Physical Therapy Reviews

ISSN: 1083-3196 (Print) 1743-288X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yptr20

Does the functional movement screen correlate

with athletic performance? A systematic review

Joe Girard, Megan Quigley & Frank Helfst

To cite this article: Joe Girard, Megan Quigley & Frank Helfst (2016): Does the functional
movement screen correlate with athletic performance? A systematic review, Physical Therapy
Reviews, DOI: 10.1080/10833196.2016.1227568

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2016.1227568

Published online: 06 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yptr20

Download by: [Cornell University Library] Date: 15 September 2016, At: 17:45
Does the functional movement screen
correlate with athletic performance? A
systematic review
Joe Girard, Megan Quigley, Frank Helfst
Physical Therapy, Franklin Pierce University, Manchester, NH, USA

Background: The functional movement screen (FMS) is a movement screening tool designed to assess mobility,
stability, symmetry, and quality of movement patterns. It is an inexpensive and accessible screening tool. It is not
known if composite FMS scores correlate with athletic performance.
Objective: To systematically review relevant literature to discover if composite FMS scores correlate with athletic
performance.
Methods: A systematic review of literature indexed in the following databases: Medline, CINAHL, SportsDiscus,
and PubMed was conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool.
Results: Six studies satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. The studies population age
range was twenty to twenty-four years old. Risk of bias per the QUADAS-2 tool determined that five out of six
studies (83%) were deemed relatively low risk of bias for the risk of bias indicators, and one study (17%) was
of unclear risk due to lack of reporting. For the applicability concerns aspect of the QUADAS-2 tool, all studies
(100%) scored relatively low risk of bias for most indicators. Composite FMS scores generally did not correlate
with athletic performance. Certain individual components of the FMS, such as deep squat (DS), did correlate
with certain athletic performance measures.
Conclusions: The results of this review suggest that the FMS is not a predictive indicator of athletic performance.
The DS and in-line lunge components of the FMS might be an indicator of athletic performance for certain athletic
performance measures.
Keywords: Functional movement screen, Functional movement, Athletic performance, Sports performance, Selective functional movement
assessment

Introduction performance measures only measure a specific component

Athletes and coaches are continually looking to improve
performance in order to excel in their chosen sport. The
methods for analysis of athletic performance vary and
there is no uniform agreement on which methods possess
the best psychometric properties for indicating the level
of athletic performance. Because there is no consensus
on a general measure of athletic performance, there are
no universally accepted diagnostic measures of athletic
performance.1
Athletic performance can be quantified using meas-
ures of: agility, strength, speed, and seasonal perfor-
mance.2 Isolated tests performed individually, such as a
hop test for hip strength and isokinetic leg strength for
sprinting ability, do not provide sufficient evidence when
translating into functional performance.3,4 Other specific
measures, such as the running anaerobic sprint test are
reliable for certain measures, such as anaerobic power in
locomotion-based activities, but are not a comprehensive
measure of athletic performance.5 Because most athletic
Correspondence to: Joe Girard, Physical Therapy, Franklin Pierce
University, 670 N. Commercial St., Manchester, NH 03101, USA. Email:
girardj@franklinpierce.edu
of performance, their use is limited to specific athletes
and specific athletic activities. Due to the many factors
that go into athletic performance, a general and reliable
test that correlates with enhanced performance or pre-
dicts performance would simplify the screening process
for coaches, trainers, physical therapists, and other inter-
ested personnel.
One approach to assess athletic performance is to ana-
lyze movement quality. Theoretically, correct movement
alignment, quality, and symmetry should reasonably cor-
relate with enhanced movement and athletic performance.6
Individuals with superior neuromuscular control, which
is requisite for dynamic movement alignment and power,
often excel at athletics. Neuromuscular training of the
lower extremity has been found to improve performance
and bio-mechanical alignment in athletes.7 However, neu-
romuscular control and movement quality requires the
identification and isolation of specific movement patterns
under different conditions and there is currently no com-
prehensive and universally accepted method of movement
quality analysis.

