Functional Movement Screen Task Scores and Joint Range-of-motion: A Construct Validity Study

Abstract

Little is known about the construct validity of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS). We aimed to assess associations between FMS task scores and measures of maximum joint range-of-motion (ROM) among university varsity student-athletes from 4 sports (volleyball, basketball, ice hockey, and soccer). Athletes performed FMS tasks and had their maximum ankle, hip and shoulder ROM measured. Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate associations between FMS task scores and ROM measurements. 101 university student-athletes were recruited (52 W/49 M; mean age 20.4±1.9 years). In general, athletes with higher FMS task scores had greater ROM compared to those with lower task scores. For example, athletes who scored 2 on the FMS squat task had 4˚ (95% CI, 1˚ to 7˚) more uni-articular ankle dorsiflexion ROM compared with those who scored 1, while those who scored 3 on the FMS squat task had 10˚ (4˚ to 17˚) more uni-articular ankle dorsiflexion ROM compared with those who scored 1. Large variation in ROM measurements was observed. In sum, substantial overlap in joint ROM between groups of athletes with different FMS task scores weakens the construct validity of the FMS as an indicator of specific joint ROM.

Altered sagittal plane mechanics is associated with Functional Movement Screen deep squat score

“…Scibek et al (2020) attempted to establish the correlation of DS scores based on kinematic measures and DS scores allocated by video observation and showed poor agreement between kinematic and observer scores. Joint angles measured by manual goniometry show correlation with scores allocated by video analysis (Hincapié et al 2022).…”

“…Observer rating of the FMS DS relies on visual assessment of alignment of the trunk and limbs using specific anatomical landmarks. While the intraand inter-observer reliability has been established (Frohm et al 2012;Krosshaug et al 2007), evidence validating the FMS observer scores against more objective measures such as joint range and kinematic movement analysis is limited with many methodological differences (Butler et al 2010;Heredia et al 2021;Hincapié et al 2022;Scibek, Moran & Edmond et al 2020;Whiteside et al 2016). Butler et al (2010) and Heredia et al (2021) found kinematic differences in the hip and knee peak flexion angles and excursion between groups of participants with different scores for the DS.…”

The Relationship Between Functional Movement Screening and Joint Range of Motion, Y-Balance Test and Countermovement Jump in Amateur Soccer Players

“…It has been reported that ankle dorsiflexion is a determinant of squat depth in both men and women (13). In a study conducted on student athletes, it was stated that people with higher scores in a deeper squat and in-line lunge lower motion patterns had greater ankle dorsiflexion joint range of motion (10). Another study found a positive correlation between FMS and hip extension and ankle dorsiflexion in middle-and long-distance runners and a negative correlation between FMS and ankle plantar flexion (23).…”

Predicting functional movement capacity in adults: the effect of range of motion and isometric strength

“…In the prior studies for the squat task, it was found that higher FMS squat and lunge task scores were generally associated with more ankle dorsiflexion ROM [ 20 , 38 – 40 ]. Determining the joint range of motion allows physicians and physiotherapists to diagnose musculoskeletal function, monitor the progress of an intervention, record data for future follow-ups, and meet legal requirements for impairment ratings and injury determinations when applicable [ 41 ].…”

“…Particularly, having a strong core musculature, which is essential for the core strength evaluated in FMS, contributes to better results in FMS [ 19 ]. FMS scoring is based on the assessment of joint mobility and stability deficiencies, and a relationship between the joint range of motion (ROM) and FMS scoring has been demonstrated in university student-athletes [ 20 ]. On the other hand, due to high variations in ROM measurements in young and physically active individuals, the direction and validity of the relationship have not been fully expressed.…”