
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

38439769
92906
10.26603/001c.92906
Clinical Commentary/Current Concept Review
Suggestions and Considerations for Application of Movement Screens to Clinical Practice
Skibski Andrew 1
Onate James 2
Mangum L. Colby 1
1 Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences University of Central Florida https://ror.org/036nfer12
2 Health and Rehabilitation Sciences The Ohio State University https://ror.org/00rs6vg23
Corresponding Author: L. Colby Mangum, PhD, ATC; 4364 Scorpius Street, HS II Room 235, Orlando, FL, 32816; 407-823-2795 (office); 407-823-2596 (fax); lauren.mangum@ucf.edu
2 3 2024
2024
19 3 351354
10 7 2023
12 1 2024
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Pre-participation and return to activity functional assessments are commonly used in clinical practice to assess movement quality and identify athletes’ limitations. While there are slight differences between each specific test battery, general guidelines suggest that the tests be completed without a warm-up. This has been suggested because dynamic stretching may improve range of motion and athletic performance. However, athletes typically warm up prior to participating in sport. Therefore, researchers should investigate the acute effects of dynamic stretching on functional tests and movement screens and evaluate other factors that may influence performance on these test batteries. Scientific evidence for standardized implementation of various movement screens is lacking, and future research should aim to identify gaps in the literature to allow clinicians to properly implement evidence-based practice functional assessments. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss various considerations for implementing movement screens and assessment tools into clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5

athlete assessment
pre-participation examination
standardization
warm-up
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
==== Body
pmcTHE PROBLEM

Clinicians (e.g., physical therapists, athletic trainers, and strength coaches) often implement movement screens or functional assessments into their practice. These screens and assessments can be used as clinical tools to examine athletes’ or patients’ physical capabilities including strength, flexibility, coordination, and endurance. Examples of common tools used with athletes include the Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™)1,2 and Athletic Ability Assessment (AAA)3 along with numerous return to activity assessments to gauge readiness for sport or job demands. Sport-specific and population-specific movement screens also exist, such as the Titleist Performance Institute (TPI) screen,4 Gymnastics Functional Measurement Tool,5 and military fitness screening.6

While the specific components of these evaluations may vary, there are some common aspects. Typical screens require minimal equipment and can be quickly performed in a clinical setting to test aspects of fitness and/or movement important to individuals’ sport, occupation, or daily life. Generally, the clinician demonstrates and verbally explains the test or movement prior to the individual’s attempt, and tests are scored on an ordinal scale based on the ability to properly complete a movement without compensations or pain. Composite scores are created from the sum of individual tests within the screen, with some research suggesting cutoff scores for injury risk in certain populations. For example, a score at or below 14 on the FMS™ has been linked to increased injury rates,7 while other authors have disputed the utility of this cutoff score.8 The overhead squat is frequently included in movement screens, and is a component of the FMS™, AAA, and TPI screen. Overhead squat performance has been linked to composite FMS™ scores, suggesting this test may be of particular value.9

A common thread between these tools is the lack of a designated or specified warm-up. The FMS™ and TPI screen both instruct clinicians to avoid allowing participants to stretch or warm up prior to the test. Their creators suggest that athletes should be able to properly complete the test components without stretching or specifically preparing their bodies for movement, and a designated warm-up would likely improve test scores. While this reasoning has merit, clinicians and researchers should contemplate the opposing view. Consider an individual who presents with limited shoulder mobility on the FMS™ without a warm-up. The clinician may believe this is an area needing intervention. However, individuals often complete some form of a warm-up routine prior to participating in their activity. If the athlete performs a dynamic stretch which increases their short-term flexibility and they no longer present with an apparent mobility restriction, they likely are not impaired by this restriction during their sport. Increasing range of motion when it is not necessary not only wastes time for the athlete and clinician, but it may also hinder performance. A rehabilitation program focused on increasing shoulder flexibility in an athlete without a need for more range of motion could eventually progress into shoulder hypermobility, which may increase injury risk.10

Aside from warm-up status, other factors may impact scoring on movement screens and test batteries, such as fatigue, rater training, reliability, and variability of verbal cues provided to athletes. Some of these factors have been studied extensively, while other areas are lacking evidence, but all should be contemplated. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss various considerations for implementing movement screens and assessment tools into clinical practice.