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

DOI 10.1080/10833196.2016.1227568 Physical Therapy Reviews 2016 1
Girard et al. Does the functional movement screen correlate with athletic performance?
One performance test that investigates multiple aspects
of specific, functional movement mechanics is the func-
tional movement screen (FMS), commonly used in athletic
settings for the screening of athletes.8,9 The purpose of the
FMS is threefold: (1) assessment of mobility and stability
within the kinetic chain, (2) body asymmetry recognition,
and (3) recognition of poor movement patterns.8–10 The
FMS consists of seven fundamental movements that assess
mobility and stability. Through this series of movements,
faulty movement patterns can be identified and addressed
in order to reduce the risk of sport-related musculoskeletal
injury.8,9 The FMS individual components include the deep
squat (DS), hurdle step (HS), in-line lunge (IL), shoul-
der mobility (SM), active straight leg raise, trunk stabil-
ity pushup, and rotary stability tests. Each test is graded
from zero to three with three being the best possible score.
If pain is felt during any test, a score of zero is given.
Tests are performed bilaterally, with the lower score being
counted toward the total score. If there is difference in
scores between sides, it is noted.8,9,11
The FMS is an inexpensive and accessible method of
analyzing specific, functional movement patterns. The
FMS has also been found to have good inter-rater reliabil-
ity.11,12 These qualities make the FMS an attractive tool to
coaches, trainers, and physical therapists interested in ana-
lyzing movement or for predicting injuries or performance.
The use of the FMS as an injury prediction tool has
generated a substantial body of research. There is research
that supports the use of the FMS as a predictor of injury
through the recognition of faulty movement patterns dur-
ing specific tests.13–15 An FMS composite score of 14 or
less has been indicated as a positive predictor of injury in
professional and collegiate athletes.13,14 However, a large
systematic review and meta-analysis indicates ‘the diag-
nostic accuracy of the FMS to predict injury is low.’10
If composite FMS scores correlate with enhanced ath-
letic performance, this would make the FMS a powerful
tool for coaches, trainers, and athletes. To date it is unclear
if the FMS can correlate with or predict athletic perfor-
mance. The purpose of this systematic review is to dis-
cover if FMS scores correlate with athletic performance.
Methods
Search strategy
Three independent systematic searches of scientific
articles were conducted. The following databases were
searched by three independent reviewers for relevant
studies: Medline, Cinahl, SportsDiscus, and PubMed. The
search terms were: ‘FMS and athletic performance,’ ‘FMS
and sports performance,’ and ‘FMS and performance.’ The
searches for each database were limited from January 2000
to December 2015.
Study selection
All three reviewers performed independent database
searches and reviewed relevant titles and abstracts. Titles
2 Physical Therapy Reviews 2016
and abstracts of interest included those that examined any
relationship between the FMS and athletic performance
or athletic performance indicators. One reviewer, JG, had
final decision on study inclusion.
Inclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria were studies that examined relation-
ships between the FMS and athletic or sports performance
in individuals 18 years of age or older. Included studies
had to be from peer-reviewed journals, in the English
language and published between January 2000 through
December 2015.
Methodological quality
Three reviewers analyzed the studies using the QUADAS-2
tool. The QUADAS-2 is a risk of bias assessment tool
for use in systematic reviews.16 The QUADAS-2 is
designed to assess the quality of diagnostic studies.16 The
QUADAS-2 tool covers four domains: patient selection,
index test, reference standard, and flow of patients. One
researcher reviewed all of the studies and the remaining
researchers each reviewed half of the studies using the
QUADAS-2 tool. Each study was independently analyzed
by two researchers. After completion, the researchers com-
pared, discussed, and agreed upon QUADAS-2 scores.
Results
Four hundred and eighty-six studies were identified with
the initial database searches. One additional study was
found while examining related literature and references.
After removal of duplicates and ineligible studies from
abstracts and citations, 10 full text articles were analyzed.
Reference lists of identified articles were hand searched.
The most common reason for ineligibility was because
certain studies did not analyze relationships between the
FMS and athletic/sports performance. Of the full text arti-
cles examined, only six met the full inclusion criteria for
this review. Three articles were excluded because subjects
were under eighteen years of age. An additional study was
excluded because it measured tactical performance instead
of athletic performance. Figure 1 highlights the search
strategy. Table 1 outlines a summary of studies.
Subjects
A total of 212 healthy, athletic subjects were included in
the six studies. Mean ages were 20–24 years per study.
Risk of bias
The QUADAS-2 risk of bias tool was used to assess bias
in the included studies. Two individuals rated all of the
included trials. The individuals discussed any discrepan-
cies until agreement was reached. The QUADAS-2 risk
of bias tool for the reviewed studies in patient selection
deemed five studies (83%) as low risk of bias17–21 and
one study (17%) as unclear risk of bias due to inadequate
reporting.22 For the index test risk of bias assessment, four
 Girard et al. Does the functional movement screen correlate with athletic performance?

