ArticleJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2022
Feasibility and reliability of the Functional Movement Screen battery in adults with intellectual disability.
Article in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2022. 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.
- When reliability is not reliable: meaningful errors despite large reliability values.European journal of applied physiology · 2025Article
- Feasibility and reliability of the Functional Movement Screen battery in adults with intellectual disability.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe feasibility and reliability of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) battery for predicting injury risk have been widely studied in athletic, military, public service and healthy populations. However, scant research has been carried out in people with disabilities. This study aimed at identifying the feasibility and reliability of the FMS battery when administered to adults with intellectual disability (ID).
methodsAdults from a residential and day care centre over 18 years of age, diagnosed with ID and able to follow simple instructions, were included in the study. All participants with behavioural or health problems that prevented the completion of the FMS battery were excluded. All exercises were video recorded to assure proper scoring. Three assessors (one trained and two novices) scored each of the FMS subtests performed separately from the videos. Feasibility was based on completion rates. Reliability of the composite test scores was analysed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
resultsA total of 30 people with ID (mean age: 35.5 ± 7.12 years; 33.3% women) completed all assessments. The battery showed to be feasible, although difficulties when performing two of the subtests were observed among those with moderate and severe ID. Mean total scores from the three assessors ranged from 7.83 to 8.90. An inverse trend was observed indicating that the higher the ID level, the lower the total FMS score. Test-retest reliability was good for the trained assessor (ICC = 0.89) and mostly moderate for both novice assessors (ICC range: 0.60 to 0.76). Moderate to good inter-rater reliability was observed (ICC range: 0.65 to 0.80).
conclusionThe FMS battery is a reliable tool that can be performed by people with ID, albeit with certain difficulties, especially in those with moderate to severe impairment. The battery does not seem to be useful for identifying people with ID at risk of suffering a sport injury. Adequately powered, well-designed studies are required to determine if the FMS battery is appropriate for identifying changes in functional performance in this population.
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.