THE SOLUTION

Since dynamic stretching or warm-up routines are commonly completed prior to exercise or sport participation and may lead to acute gains in range of motion, in the authors’ opinions, clinicians should mirror real-world scenarios when assessing their athletes or patients. In the above scenario with a baseball player presenting with limited range of motion on the shoulder mobility tests of the FMS™, a simple warm-up prior to the performance of the FMS™ could reveal the athlete does not have an impairment in the tested movement. Screening tests are often done before practice or on off days and mimicking their practice or game warm-up may provide a more realistic understanding of an athlete’s capabilities.

Substantial evidence has examined the effects of various stretching and warm-up routines on athletic performance and physical abilities. Dynamic stretching can increase joint range of motion, reduce muscle stiffness, and increase force production when compared to static and ballistic stretches, with both acute and chronic adaptations possible.11 Dynamic stretches can be brief activities completed prior to exercise, can mimic the specific demands of their sport, and do not have a substantial time burden. A single set of stretches for major muscle groups can be sufficient to improve performance.11

Since current practice according to FMS™ and TPI guidelines instructs avoiding a warm-up prior to testing, future studies should compare the acute effects of dynamic stretching on these screening systems. If findings suggest no difference in scores, clinicians can continue to use their preference or follow the movement screen’s instructions. However, if a difference does exist, expanded research may be indicated on this topic which could ultimately add to the evidence regarding these screening tools.

In the meantime, while research expands on this topic, practitioners should strive for consistency. If evidence is inconclusive whether a warm-up should be used prior to assessing athletes, studies should explicitly report whether this component was included. Also, the specifics of the warm-up (i.e., exact exercises, sets, repetitions, and rest periods) should be reported, as most past research vaguely explains the warm-up protocol followed, if at all. It is difficult for clinicians to implement evidence-based practice if the procedures are not specific.

DISCUSSION

Existing evidence comparing the effects of warm-ups on movement screens and assessment tools indicates that sport-specific warm-ups may be more impactful than a general warm-up.12 In youth male soccer players, the FIFA 11+ protocol led to improvements in sport performance and FMS™ subtests, while a general warm-up showed improvements on sport assessments compared to before a warm-up.12 However, to the authors’ knowledge, this is the only published study directly testing the effects of warm-ups on athletic capabilities. Future research is needed to examine this topic in different athletic populations and with different test batteries.

While few studies have directly examined the effects of a warm-up on movement screens, other factors such as fatigue have been investigated more thoroughly. One study compared FMS™ scores before and after a simulated soccer match. They reported worse FMS™ scores following the match, suggesting that fatigue may decrease athletic capabilities and should also be considered.13 Similarly, a study of youth baseball pitchers found changes in joint kinematics in the first and last innings of a simulated game.14 This indicates fatigue alters not only performance on assessment tools, but also influences in-game capabilities. Future research should expand upon this topic in various sports and different lengths of competition. For example, examining pre-match, halftime, and post-match FMS™ scores may provide greater insight into how fatigue impacts athletes’ ability to execute specific movement tasks.

The warm-up is an important aspect to consider when using screening tools such as the FMS™, TPI screen, or AAA, but there are other factors deserving attention. Inter-tester and intra-tester reliability, learning effects, and specific instructions provided may all influence the patient’s score and should therefore be considered. Although there is evidence supporting FMS™ reliability,15 clinicians should determine their own reliability before tracking changes in their athletes’ movement competency over time. The lack of reliability evidence for other movement screens does not mean these tests are not reliable, but clinicians should use their best judgement until sufficient evidence exists. Additionally, studies have not directly investigated the effect of verbal cues or instructions provided during movement screens or assessment tools. The specific cues provided by a clinician may impact an athlete’s performance, especially with tasks that are scored with multiple criteria. For example, the overhead squat in the AAA is scored based on bar positioning, lower extremity alignment, and depth.3 For example, if an athlete is cued at their first assessment to squat to a “maximum depth”, this may lead to different interpretation than if they were instructed to squat to a “comfortable depth”. To ensure consistent testing, the authors recommend that clinicians should use a script to maintain consistent verbal cueing. Researchers should continue to identify and pursue these gaps in this literature to help guide evidence-based clinical practice.

