport and fundamental movement requirements, 7 and expert opinion. A positive test (those that do not squat deep) would lead to further testing, possible intervention to prevent injury, and limit future disability from a difficult to treat musculoskeletal pathology that may not initially present as painful or limiting. From this, a cut-point to stratify those with hip impingement from those without may be developed and used for screening people who participate in activities requiring deep squat (eg, volleyball or powerlifting). Those with hip impingement did not squat as deeply compared with those without hip impingement (41.5%☑2.5% of leg length vs 32.3☖.8% P=0.037). 3 For example, Lamontagne et al 4 evaluated squat performance in those with and without the diagnosis of hip impingement. Stratification allows for targeted intervention in the “at-risk” group with the intent to lower injury occurrence. 1, 2 Movement screening has the same purpose as any other typical screen – to stratify those at increased injury risk from those not at risk. Screening detects disease or pathology in an individual that is not currently showing signs or symptoms of that disease.
“Movement screen” has become a term used to define screening via movement analysis to identify dysfunction linked to increased risk of musculoskeletal injury or pathology. Keywords: movement screen, prediction, sensitivity, athletes Future research on the use of the FMS, either the composite score or the individual movement patterns, to screen for injury or injury risk in adequately powered, well-designed studies are required to determine if the FMS is appropriate for use as a movement screen. Finally, within the FMS literature, the concepts of prediction and association are conflated, combined with flawed cohort studies, leading to questions about the efficacy of the FMS to screen for injury. The accuracy of the FMS in screening for injury is also suspect, with low sensitivity in almost all studies, although specificity is higher. Additionally, the FMS does not appear to be studying a single construct, challenging the use of the summed composite FMS score.
Although the FMS has high face and content validity, the criterion validity (discriminant and convergent) is low. The FMS is certainly a reliable tool, and can be consistently scored within and between raters. For an instrument to have wide applicability and acceptability, there must be high levels of reliability, validity, and accuracy. The 7 movement patterns are summed to a composite FMS score. Seven movement patterns comprise the FMS, which was designed to screen fundamental movement requiring a balance between stability and mobility. The FMS, like other movement screens, identifies movement dysfunction in those at risk of, but not currently experiencing, signs or symptoms of a musculoskeletal injury.
Meghan Warren, 1 Monica R Lininger, 1 Nicole J Chimera, 2 Craig A Smith 1,3ġDepartment of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA 2Department of Athletic Training, Daemen College, Amherst, NY, USA 3Smith Performance Center, Tuscon, AZ, USAĪbstract: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a popular movement screen used by rehabilitation, as well as strength and conditioning, professionals.
0 kommentar(er)
