Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jun;26(6):1620-30. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318234ec59.
The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) has demonstrated some efficacy in the prediction of injuries and is thus used by many practitioners to make recommendations for exercise. However, questions remain regarding its utility as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of training. Sixty firefighters volunteered to participate, and their FMS scores were examined before and after 12 weeks of training. Individuals were graded on how they chose to perform rather than how they could perform. The participants were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: intervention 1, intervention 2, or control. The 2 intervention groups received three 1.5-hour training sessions each week and differed in the emphasis that was placed on movement quality. Sagittal and frontal plane videos were used to grade the FMS with 3 methods: the standard 0-3 scale, a 100-point scale that weighted specific compensations (research standard), and a modified 100-point scale whereby grades were assigned based on the total number of compensations present. There were no significant differences in the total FMS scores for any group posttraining. However, the scores of 85% of the firefighters who did not receive training did change. The 100-point scale methods resulted in more FMS score changes posttraining, but the between-group interactions were identical to those found with the standard scoring method. The control group's scores were not consistent pretraining and posttraining; thus, the influence of each intervention could not be evaluated. Currently, the FMS might provide a momentary impression of general movement quality, although further efforts would likely assist in the development of better ways to implement the test, interpret the results, and generate reliable scores.
功能性运动筛查测试（FMS）在预测运动损伤方面具有一定的效果，因此被许多从业者用于推荐运动。然而，其作为评估训练效果的手段的实用性仍存在疑问。60 名消防员自愿参与，在 12 周的训练前后检查了他们的 FMS 评分。评估的依据是他们选择的动作，而不是他们能够完成的动作。参与者被分配到 3 个组中的 1 个：干预 1 组、干预 2 组或对照组。前两组干预组每周接受 3 次 1.5 小时的训练，其侧重点在于运动质量。矢状面和额状面的视频用于使用 3 种方法对 FMS 进行评分：标准的 0-3 分制、对特定代偿情况加权的 100 分制（研究标准）和改良的 100 分制，该方法根据存在的代偿总数来评定分数。训练后任何组的总分 FMS 评分均无显著差异。但是，85%未接受训练的消防员的评分发生了变化。100 分制方法在训练后导致更多的 FMS 评分变化，但组间的相互作用与标准评分方法相同。对照组的评分在训练前后不一致；因此，无法评估每个干预措施的影响。目前，FMS 可能提供对整体运动质量的瞬间印象，尽管进一步的努力可能有助于开发更好的方法来实施测试、解释结果和生成可靠的分数。
