ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2021
Item-level and Composite-level Interrater Reliability of Functional Movement Screen™ Scores Following Condensed Training in Novice Raters.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combining Static and Dynamic Myofascial Dry Cupping Therapy to Improve Local and Regional Symptoms in Individuals with Low Back Pain: A Case Series.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2024Article
- Self-Movement Screening using the Symmio Application is Reliable and Valid for Identifying Musculoskeletal Risk Factors.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023Article
- Novice Inter-Rater Reliability on the Selective Functional Movement Assessment (SFMA) After a 4-Hour Training Session.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) is a clinical instrument designed to use movement behaviors to screen individuals for injury risk. Current rater certification programs focus on extensive, individualized training, which may not be appropriate in all screening contexts. PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to examine the effect of a two-hour FMS STUDY
designRepeated measures, descriptive cohort study.
methodsFour novice raters completed a two-hour training course administered by an FMS™-certified, licensed physical therapist. The novices and the instructor then scored a group of 16 individuals on the seven FMS™ component tests on two separate occasions. Interrater reliability was assessed for FMS™ component scores using Fleiss' kappa and Krippendorff's α. Interrater reliability for the FMS™ composite score was assessed using a two-way ICC for agreement (a priori significance level=0.05).
resultsReliability ranged from fair to almost perfect (kappa) for Deep Squat (0.61 Day 1, 0.79 Day 2), Shoulder Mobility (0.90 Day 1, 1.00 Day 2), Active Straight Leg Raise (0.53 Day 1, 0.69 Day 2), and Trunk Stability Push Up (0.48 Day 1, 0.49 Day 2) on both testing occurrences (p<0.05). Reliability (kappa) was fair for Inline Lunge (0.24 Day 1, 0.39 Day 2), and poor for Hurdle Step (Day 1 -0.01, Day 2 no result) and Rotary Stability (Day 1 -0.03, Day 2 -0.01). Results for Krippendorff's α were similar, with unacceptable interrater reliability for Hurdle Step (Day 1 -0.01, Day 2 1.00), Inline Lunge (Day 1 0.31, Day 2 0.39), and Rotary Stability (Day 1 -0.02, Day 2 -0.01). Interrater composite score reliability (ICC) was good (0.79 Day 1, 0.84 Day 2; both p<0.05).
conclusionsFindings suggest that a brief training seminar may be sufficient to ensure acceptable reliability in many, but not all, of the FMS™ component tests and composite score. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level 2b.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.