On appraisal , the MCS , M4-MS , and SIMS seem to provide the most practical value for assessing movement quality as they provide the strongest reports of developmental rigor and an identifiable evidence base .
In addition , considering the evidence provided , these tools may have the strongest potential for identifying performance capabilities and guiding exercise prescription in athletic and sport-specific population
Abstract Bennett , H , Davison , K , Arnold , J , Slattery , F , Martin , M , and Norton , K. Multicomponent musculoskeletal movement assessment tools : a systematic review and critical appraisal of their development and applicability to professional practice .
J Strength Cond Res 31(10 ) : 2903–2919 , 2017—Multicomponent movement assessment tools have become commonplace to measure movement quality , proposing to indicate injury risk and performance capabilities .
Despite popular use , there has been no attempt to compare the components of each tool reported in the literature , the processes in which they were developed , or the underpinning rationale for their included content .
As such , the objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive summary of current movement assessment tools and appraise the evidence supporting their development .
Association of the Functional Movement Screen with injuries in division I athletes.
CONTEXT The Functional Movement Screen ( FMS ) evaluates performance in 7 fundamental movement patterns using a 4-point scale . Previous studies have reported increased injury risk with a composite score ( CS ) of 14/21 or less ; these studies were limited to specific sports and injury definition . OBJECTIVE To examine the association between  FMS CS and movement pattern scores and acute noncontact and overuse musculoskeletal injuries in division I college athletes . An exploratory objective was to assess the association between injury and FMS movement pattern asymmetry . DESIGN Prospect i ve cohort . SETTING College athletic facilities . PARTICIPANTS 167 injury-free , college basketball , football , volleyball , cross country , track and field , swimming/ diving , soccer , golf , and tennis athletes ( males = 89 ) . INTERVENTION The FMS was administered during pre-participation examination . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Noncontact or overuse injuries that required intervention from the athletic trainer during the sport season . RESULTS FMS CS was not different between those injured ( n = 74 ; 14.3 ± 2.5 ) and those not ( 14.1 ± 2.4 ; P = .57 ) . No point on the ROC curve maximized sensitivity and specificity ; therefore previously published cut-point was used for analysis with injury ( ≤ 14 [ n = 92 ] ) . After adjustment , no statistically significant association between FMS CS and injury ( odds ratio [ OR ] = 1.01 , 95 % CI 0.53 - 1.91 ) existed . Lunge was the only movement pattern that was associated with injury ; those scoring 2 were less likely to have an injury vs those who scored 3 ( OR = 0.21 , 95 % CI 0.08 - 0.59 ) . There was also no association between FMS movement pattern asymmetry and injury .  CONCLUSION FMS CS , movement patterns , and asymmetry were poor predictors of noncontact and overuse injury in this cohort of division I athletes
On appraisal , the MCS , M4-MS , and SIMS seem to provide the most practical value for assessing movement quality as they provide the strongest reports of developmental rigor and an identifiable evidence base .
In addition , considering the evidence provided , these tools may have the strongest potential for identifying performance capabilities and guiding exercise prescription in athletic and sport-specific population
Abstract Bennett , H , Davison , K , Arnold , J , Slattery , F , Martin , M , and Norton , K. Multicomponent musculoskeletal movement assessment tools : a systematic review and critical appraisal of their development and applicability to professional practice .
J Strength Cond Res 31(10 ) : 2903–2919 , 2017—Multicomponent movement assessment tools have become commonplace to measure movement quality , proposing to indicate injury risk and performance capabilities .
Despite popular use , there has been no attempt to compare the components of each tool reported in the literature , the processes in which they were developed , or the underpinning rationale for their included content .
As such , the objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive summary of current movement assessment tools and appraise the evidence supporting their development .