Search

Background: Poor balance, lack of neuromuscular control, and movement ability are predictors of performance and injury risk in\ud sports and physical activity participation. The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) and lower quarter Y-Balance Test (YBT) have\ud been used by clinicians to evaluate balance, functional symmetry, and static and dynamic movement patterns, yet little information exists regarding the relationship between the FMS™, YBT, and physical performance tests (e.g. vertical jump) within the high\ud school population.\ud Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the FMSTM, dynamic balance as measured by the\ud YBT and physical performance tests (standing long jump, vertical jump, Pro Agility Test) in male and female high school\ud athletes.\ud Study Design: Cohort study.\ud Methods: Fifty-six high school athletes (28 females, 28 males; mean age 16.4 ± 0.1) who participated in organized team sports were\ud tested. Participants performed the FMS™, YBT, and three physical performance tests (standing long jump, vertical jump, Pro Agility\ud Test).\ud Results: Females outperformed males on the FMS™ and YBT, while males outperformed females on the performance tests. In both\ud sexes, the composite FMSTM score was positively correlated with the left and composite YBT scores. Agility was negatively correlated with composite FMSTM in males (p < 0.05) and the left and composite YBT in females (p < 0.05).\ud Conclusions: The FMST M and YBT may evaluate similar underlying constructs in high school athletes, such as dynamic balance\ud and lower extremity power. The results of this study demonstrate the utility of the FMS and YBT to relate multiple constructs of\ud muscular power to an individual’s ability to balance. Furthermore, establishing the need for the utilization and application of\ud multiple field-based tests by sports medicine professionals and strength and conditioning coaches when evaluating an athlete’s\ud movement and physical performance capabilities. Utilization of multiple field-based tests may provide the first step for the development of injury prevention strategies and long-term athlete development programs.

Side to side asymmetry in glenohumeral joint rotation correlates with injury risk in overhead athletes. The purpose of the current study was to identify the relationship between side-to-side asymmetries in glenohumeral joint total rotational range of motion and shoulder mobility test scores from the Functional Movement Screen™ in collegiate overhead athletes. The authors hypothesized that asymmetries of10° in glenohumeral total rotation would not be associated with asymmetrical findings in the Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) shoulder mobility test.Passive glenohumeral total rotational range of motion and the shoulder mobility test of the FMS were measured during pre-participation examinations in 121 NCAA male and female Division II collegiate overhead athletes from varied sports. Passive shoulder range of motion was measured in supine at 90° of abduction, with the humerus in the scapular plane using two measurers and a bubble goniometer. A Pearson Chi-square analysis, p.05 was used to associate the presence of asymmetries in glenohumeral joint rotation and in the FMS shoulder mobility test in each subject.40/114 (35.1%) athletes demonstrated asymmetries in total glenohumeral rotation. 45/114 (39.5%) athletes demonstrated asymmetries in the shoulder mobility test. Only 17 of the 45 subjects who demonstrated asymmetry on the shoulder mobility test also demonstrated glenohumeral joint rotation differences of10°. Athletes with asymmetries in rotation of10° were not any more likely to have asymmetries identified in the shoulder mobility test (95% CI=.555-2.658, P=.627).Glenohumeral joint range of motion is one of multiple contributors to performance on the FMS shoulder mobility test, and alone, did not appear to influence results. The FMS shoulder mobility test should not be used alone as a means of identifying clinically meaningful differences of shoulder mobility in the overhead athlete. Clinicians working with overhead athletes may consider using both assessments as a complete screening tool for injury prevention measures.Level 3.