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.
==== Refs
Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1 North American journal of sports physical therapy: NAJSPT Cook Gray Burton Lee Hoogenboom Barb 5 2006
1 2 62 72 1558-6162 PMID: 21522216 PMCID: PMC2953313 21522216
Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 2 North American journal of sports physical therapy: NAJSPT Cook Gray Burton Lee Hoogenboom Barb 8 2006
1 3 132 139 1558-6162 PMID: 21522225 PMCID: PMC2953359 21522225
Athletic ability assessment: A movement assessment protocol for athletes International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy McKeown Ian Taylor-McKeown Kristie Woods Carl Ball Nick 12 2014
9 7 862 873 2159-2896 PMID: 25540702 PMCID: PMC4275191
TPI level 1 manual Rose Greg Phillips Dave Titleist Performance Institute 2021

Measuring fitness in female gymnasts: The Gymnastics Functional Measurement Tool International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Sleeper Mark D. Kenyon Lisa K. Casey Ellen 4 2012
7 2 124 138 2159-2896 PMID: 22530187 PMCID: PMC3325636 22530187
Warm-ups for military fitness testing: Rapid evidence assessment of the literature Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Zeno Stacey A. Purvis Dianna Crawford Cindy Lee Courtney Lisman Peter Deuster Patricia A. 7 2013
45 7 1369 1376 0195-9131 10.1249/mss.0b013e318285c1b9 10.1249/mss.0b013e318285c1b9 23777958
Composite functional movement screen score predicts injuries in youth volleyball players: a prospective cohort study Scientific Reports Zarei Mostafa Soltanirad Shabnam Kazemi Abdolreza Hoogenboom Barbara J. Hosseinzadeh Mahdi 23 11 2022
12 20207 2045-2322 10.1038/s41598-022-24508-8 10.1038/s41598-022-24508-8 36418436
Functional movement screen normative values and validity in high school athletes: Can the FMS be used as a predictor of injury? International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Bardenett Sean M. Micca Joseph J. DeNoyelles John T. Miller Susan D. Jenk Drew T. Brooks Gary S. 6 2015
10 3 303 308 2159-2896 PMID: 26075145 PMCID: PMC4458917 26075145
Overhead deep squat performance predicts functional movement screen score International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Clifton Daniel R. Grooms Dustin R. Onate James A. 10 2015
10 5 622 627 2159-2896 PMID: 26491612 PMCID: PMC4595915
Joint hypermobility in athletes is associated with shoulder injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC musculoskeletal disorders Liaghat Behnam Pedersen Julie Rønne Young James J. Thorlund Jonas Bloch Juul-Kristensen Birgit Juhl Carsten Bogh 26 4 2021
22 1 389 1471-2474 10.1186/s12891-021-04249-x 10.1186/s12891-021-04249-x 33902511
Acute effects of dynamic stretching on muscle flexibility and performance: An analysis of the current literature Sports Medicine Opplert Jules Babault Nicolas 2018
48 2 299 325 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-017-0797-9 10.1007/s40279-017-0797-9 29063454
Comparison of the effects of general warm-up and FIFA 11+ warm-up programs on Functional Movement Screen test scores and athletic performance Turkish Journal of Sports Medicine Gök Umut Aka Hasan Aktuğ Zait Burak Ibiş Serkan 12 2 2023
58 1 15 20 1300-0551 10.47447/tjsm.0709 10.47447/tjsm.0709
Are functional movement screen tests performed at the right time, if it is an injury risk predictor? Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Kocak Umut Ziya Unver Bayram 1 1 2021
30 1 85 89 1056-6716 10.1123/jsr.2019-0435 10.1123/jsr.2019-0435
Hip range of motion and scapula position in youth baseball pitching pre and post simulated game Journal of Sports Sciences Oliver Gretchen Dawn Weimar Wendi 2015
33 14 1447 1453 0264-0414 10.1080/02640414.2014.990493 10.1080/02640414.2014.990493 25529372
The functional movement screen: a reliability study Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Teyhen Deydre S. Shaffer Scott W. Lorenson Chelsea L. Halfpap Joshua P. Donofry Dustin F. Walker Michael J. Dugan Jessica L. Childs John D. 6 2012
42 6 530 540 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2012.3838 10.2519/jospt.2012.3838 22585621
