Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.
J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Apr;27(4):982-7. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182606df2.
The purpose of this study was to investigate interrater and intrarater reliability of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) with real-time administration with raters of different educational background and experience. The FMS was assessed with real-time administration in healthy injury-free men and women and included a certified FMS rater for comparison with other raters. A relatively new tool, the FMS, was developed to screen 7 individual movement patterns to classify subjects' injury risk. Previous reliability studies have been published with only one investigating intrarater reliability. These studies had limitations in study design and clinical applicability such as the use of only video to rate or the use of raters without comparison to a certified FMS rater. Raters (n = 4) with varying degrees of FMS experience and educational levels underwent a 2-hour FMS training session. Subjects (n = 19) were rated during 2 sessions, 1 week apart, using standard FMS protocol and equipment. Interrater reliability was good for session 1 (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.89) and for session 2 (ICC = 0.87). The individual FMS movements showed hurdle step as the least reliable (ICC = 0.30 for session 1 and 0.35 for session 2), whereas the most reliable was shoulder mobility (ICC = 0.98 for session 1 and 0.96 for session 2). Intrarater reliability was good for all raters (ICC = 0.81-0.91), with similar ICC regardless of education or previous experience with FMS. The results showed that the FMS could be consistently scored by people with varying degrees of experience with the FMS after a 2-hour training session. Intrarater reliability was not increased with FMS certification.
本研究旨在探讨不同教育背景和经验的测评者实时应用功能性运动筛查（FMS）的测评者间信度和测评者内信度。在健康、无损伤的男性和女性中实时应用 FMS 进行评估，并包括认证的 FMS 测评者，以便与其他测评者进行比较。相对较新的工具 FMS 旨在筛查 7 种个体运动模式，以对受试者的受伤风险进行分类。先前已经发表了一些关于 FMS 信度的研究，但只有一项研究调查了测评者内信度。这些研究在研究设计和临床适用性方面存在局限性，例如仅使用视频进行评分，或使用未经认证的 FMS 测评者进行评分。具有不同程度 FMS 经验和教育水平的测评者（n = 4）接受了 2 小时的 FMS 培训课程。在 2 周的时间里，使用标准的 FMS 方案和设备对受试者（n = 19）进行了 2 次评估。第 1 次评估的测评者间信度良好（组内相关系数 [ICC] = 0.89），第 2 次评估的信度也良好（ICC = 0.87）。个体 FMS 动作中，栏架步的可靠性最低（第 1 次评估的 ICC = 0.30，第 2 次评估的 ICC = 0.35），而肩部活动度的可靠性最高（第 1 次评估的 ICC = 0.98，第 2 次评估的 ICC = 0.96）。所有测评者的测评者内信度均良好（ICC = 0.81-0.91），与教育程度或之前的 FMS 经验无关，ICC 相似。结果表明，经过 2 小时的培训课程后，具有不同 FMS 经验程度的人可以始终如一地对 FMS 进行评分。FMS 认证并未提高测评者内信度。
