Relationship Between Functional Movement Screen and Athletic Performance

Tests such as the functional movement screen (FMS) and maximal strength (repetition maximum strength [1RM]) have been theorised to assist in predicting athletic performance capabilities. Some data exist concerning 1RM and athletic performance, but very limited data exist concerning the potential ability of FMS to assess athletic performance.

Functional movement screen (FMS) to assess performance in a series of self-described physical activities (unloaded deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise, trunk stability push-up, rotary stability). The 7 movement patterns are claimed to be conceptualized on the basis of the complex movement patterns found in sport such as jumping, running, and agility (Minick et al., 2010). A 4-point scale (0 = pain was associated with movement pattern, 1 = unable to perform movement pattern, 2 = compensation was present to complete movement pattern, and 3 = movement pattern was performed as described) is used based on the subjective analysis of each movement pattern with specific characteristics listed for each score.

1RM has been shown to relate to jumping, sprinting, and agility capabilities, including sport-specific skills (Keogh et al., 2009; McBride et al., 2009). Nuzzo et al., (2008) reported a significant correlation between 1RM in the squat and countermovement jump peak power, velocity, and jump height. McBride et al., (2009) found significant correlations between 1RM in the squat and 10- and 40-yd sprint times. Wisloff (2004) also reported significant correlations between 1RM in the squat and 10- and 30-m sprint times (r = 20.9, r = 20.7). In relation to sport-specific skills, Keogh et al., (2004) reported that the 1RM in the back squat was significantly correlated to club head velocity in golfers. The 1RM has also been shown to be related to performance in other sports such as basketball, baseball, tennis, and football (Kraemer et al., 2003; Hoffman et al.,2009; McBride et al., 2009).

Methods
Twenty-five National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I golfers (15 men, age = 20.0 ± 1.2 years, height = 176.8 ± 5.6 cm, body mass = 76.5 ± 13.4 kg, 1RM back squat = 97.1 ± 21.0 kg) (10 women, age = 20.5 ± 0.8 years, height = 167.0 ± 5.6 cm, body mass = 70.7 ± 21.5 kg, 1RM back squat = 50.3 ± 16.6 kg) participated in the investigation.

  • FMS – unloaded deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise, trunk stability push-up, and rotary stability. Each of the 7 movements was scored from 0 to 3.
  • 1RM Back Squat (thigh parallel to the floor)
  • VJ
  • 10 and 20-m sprint times
  • Agility T-test
  • Club Head Swing Velocity

Results

  • No significant correlations were found between FMS and any of the performance variables (10 and 20-m sprint, VJ, and T-test).
  • The 1RM was significantly correlated to CHSV (r = 0.805, p = 0.0001). The 1RM was also significantly correlated to VJ (r = 0.869, p = 0.0001), 10-m sprint (r = 20.812, p = 0.0001), 20-m sprint (r = 20.872, p = 0.0001), and T-test (r = 20.758, p = 0.0001).
  • The FMS score from each individual test (unloaded deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise, trunk stability push-up, rotary stability) were also compared with 10 and 20-m sprint, VJ, T-test, and CHSV. No significant relationships existed between any of the individual test and the athletic performance tests.

Conclusion
Based on the data from the current investigation, the FMS is not a useful tool for determining possible athletic capabilities, specifically in golf. In fact, higher FMS scores may falsely lead a practitioner to assume increased athletic capabilities when in actuality higher scores relate to poorer performances in tests such as the medicine ball throw or agility T-test times. The squat 1RM was a very strong predictor of athletic performance such as sprinting, jumping, and agility performance. It is likely that the FMS fails to relate to athletic performance in that it does not assess strength, which has been shown to be a major component of athletic performance. In conclusion, FMS should not be used to assess
athletes and strength and conditioning coaches should use 1RM squat determination as a very important assessment tool as a component for the determination of athletic performance.

Parchmann, CJ and McBride, JM. Relationship between functional movement screen and athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3378–3384, 2011

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s