Identification
Records identified through database Additional records identified
searching through other sources
(n = 486) (n = 1)

Screening

Records screened
including duplicate Records excluded
removal (n = 477)
(n = 487)
Eligibility

Full-text articles assessed

for eligibility Full-text articles excluded,
(n = 10) with reasons
(n = 4)
Included

Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(n = 6)

Figure 1 Search strategy.

From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

studies (67%) were deemed low risk of bias17,19–21 and two
studies (33%) were deemed unclear risk of bias due to
inadequate reporting.18,22 For the reference standard risk of
bias assessment, two studies (33%) were deemed low risk
of bias17,18 and four studies (67%) were deemed unclear
risk of bias due to inadequate reporting.17,19–21 For potential
risk of bias of patient flow and timing, five studies (83%)
were deemed low risk of bias17–21 largely due to reports
of same day testing and one study (17%) was deemed
unclear due to lack of reporting of attrition rates from the
subject set.22
For the QUADAS-2 applicability assessment of the
reviewed studies, all studies (100%) were deemed low
applicability concern for patient selection.17–22 For the
index test, all studies (100%) were deemed low applica-
bility concern.17–22 For the reference standard, three studies
(50%) were deemed low,17,18,22 and three studies (50%)
were deemed unclear applicability concern.19–21 Table 2
outlines the QUADAS-2 results.
Results by study
Parchmann and McBride researched the relationship
between FMS and athletic performance in Division 1
NCAA golfers.17 Twenty-five golfers (15 males,
age = 20.0 ± 1.2 years; 10 females, age = 20.5 ± 0.8 years)
completed a two-year strength and conditioning program
prior to participation and were tested in the off-season.
The index reference was the FMS assessment and the ref-
erence standards of athletic performance were strength
and field tests consisting of 1 repetition maximum squat
(1RM), 10 and 20-m sprint time, vertical jump, agility
T-test time, and club head swing velocity (CHSV). No
significant correlations were found between the FMS and
the athletic performance variables (r = −0.064, p = 0.760);
however, a significant correlation was found between the
1RM and the CHSV, vertical jump, 10-m sprint time, 20-m
sprint time, and agility T-test. The FMS score from each
individual component of the assessment was also com-
pared with each individual athletic performance test, and
no significant relationship was found to exist among them
(FMS and 10-m sprint r = −0.136, 20-m sprint r = −0.107,
VJ height r = 0.249, agility T-test r = −0.146, and club
head velocity r = −0.064).
Chapman, Laymon, and Arnold examined to see if FMS
scores were related to best performance in elite track and
field athletes.18 One hundred and twenty-one elite track and

