Can the Functional Movement Screen™ be used to capture changes in spine and knee motion control following 12 weeks of training?. (January 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Frost, David M.; Beach, Tyson A.C.; Campbell, Troy L.; Callaghan, Jack P.; McGill, Stuart M.
• Is Part Of: Physical therapy in sport. Volume 23(2017)
• Page Start: 50
• Page End: 57
• Publication Date: 2017-01
• Subjects: Exercise -- Firefighter -- Injury -- Knee -- Low back -- Prevention; Sports physical therapy -- Periodicals; Sports injuries -- Patients -- Rehabilitation -- Periodicals; Athletic Injuries -- diagnosis -- Periodicals; Athletic Injuries -- therapy -- Periodicals; Physical Therapy -- Periodicals; Sports Medicine -- Periodicals; 615.82088796
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.06.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1466-853X

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To examine whether objective measures of spine and frontal plane knee motion exhibited during Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) task performance changed following a movement-guided fitness (MOV) and conventional fitness (FIT) exercise intervention. Design: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled experiment. Before and after 12 weeks of exercise, participants' kinematics were quantified while performing the FMS and a series of general whole-body movement tasks. Setting: Biomechanics laboratory. Participants: Fifty-two firefighters were assigned to MOV, FIT, or a control (CON) group. Outcome measures: Peak lumbar spine flexion/extension, lateral bend and axial twist, and frontal plane knee motion. Results: The post-training kinematic changes exhibited by trainees while performing the FMS tasks were similar in magnitude (effect size < 0.8) to those exhibited by CON. However, when performing the battery of general whole-body movement tasks, only MOV showed significant improvements in spine and frontal plane knee motion control (effect size > 0.5). Conclusions: Whether graded qualitatively, or quantitatively via kinematic analyses, the FMS may not be a viable tool to detect movement-based exercise adaptations. Amendments to the FMS tasks and/or scoring method are needed before it can be used for reasons beyond appraising the ability to move freely, symmetrically, and without pain. Highlights: Post-training changes in spine and knee motion control were similar across groups. Substantial variation in spine and knee motion was seen amongst the control group. The FMS did not capture kinematic changes that occurred in response to training. Low demand movement screens may not challenge control of relevant motions. The FMS may not be an effective tool to assess the transfer of training.