ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2023
The Functional Movement Screen: Exploring Interrater Reliability between Raters in the Updated Version.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tensiomyography, functional movement screen and counter movement jump for the assessment of injury risk in sport: a systematic review of original studies of diagnostic tests.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Pooled it
- Physical activity and movement quality among health sciences students: an exploratory cross-sectional study.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Interrater Reliability of Functional Movement Screening Test among Untrained Undergraduate Raters Undergoing a One-off Training Session.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrative function of proprioceptive system in the acute effects of whole body vibration on the movement performance in young adults.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) was updated by adding the ankle clearing test and modifying the rotary stability movement pattern and scoring criteria. This updated FMS™ may be used to support clinical decisions for the well-being of athletes and active adults. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if the updated FMS™ has acceptable interrater reliability, so that various practitioners can utilize it with their patients. Study Design: Observational Laboratory Study. Methods: Two licensed Physical Therapists (PTs) conducted the testing for the study. No warmup was allowed for the participants. Each participant underwent one FMS™ session while being recorded on video lasting approximately 15 minutes. Participants were allowed three attempts to complete each movement pattern with the best score recorded. The participants, 45 healthy active PT students, were taken through the FMS™ by a licensed PT and videotaped. The raters were four second-year PT students that observed and scored the FMS independently after videotaping was completed. SPSS was used for the interrater reliability analysis. ICC was calculated using a 2-way mixed model looking for absolute agreement. Results: The interrater reliability was highest for the rotary stability test (ICC 0.96) while the deep squat was the least reliable (ICC 0.78). The total scores showed excellent reliability among the four student raters with an ICC of 0.95. The updated FMS™ produced good to excellent interrater reliability. Conclusion: The updated FMS™ has acceptable interrater reliability between minimally, but adequately trained individuals. The updated FMS™ may be reliably used to assess risk for future injury. Level of Evidence: 3.
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.