Physical Therapy Reviews 2016 3

 4
Physical Therapy Reviews
Table 1 Summary of studies
Author Study purpose
Parchmann Determine if FMS scores correlate
and McBride to jumping, sprinting, agility, and
sport-specific skill in competitive golfers
2016
Chapman, To determine if FMS injury risk factors
Laymon and can be used to predict long-term per-
Arnold formance outcomes in elite American
track and field athletes
Lockie, Schultz To compare the FMS with perfor-
and Callaghan mance tests (flexibility, linear speed,
et al. change-of-direction speed, and leg
power) in female team sports athletes
Lockie, Schultz To examine the relationship between
and Jordan lower body focused FMS tests and
et al. overall FMS scores relate to multidirec-
tional speed and jumping ability in male
recreational team sports athletes
Lockie, To examine the relationship between
Jalilvand and the research grade FMS, multidirec-
Jordan et al. tional speed, and jumping tests in male
recreational team sports athletes
Okada, Huxel, Determine relationships between core
and Nesser stability, functional movement, and
performance, and establish which
assessment tests best correspond with
performance
Subjects
25 NCAA D-1 golfers that
participated in a 2 year strength
and conditioning program
121 Elite US track and field
athletes
9 Female team sports athletes
(age = 22.67 ± 5.12 years; height
= 1.66 ± 0.05 m; body mass =
64.22 ± 4.44 kg)
22 Male, recreational team sports
athletes (age =24.23 ± 3.82
years; height = 1.81±0.08 m;
body mass=81.86 ± 13.09 kg)
32 recreational male
team sports athletes
(age=22.84 ± 3.90 years;
height = 1.79 ± 0.07 m; body
mass = 79.37 ± 12.49 kg)
28 healthy recreational athletes,
average age of 24, from varied
athletic backgrounds
Index standard Reference standard
Functional 1-RM Squat, 10 and 20-m
movement sprint, vertical jump, agility
screen T-test
Functional Subject’s best time or mark in
movement their primary event from the
screen 2010 and 2011 calendar years
Functional Flexibility; bilateral and unilateral
movement sit-and-reach. linear speed;
screen 20-m sprint. Change of direction
and speed; modified T-test. Leg
power; bilateral and unilateral
vertical jump and broad jump
Functional 20-m sprint, vertical jump
movement (bilateral and unilateral), stand-
screen ing long jump (bilateral and
unilateral), lateral jump, 505
change-of-direction speed test,
modified T-test
Research-grade 20-m sprint, 505 change-of-di-
functional move- rection speed test, vertical
ment screen jumping tests (bilateral and
unilateral), standing broad jump,
and lateral jump
Functional McGill’s trunk muscle endur-
movement ance tests (core stability), SLS
screen dynamic trendelenburg test (LE
endurance), backward overhead
medicine ball throw (power), and
agility T-run.
Girard et al.
Does the functional movement screen correlate with athletic performance?
Results
FMS score had no significant relationship to 10-m sprint
time (r = −0.136), 20-m sprint time (r = −0.107), vertical jump
(r = 0.249), or agility performance (r = −0.146)
Participants who scored above 14 on the FMS showed a
significant positive change in longitudinal performance than
those who scored lower in most groups studied (0.41 ±
2.50% for High FMS group compared to −0.51 ± 2.30% for
low FMS group). across subjects, no significant correlations
were discovered between FMS score and seasonal per-
formance change, (r = 0.16, p = 0.97). The male sub group
demonstrated significant correlation between FMS score
and longitudinal performance (r = 0.9)
The FMS shows some small correlations for flexibility as it
relates to a unilateral sit and reach, but overall is limited in its
ability to parallel athletic performance. A positive correlation
between unilateral sit and reach for both legs with the overall
FMS score (p = 0.037)
This study showed a minimal correlation between the FMS
and athletic performance. A higher overall FMS score corre-
lated to a higher modified T-test difference, deep squat, and
difference in 505 time (p = 0.050); percentage difference for
modified T-test and the hurdle step: left leg (p = 0.015), right
leg (p = 0.005); overall score (p = 0.045)
The research grade FMS shows limited relationships with
athletic performance. Moderate correlations were seen in
the deep squat with the bilateral vertical jump and standing
broad jump (p = 0.04, p = 0.03, respectively). The left in-line
lunge was correlated to bilateral and left leg stranding broad
jumps, and left leg lateral jump (p = 0.03, p = 0.03, and p <
0.01, respectively)
The FMS is ineffective to predict performance, however
there were some significant correlations between specific
components of the FMS and performance. Shoulder mobility
(r = –0.0388) and rotary stability (r = 0.391) was significantly
correlated to backward overhead medicine ball throw, in-line
lunge (r = –0.462) and shoulder mobility (r = 0.392) were
significantly correlated with T-run time, and shoulder mobility
was significantly correlated (r = –0.446) with single leg stance

