PMID- 23302750
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20140520
LR  - 20220318
IS  - 1533-4287 (Electronic)
IS  - 1064-8011 (Linking)
VI  - 27
IP  - 10
DP  - 2013 Oct
TI  - Comparison of functional and static evaluation tools among adolescent athletes.
PG  - 2842-50
LID - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182815770 [doi]
AB  - This study aimed to compare functional movement screen (FMS [TM]) scores and 
      Beighton and Horan joint mobility index (BHJMI) scores among pubescence in 
      adolescent athletes. Sixty-six adolescents between the ages of 8 and 14 
      voluntarily participated in this study. The participants performed the tests of 
      the BHJMI, the tasks of the FMS (TM), and the clearing tests of the FMS (TM). The 
      composite scores of the FMS (TM) and the BHJMI were scored objectively by the 
      same researcher. The subjects were separated into prepubescent, early-pubescent, 
      and postpubescent groups based on the results of the modified pubertal maturation 
      observational scale. A 2 x 3 (gender x pubescence) factorial analysis of variance 
      revealed a main effect for FMS (TM) scores across pubertal groups (p = 0.032) but 
      not in BHJMI composite scores (pre = 2.69 +/- 0.40, pub = 1.96 +/- 0.40, post = 3.13 
      +/- 0.43, p = 0.131). The postpubescent participants had significantly higher FMS 
      (TM) scores compared with the prepubescent participants (post = 15.91 +/- 0.47, pre 
      = 14.28 +/- 0.44, p = 0.008) and the early-pubescent participants (pub = 14.55 +/- 
      0.44, p = 0.039). No differences were identified between gender for FMS (TM) 
      scores (male participants = 15.16 +/- 0.38, female participants = 14.67 +/- 0.35, p = 
      0.351) or BHJMI scores (male participants = 2.36 +/- 0.35, female participants = 
      2.83 +/- 0.32, p = 0.321). No significant interactions were found between gender 
      and pubescence regarding the BHJMI composite scores (p = 0.503) or the FMS (TM) 
      scores (p = 0.216). There was no correlation between FMS (TM) composite scores 
      and BHJMI composite scores (p = 0.89). Our results suggest that the FMS (TM) can 
      discriminate between levels of pubescence and detect alterations during the 
      pubertal growth cycle, whereas the BHJMI may not. A prospective extension of this 
      study to include follow-up of injured participants appears worthwhile to 
      determine if the FMS (TM) can suitably predict injury in the adolescent 
      population.
FAU - Paszkewicz, Jeffrey R
AU  - Paszkewicz JR
AD  - 1School of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Old Dominion University, 
      Norfolk, Virginia 2Center for Clinical Outcomes Studies, A.T. Still University, 
      Mesa, Arizona.
FAU - McCarty, Cailee W
AU  - McCarty CW
FAU - Van Lunen, Bonnie L
AU  - Van Lunen BL
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - United States
TA  - J Strength Cond Res
JT  - Journal of strength and conditioning research
JID - 9415084
SB  - IM
MH  - Adolescent
MH  - Age Factors
MH  - *Athletes
MH  - Child
MH  - Exercise Test/*methods
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - Male
MH  - Range of Motion, Articular/physiology
EDAT- 2013/01/11 06:00
MHDA- 2014/05/21 06:00
CRDT- 2013/01/11 06:00
PHST- 2013/01/11 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2013/01/11 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2014/05/21 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182815770 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Oct;27(10):2842-50. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182815770.