How reliable are Functional Movement Screening scores? A systematic review of rater reliability.

Abstract

Several physical assessment protocols to identify intrinsic risk factors for injury aetiology related to movement quality have been described. The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a standardised, field-expedient test battery intended to assess movement quality and has been used clinically in preparticipation screening and in sports injury research. To critically appraise and summarise research investigating the reliability of scores obtained using the FMS battery. Systematic literature review. Systematic search of Google Scholar, Scopus (including ScienceDirect and PubMed), EBSCO (including Academic Search Complete, AMED, CINAHL, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition), MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus. Studies meeting eligibility criteria were assessed by 2 reviewers for risk of bias using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies checklist. Overall quality of evidence was determined using van Tulder's levels of evidence approach. 12 studies were appraised. Overall, there was a 'moderate' level of evidence in favour of 'acceptable' (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.6) inter-rater and intra-rater reliability for composite scores derived from live scoring. For inter-rater reliability of composite scores derived from video recordings there was 'conflicting' evidence, and 'limited' evidence for intra-rater reliability. For inter-rater reliability based on live scoring of individual subtests there was 'moderate' evidence of 'acceptable' reliability (κ≥0.4) for 4 subtests (Deep Squat, Shoulder Mobility, Active Straight-leg Raise, Trunk Stability Push-up) and 'conflicting' evidence for the remaining 3 (Hurdle Step, In-line Lunge, Rotary Stability). This review found 'moderate' evidence that raters can achieve acceptable levels of inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of composite FMS scores when using live ratings. Overall, there were few high-quality studies, and the quality of several studies was impacted by poor study reporting particularly in relation to rater blinding.