Table 2 QUADAS-2 risk of bias assessment
Risk of bias
Patient Index
Study selection test
Parchman and McBride L L
Chapman, Laymon and Arnold L U
Lockie, Schultz and Callahan et al. L L
Lockie, Schultz and Jordan et al. L L
Lockie, Jalilvand and Jordan et al. L L
Okada, Huxel and Nesser U U
Notes. H = High, L = Low, U = Unclear.
Adapted from University of Bristol, QUADAS-2 Resources: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/social-community-medicine/projects/quadas/
resources/.
field athletes listed in USA Track and Field elite perfor-
mance program were analyzed. The index reference was a
standard FMS assessment. The athletic performance meas-
ure reference standard was the subject’s official best time
or mark in the 2010–2011 performance year which was
obtained from a statistical database. The mean FMS score
for all subjects was 15.5 ± 1.9. The mean change in sea-
son’s best performance was 0.09 ± 2.47%. Subjects were
grouped into Low FMS scores (FMS score ≤14) and High
FMS scores (FMS score >14) and also sub-grouped by
gender, USATF tier, and event. The High FMS group had
a significantly greater performance change (0.41 ± 2.50%)
compared with the Low FMS group (–0.51 ± 2.30%).
Across subjects, no significant correlations were discov-
ered between FMS score and seasonal performance change
(r = 0.16, p = 0.97). Within subgroups, only the male sub-
ject group demonstrated correlation between FMS score
and performance change (r = 0.29).
Lockie, Schultz and Callaghan et al., investigated the
relationship between FMS scores and athletic performance
in female team sport athletes.19 The included subjects were
nine female collegiate athletes (age = 22.67 ± 5.12 years)
who participated in a team sport >3 times per week. The
index reference was a standard FMS assessment. Athletic
performance reference standard was quantified via sev-
eral measures: sit and reach test, 20 m sprint, bilateral
and unilateral vertical jump, standing broad jump, lateral
jump, 505 Change of Direction Speed Test and a modified,
sports-specific T-test. The overall mean FMS score was
13.44 ± 2.88. Composite FMS scores did not significantly
correlate to the majority of the performance measures.
There were small correlations between the FMS score and
the Sit and Reach test right and left (r = 0.698) and a small
correlation with FMS score and right side 505 (r = 0.756),
otherwise there were no significant correlation between
overall FMS and other performance measures.
Lockie, Schultz and Jordan et al. analyzed relation-
ships between FMS, especially lower extremity portions
of the FMS with tests of multi-directional speed and
jumping.20 Subjects were 22 healthy, male, recreational
athletes (age = 24.23 ± 3.82 years) currently playing a
team sport >2 times per week. The index reference was
the standard FMS. The athletic performance reference
Girard et al. Does the functional movement screen correlate with athletic performance?
Applicability concerns
Reference Flow and Patient Index Reference
standard timing selection test standard
L L L L L
L L L L L
U L L L U
U L L L U
U L L L U
U U L L L
standards were the following: 20 m sprint, bilateral and
unilateral vertical and standing long jump, lateral jump,
505 Change of Direction Speed test and modified T-test.
The mean FMS score was 15.9 ± 2.18. Results indicated
a significant relationship between overall FMS score and
T-test (p = 0.045) as well as the DS test measure and the
505 Change of Direction Test (p = 0 .05). The DS measure
also was significantly correlated to the bilateral vertical
(p = 0.047) and bilateral standing long jump (p = 0.033).
Despite the modest significance of these results, the major-
ity of correlations were insignificant.
Lockie, Jalilvand and Jordan et al. examined potential
relationships between FMS scores and athletic perfor-
mance.21 Thirty-two healthy, male, recreational athletes
(age = 22.84 ± 3.9 years) currently playing a team sport >2
times per week participated in this study. The index ref-
erence was the research grade FMS. The research grade
FMS, scored out of a possible 100, was purposed to have
increased sensitivity that may reveal potential deficien-
cies in performance that the standard grade FMS would
not detect.21 The athletic performance reference standards
were: 20 m sprint, bilateral and unilateral vertical jump,
bilateral and unilateral broad jump, lateral jump and 505
Change of Direction test. The subjects were stratified by
research grade FMS score into high, middle, and lower
scoring groups. There were no significant between-group
differences in any of the multidirectional speed or jump
tests (p = 0.11–0.92). There were significant correlations
with individual components of the FMS and certain ath-
letic performance indicators. The DS test had positive
correlation to: bilateral vertical jump (r = 0.37), bilateral
standing broad jump (r = 0.39), standing broad jump left
(r = 0.45), and lateral jump left (r = 0.52). The IL Test pos-
itively correlated with the bilateral standing broad jump
(r = 0.42), standing broad jump left (r = 0.32), lateral jump
left (r = 0.50), and lateral jump right (r = 0.38). However,
the variance of these correlations was low (<27%). The
majority of correlations with components of the FMS were
insignificant.
Okada, Huxel, and Nesser examined the predictive value
and relationship between core stability, functional move-
ment, and athletic performance in 28 healthy, male and
female, recreational athletes (age = 24.4 ± 3.4 years).22 The
Physical Therapy Reviews 2016 5
Girard et al. Does the functional movement screen correlate with athletic performance?
index reference was the standard FMS. The athletic perfor-
mance reference standards were the Backward Overhead
Medicine Ball (BOMB) throw, T-Run (TR), and single leg
squat (SLS). There was no indication that the composite
