Journal Of Strength & Conditioning Research June 2012;26(6):1620-1630.

Commentary by Matt Jordan

Background

The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is purported to “red-flag” movement strategies and functional limitations that may lead to injury or suboptimal performance. Participants are graded on a scale from 0-3 on their ability to perform 7 “functional” tests. The presence of compensatory movement strategies or the inability to perform a test results in a lower score. Evidence suggests that the reliability between testers is good. However, the evidence on the positive relationship between low FMS scores and injury is equivocal. Despite the mixed scientific evidence in support of the FMS, it is quickly becoming mainstream in elite sport. It is critical that rigorous scientific study be undertaken to ascertain the value of the FMS for preventing injury and improving performance.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of the FMS for evaluating changes in an individual’s movement following two training conditions. The first supervised training condition (T1) placed a primary emphasis on movement; and exercises were selected and coached based on observed patterns of coordination and control. The second supervised training condition (T2) placed a primary emphasis on improving fitness with a very basic emphasis on exercise technique for safety. The study also compared a more rigorous and broad scoring system with the standard ordinal 0-3 rating system. It was hypothesized that the subjects in T1 would have a significant improvement in FMS scores following the 12-week training program compared to T2 and the control group. It was also hypothesized that the more rigorous scoring system would better differentiate the effects of the training program on the FMS.

Study Design

Sixty male firefighters participated in an FMS before and after a 12-week training period in which the subjects were randomly assigned to T1, T2 or a control group. Video was collected during the FMS and an expert tester scored with the standard scale from 0-3 and a 100-point research standard scale that weighted compensations differently.

Main Findings

1. There were no improvements in FMS scores for any group post-training, which calls into question the trainability of the movements assessed in the FMS.

2. 85% of the subjects in the control group (i.e. those who did not receive training) had a non-systematic score change from the first to the second test, which calls into question the value of Kodak Moment FMS testing (i.e. a snapshot in time) as movement strategies may change from one session to the next over 12 weeks.

3. The 100-point scale resulted in more FMS score changes post-training but did not highlight any further differences between groups compared to the standard scale.

Strengths, Limitations and Future Considerations

1. The investigators had a relatively big sample size for a training study.

2. The subjects were evaluated on how they chose to perform the tests rather than how they could perform the tests to evaluate their natural tendencies.