## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Items**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Range of Motion Variables**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Nagelkerke R\({}^{2}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**1**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Deep squat} & **S-SHAB** & & 13.81 (5.82) & 20.84 (8.02) & 21.36 (7.23) \\  & **PT** & 0.825 & 23.87 (6.30) & 26.51 (9.28) & 29.81 (12.68) \\  & S-ThF & & 118.50 (22.38) & 118.08 (17.32) & 101.34 (20.07) \\  & **TR** & & 5.83 (1.46) & 7.27 (2.52) & 8.56 (3.68) \\ \hline Hurdle step & **HR** & 0.189 & 12.60 (6.19) & 12.85 (9.30) & 21.61 (18.16) \\ \hline In-line lunge & **TF** & 0.441 & 11.91 (5.27) & 16.96 (8.15) & 41.62 (12.76) \\ \hline Active straight leg raise & **S-ThF** & & 96.76 (14.05) & 89.48 (16.78) & 69.91 (16.34) \\  & **PT** & & 18.89 (25.66) & 26.10 (24.39) & 34.44 (31.13) \\ \hline Push up & **TF** & & 21.62(7.10) & 22.58(7.91) & 34.53(12.83) \\  & S-SR & & 88.73(21.22) & 81.06(36.00) & 63.37(33.97) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Rotary stability} & **NS-SR** & & - & 66.37 (45.54) & 90.66 (66.37) \\  & **S-SF** & 0.343 & - & 81.20 (31.24) & 99.06 (29.94) \\ \cline{1-1}  & S-ThF & & - & 36.16 (19.58) & 27.74 (9.22) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Bold font indicates that the regression model coefficient is negative, which is negatively correlated with the score.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Ordinal logistic regression model of 6 FMS exercises: the selected range of motion variables and their angle values (mean (SD)) in each scoring grade. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Manual Scoring**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Automatic Scoring**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **3** & **2** & **1** & **Average** & **3** & **2** & **1** & **Average** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Deep Squat} & \(N=20\) & \(N=18\) & \(N=32\) & & \(N=19\) & \(N=17\) & \(N=34\) \\  & (28.57\%) & (25.71\%) & (45.71\%) & 1.83 (0.85) & (27.14\%) & (24.29\%) & (48.57\%) \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(N=5\) & \(N=47\) & \(N=18\) & 1.81 (0.55) & \(N=4\) & \(N=57\) & \(N=9\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & (7.14\%) & (67.14\%) & (25.71\%) & (5.71\%) & (5.71\%) & (81.43\%) & (12.86\%) & \\ \cline{1-1} In-line Lunge & \(N=9\) & \(N=54\) & \(N=7\) & 2.03 (0.48) & \(N=2\) & \(N=63\) & \(N=5\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & (12.86\%) & (77.14\%) & (10.00\%) & & (2.86\%) & (90.00\%) & (7.14\%) & 1.96 (0.32) \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(N=34\) & \(N=25\) & \(N=11\) & 2.33 (0.74) & \(N=39\) & \(N=23\) & \(N=8\) & \\ \cline{1-1}  & (48.57\%) & (35.71\%) & (15.71\%) & & (55.71\%) & (32.86\%) & (11.43\%) & 2.44 (0.69) \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(N=24\) & \(N=8\) & \(N=38\) & 1.80 (0.93) & \(N=27\) & \(N=6\) & \(N=37\) & \\ \cline{1-1} Push up & (34.29\%) & (11.43\%) & (54.29\%) & & (38.57\%) & (8.57\%) & (52.86\%) & 1.86 (0.95) \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \(N=43\) & \(N=27\) & 1.61 (0.49) & - & \(N=48\) & \(N=22\) & \\ \cline{1-1} Rotary Stability & - & (61.43\%) & (38.57\%) & 1.61 (0.49) & - & (68.57\%) & (31.43\%) & 1.69 (0.47) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The average scores of the six functional movement screen (FMS) tests graded by the professional athlete trainer and automatic grading system (mean \(\pm\) SD) and the number and classification rate in each class. As Table 5 shows, the best and worst classification results before feature selection were approximately 91% and 66% in the trunk stability pushup and active straight leg raise tests, respectively. The best and worst classification results after feature selection were approximately 79% and 57% in the in-line lunge and active straight leg raise tests, respectively. Following feature selection, the accuracy of the predictive model was reduced by 2%-20%. The degree of agreement of the deep squat, active straight leg raise, and trunk stability pushup tests dropped from good to moderate, moderate to fair, and very good to moderate, respectively. That of the hurdle step, in-line lunge, and rotary stability tests did not change.