FMS score correlated with any of the athletic performance
standards. However, individual components of the FMS
correlated with different athletic performance standards.
BOMB test correlations included: positive correlations
of core stability push-up (r = 0.4), the HS R (r = 0.415),
and negative correlations with SM Right (r = −0.388).
TR test correlations included negative correlations: HS
Right (r = −0.518), IL Left (r = −0.462), and SM Right
(r = −0.392). There was a negative correlation between
the SM Right and the SLS performance test (r = −0.446).
Despite these modest correlations, the authors concluded
that FMS is not useful for predicting performance.
Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was to examine if
the FMS correlates with enhanced athletic performance.
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to
specifically examine this phenomenon. Kraus, Schutz and
Taylor et al., in a general review, analyzed some aspects of
the FMS and athletic performance and concluded that the
FMS is limited in ability to predict athletic performance.12
There have been recent contributions to the literature that
warrant additional systematic review.
There have been systematic reviews that analyzed the
relationship between FMS and athletic injury rates. Dorrel,
Long and Shaffer et al., in a meta-analysis and systematic
review, demonstrated that the FMS has a positive predic-
tive value of 42.8% and the authors concluded that the
study findings did not support FMS as a valid predictor of
athletic injuries.10 Although other studies suggest that the
FMS may be useful in identifying what individuals may
be at risk for sports-induced injury, the Dorel, Long and
Shaffer study is the only meta-analysis to examine that
particular phenomenon.
The most interesting finding of the current review is
that in most of the included studies there was not any
significant correlation between composite FMS scores and
athletic performance reference standards. This suggests
that the FMS is not useful as a diagnostic test for athletic
performance. It is interesting that the functional movement
patterns articulated by the FMS were not consistent with
the commonly used athletic performance index measures
in these studies. It is possible that the components of the
FMS do not capture the essential, functional movement
components utilized by many athletic activities.
It could be that the FMS is too general in construct
and is not comprehensive enough to capture the particular
movement patterns essential to individual sports. The FMS
patterns are relatively gross, movement patterns and might
not detect the subtlety of many sports actions. Additionally
the gross motor actions of the FMS might not be function-
ally analogous to live-sports movement patterns.
6 Physical Therapy Reviews 2016
Another reason is that the FMS analyzes movement
patterns in isolated conditions and at decreased speeds and
might not adequately express the dynamic nature of many
sports activities. The relatively slow nature of the FMS
analysis method might be an accurate indicator of the same
gross functional pattern that is performed at higher speed
or under the stress of competition. In short, the method of
performing the FMS might not accurately correlate with
real world conditions.
One study did find a correlation between composite
FMS score and longitudinal athletic performance tracked
over a season.18 One singular difference between this
study and the other studies was the subject composition.
All subjects in this study were highly elite, track and field
athletes of whom 86% were ranked in the top 100 for their
respective events and 45% of the subjects were ranked in
the top 20 in their respective event in 2010. Although the
subjects in the other studies were athletes, there is no indi-
cation that the other subjects were on a similar elite level.
Another feature of this study is that the same correlative
results did not bear out when adjusted for female athletes.
Similarly, another study found a correlation to composite
FMS scores and the T-test in healthy, male athletes. 20
Despite these modest findings, the majority of analyses
indicated insignificant findings between composite FMS
scores and athletic performance indicators.
Because the FMS analysis uses a composite or sum
score, it is assumed that the FMS is one dimensional and
can be used to assess the same construct. This requires
strong internal consistency between all components of the
FMS. A study by Li, Wang and Chen et.al., using explor-
atory factor analysis, concluded that the FMS has low
internal consistency with a Cronbach α score of 0.58.23
This indicates an inherent lack of meaning of the compos-
ite FMS score as well indicating low internal reliability.
Although this study demonstrates that the FMS composite
score has low internal consistency, the authors stated that
each component of the FMS had a unique function and
that focusing more on the scores of the individual FMS
components would be more useful and accurate for pre-
dictive use than using the composite or sum FMS score.23
Although the FMS as an index test did not significantly
correlate with athletic performance reference standards
in most of the included studies, individual components
of the FMS, such as the DS, did demonstrate significant
correlation with certain athletic performance measures
in certain studies. One study whose subjects consisted
of elite track and field athletes, discovered that subjects
who scored a three on the DS had significantly larger sea-
son improvement compared to subjects with a lower DS
score (p < 0.05).18 Two other studies, both of whom had
active, healthy young males as subjects, demonstrated
positive correlations between the DS and athletic perfor-
mance indicators: 505 Change of Direction Test (p = 0.05),
bilateral vertical jump (r = 0.37), bilateral standing broad
