ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2025
Investigating the validity and reliability of the functional movement screening tool in tennis.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Correlation Between Functional Movement Screen Scores and Self-Reported Injury History Among Competitive Male Padel Players: A Cross-Sectional Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, researchers use functional movement tests and especially the functional movement screen (FMS) as a screening tool to prevent injuries in sports. However, limited studies are available to strongly support the validity and reliability of the FMS in different sports populations. Therefore, the FMS does not seem to be a comprehensive FMS tool in order to investigate asymmetry and limitations in all sports. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to design and evaluate the validity and reliability of the screening tool for functional movements in tennis.
methodsTo determine validity and reliability, the results obtained from semi-structured and in-depth interviews with 18 tennis experts were used, which led to the selection of 27 tests out of 108 initial tests. Face validity was evaluated by 10 tennis players, content validity by 10 experts in this field, and construct validity of the questionnaire by 234 tennis players. The reliability of tool was estimated by test-retest method at a time interval of 2 weeks on samples consisting of 20 tennis players using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsBased on the results obtained from the calculation of the content validity ratio, 21 out of 27 tests had a content validity ratio higher than 0.62 and the rest of the tests were excluded. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) extracted two latent factors that explained 54.05% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the final construct model. The reliability of the tool was estimated: 95% CI: 0.53-0.92, p = 0.001, ICC = 0.91.
conclusionThe FMS tool designed for tennis had acceptable validity and reliability with the aim of investigating asymmetry and limitations in this sport. Factor analysis showed that considering the correct features of psychometrics, this tool can be used as a predictor of injury in tennis.
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.