Comments on: Research Review: Interrater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen

By: Mark Young Training Systems » » FMS Interview with Dr. Robert Butler

Mark Young Training Systems » » FMS Interview with Dr. Robert Butler — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:14:03 +0000

[...] Interrater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen [...]

By: Bret Contreras » Good Reads for the Week

Bret Contreras » Good Reads for the Week — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:12:51 +0000

[...] In this blog, Mark Young discusses a study conducted on the [...]

By: Mark Young Training Systems » » Research Review – Functional Movement Test Scores Improve Following a Standardized Off-Season Intervention Program in Professional Football Players

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:11:52 +0000

[...] Interrater Reliability of the Functional Movement Screen [...]

By: Don’t miss these great links!

Don’t miss these great links! — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:05:56 +0000

[...] to link to Bret Contreras and Keats Snideman talking about the Functional Movement Screen. Mark Young has looked into some of the research that has been done on the screen with a critical [...]

By: Lee Burton

Lee Burton — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:57:52 +0000

Mark, Thanks for a very honest and fair review of the FMS Reliability Study. We are continuing to work with other University and groups to conduct more research, most of, if not all of the research being conducted is indepedent of Gray and myself. There are numerous research studies under-way as well as others that have been completed and are being written up for publication. So please be on the look out for more research on this system. The FMS was designed as a complement to other tests, and assessments, it simply allows the professional a different perspective on fundamental movements. Thanks again for the review and please keep the comments coming.

By: Good Reads for the Week « Bret's Blog

Good Reads for the Week « Bret's Blog — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:02:25 +0000

[...] In this blog, Mark Young discusses a study conducted on the [...]

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:25:54 +0000

Why do we assume that there’s something wrong with being a bit “crooked”? Is there good evidence, or is it just assumed? And if your “imbalance” is so subtle that you NEED FMS to find it, is it really a problem? I mean, if you are so out of balance that it’s causing problems, wouldn’t it be more plain to see and therefore not need something like FMS? Where is the evidence that it is effective for the client? Personally, I think it’s likely a very ineffective tool.

Bill

By: markyoung

markyoung — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:47:46 +0000

@ Jeff – That is excellent!!! More research is definitely needed in this area as I anticipate the popularity of the FMS is going to continue to rise. If you get this off the ground I’d love to be involved in the methodology discussion if you’re interested.

@ Roadrunner – I wouldn’t go so far as to assume that bias did play a role. But we certainly can’t rule it out either which is why independent studies like the one Jeff mentioned would be incredibly valuable.

@ Steven – Assessments are all subject to some degree of error which is why it is smartest to use more than just one. Differences of mm are hard to reliably detect.

@ Pete – You make a great point about sticking to the rules. This is something I failed to take into account. Good catch.

@ Alex – Those who use the FMS frequently will tell you that the macro movements are the fundamental movement patterns and that the FMS is not intended to specifically diagnose from those movements, but to identify issues. Beyond that, you can break them down and identify the issues within the movement. At least that is my understanding.

By: Alex Rutherford

Alex Rutherford — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:06:51 +0000

I totally agree that the more momentum something gets the less likely we are to question it. My issue with the FMS is that it looks at macro movements to try to evaluate micro issues. Since each movement is a giant orchestration of multiple muscles it is impossible to properly assess what is happening in the individual. Without looking specifically at each joint how can you acurately decide what is causing the deviation. I believe the FMS to be better than most assessment tools but still lacking.

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:55:26 +0000

Mark-

I appreciate this article. As you know I am FMS certified. I enjoyed the FMS as it opened my eyes to many possibilities. I do not intend to defend it, it should be explored. I also think it should be looked at as a tool, a welder to me is just a welder but to an artist it is what creates art and sculpture.

I think those who use the FMS the best use much more than the FMS. They tend to use it to check their eyes and their work, they use it either in the beginning to look for more direction in an assessment or the end to confirm things they have found on the table. To use it well takes time and experience and collaboration with other tool and reading things unrelated to the FMS, to gain perspective.

“The most surprising thing to me was that the novice raters tended to have more agreement with each other than the expert raters. You’d expect that over time your ratings would become more similar than different.”
Your above quote is not that surprising to me at all. The more you watch the more you see and forget that for the confines of the test you need to follow the rules. Again however for those that use it best I dont know that the numbers really matter as they are looking at much more.

I am hopeful that those who take the FMS do not think that it is the be all end all, I hope that they continue on to study and explore past the baseline. I hope those that jump on board as you mention continue on for the long hall.

Good stuff Mark.