jump (r = 0. 39), standing broad jump left (r = 0.45),
 Girard et al. Does the functional movement screen correlate with athletic performance?
and lateral jump left (r = 0.52).20,21 Additionally, the IL
component showed certain correlations with the bilateral
standing broad jump (r = 0.42), standing broad jump left
(r = 0.32), lateral jump left (r = 0.50), and lateral jump
right (r = 0.38).21
The most probable reason for this is that the func-
tional pattern of the DS and IL were analogous to the
movement demands of these particular index tests. Both
the DS and the IL demand requisite amount of lower
kinetic chain mobility and stability that might also be a
functional requisite of many athletic activities. A study
that examined changes in FMS scores over an athletic
season in collegiate volleyball and soccer players found
that composite FMS scores did not correlate with main
effects for time or sport but certain individual com-
ponents: DS and IL, improved throughout the season
(p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively).15 This suggests
a relationship between athletic activity, DS, and IL but
does not show which variable effects the other, nor does
it show exactly what this relationship might mean to
sports performance. A separate study that examined
relationships between the IL component of the FMS as a
stand-alone entity found no significant relationship with
the study variables: center of pressure, maximum jump
height, and 36.6 m sprint test.24 The general findings of
these studies suggest that more research is required to
substantiate the correlative or predictive use of these
individual components of the FMS.
FMS composite scores have been found to increase
with corrective training programs. Bodden, Needham,
and Chockalingam reported a significant increase in
FMS scores using a corrective training program between
intervention and control groups in mixed-martial art ath-
letes (p = 0.006).25 Kiesel, Plisky, and Butler reported a
significant increase in FMS scores in American football
players after an off-season corrective training program
(p < 0.01).26 These findings indicate that a ‘teaching to
the test’ method, in this case the FMS, increases the test
(FMS) scores. The problem remains that the FMS has
not yet been proven to correlate with performance in
athletic endeavors. Studies that specifically analyze cor-
relation of the FMS to mixed martial arts or American
football performance are needed to accurately deter-
mine if the FMS is a reliable indicator of performance
in these activities.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this systematic review.
Despite the intentions of the authors, applicable studies
may have been missed putting this review at risk for
retrieval bias. Retractor bias is another risk as one author
made the final decision on study inclusion. All of the stud-
ies included in this review used small sample sizes which
indicate potentially low statistical power to detect effects
and create the potential for type II error.
Conclusion
The results of this review suggest that composite FMS
scores do not correlate with athletic performance.
Individual components of the FMS, such as the DS, might
be correlative for certain athletic performance measures.
All of the included studies had small sample sizes which
reduce statistical power. Larger, sports-specific studies or
studies that measure individual component tasks of the
FMS with athletic performance are needed to determine
the usefulness of this screening tool.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Notes on Contributors
Joe Girard is an assistant professor at Franklin Pierce
University in the Department of Physical Therapy.
Megan Quigley is a student physical therapist at Franklin
Pierce University.
Frank Helfst is a student physical therapist at Franklin
Pierce University.
References
1 Smith DJ. A framework for understanding the training process leading
to elite performance. Am J Sports Med. 2003 Dec 1;33(15):1103–26.
PubMed PMID: 14719980.
2 Little T, Williams AG. Specificity of acceleration, maximum speed,
and agility in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
Feb 1;19(1):76–8. PubMed PMID: 15705049.
3 Kollock R, Van Lunen BL, Ringleb SI, Onate JA. Measures of
functional performance and their association with hip and thigh
strength. J Athl Train. 2015 Jan;50(1):14–22. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.49. PubMed PMID: 25347236; PubMed
Central PMCID: PMC4299729.
4 Alemdaroğlu U. The relationship between muscle strength, anaerobic
performance, agility, sprint ability and vertical jump performance in
professional basketball players. J Hum Kinet. 2012 Mar;1(31):149–
58. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.247/v10078-012-0016-6. PubMed PMID:
23486566; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3588656.
5 Zagatto AM, Beck WR, Gobatto CA. Validity of the running anaerobic
sprint test for assessing anaerobic power and predicting short-distance
performances. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Sep 1;23(6):1820–7. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b012e318b3df32. PubMed PMID:
19675478.
6 McGill SM, Andersen JT, Horne AD. Predicting performance and injury
resilience from movement quality and fitness scores in a basketball
team over 2 years. J Strength Cond Red. 2012 Jul 1;26(7):1731–9. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182576a76. PubMed PMID:
22505125.
7 Myer GD, Ford KR, Palumbo OP, Hewett TE. Neuromuscular training
improves performance and lower-extremity biomechanics in female
athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Feb 1;19(1):51–60. PubMed
PMID: 15705045.
8 Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation screening: the
use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function–part 1.
North Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2006 May;1(2):62–72. PubMed PMID:
21522216; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2953313.
9 Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation screening: the
use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function–Part
2. North Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2006 Aug;1(3):132–139. PudMed
PMID: 21522225; PudMed Central PMCID: PMC2953359.
10 Dorrel BS, Long T, Shaffer S, Myer GD. Evaluation of the
functional movement screen as an injury prediction tool among
active adult populations a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sports Health. 2015 Nov–Dec;7(6): 532–7. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1941738115607445. PudMed PMID: 26502447;
PudMed Central PMCID: PMC4622382.
Physical Therapy Reviews 2016 7
Girard et al. Does the functional movement screen correlate with athletic performance?
11 Shultz R, Anderson SC, Matheson GO, Marcello B, Besier T. Test–
retest and interrater reliability of the functional movement screen.
J Athl Train. 2013 May–June;48(3):331–6. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.4085/1062-48.11. PudMed PMID: 23675792; PubMed Central
PMCID: PMC3655746.
12 Kraus K, Schütz E, Taylor WR, Doyscher R. Efficacy of the
functional movement screen: a review. J Strength Cond Red.
2014 Dec 1;28(12):3571–84. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/
JSC.0000000000000556. PubMed PMID: 24918299.
13 Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight ML. Can serious injury in professional
football be predicted by a preseason functional movement screen.
North Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2007 Aug;2(3):147–58. PudMed PMID:
21522210; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2953296.
14 Chorba RS, Chorba DJ, Bouillon LE, Overmyer CA, Landis JA. Use
of a functional 343 movement screening tool to determine injury
risk in female collegiate athletes. North Am J Sports Phys Ther.
2010 June;5(2):47–54. PubMed PMID: 21589661; PudMed Central
PMCID: PMC2953387.
15 Sprague PA, Mokha GM, Gatens DR. Changes in functional movement
screen scores over a season in collegiate soccer and volleyball athletes.
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Nov 1;28(11):3155–63. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000506. PudMed PMID: 24796980.
16 Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ,
Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality
assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011
Oct 18;155(8):529–36. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-
8-201110180-00009. PudMed PMID: 22007046.
17 Parchman CJ, McBride JM. Relationship between functional
movement screen and athletic performance. J Strength Cond
Res. 2011 Dec;25(12):3378–84. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/
JSC.0b013e318238e916. PudMed PMID: 21964425.
18 Chapman RF, Laymon AS, Arnold T. Functional movement scores and
longitudinal performance outcomes in elite track and field athletes. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014 Mar 1;9(2):203–11. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1123/ijspp.2012-0329. PubMed PMID: 23630121.
19 Lockie RG, Schultz AB, Callaghan SJ, Jordan CA, Luczo TM, Jeffriess
MD. A preliminary investigation into the relationship between
functional movement screen scores and athletic physical performance
8 Physical Therapy Reviews 2016
in female team sport athletes. Biol Sport. 2015 Mar;32(1):41–51.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/20831862.1127281. PubMed PMID:
25729149; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4314603.
20 Lockie RG, Schultz AB, Jordan CA, Callaghan SJ, Jeffriess
MD, Luczo TM. Can selected functional movement screen
assessments be used to identify movement deficiencies that
could affect multidirectional speed and jump performance?
J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Jan 1;29(1):195–205. doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000613. PubMed PMID:
25028993.
21 Lockie RG, Jalilvand F, Jordan CA, Callaghan SJ, Jeffriess MD,
Luczo TM, et al. Research-grade scoring for the functional movement
ccreen and relationships with athletic performance tests in team sport
athletes. J Athl Enhancement. 2015 Mar;4(1):14–17. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.4172/2324-9080.1000188.
22 Okada T, Huxel KC, Nesser TW. Relationship between core
stability, functional movement, and performance. J Strength Cond
Res. 2011 Jan 1;25(1):252–61. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181b22b3e. PubMed PMID: 20179652.
23 Li Y, Wang X, Chen X, Dai B. Exploratory factor analysis of the
functional movement screen in elite athletes. J Sports Sci. 2015 Jul
3;33(11):1166–72. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.98
6505. PubMed PMID: 25465117.
24 Hartigan EH, Lawrence M, Bisson BM, Torgerson E, Knight RC.
Relationship of the functional movement screen in-line lunge to power,
speed, and balance measures. Sports Health. 2014 May;6(3):197–202.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1941738114522412. PubMed PMID:
24790688; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4000474.
25 Bodden JG, Needham RA, Chockalingam N. The effect of an
intervention program on functional movement screen test scores in
mixed martial arts athletes. J Strength Cond Red. 2015 Jan 1;29(1):219–
25. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182a480bf. PubMed
PMID: 23860293.
26 Kiesel K, Plisky P, Butler R. Functional movement test scores
improve following a standardized off-season intervention program
in professional football players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011
Apr 1;21(2):287–92. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-
0838.2009.01038.x. PubMed PMID: 20030782.