PMID- 27465626
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20170531
LR  - 20181202
IS  - 1533-4287 (Electronic)
IS  - 1064-8011 (Linking)
VI  - 31
IP  - 5
DP  - 2017 May
TI  - Examining the Relationship Between the Functional Movement Screen and the Landing 
      Error Scoring System in an Active, Male Collegiate Population.
PG  - 1265-1272
LID - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001582 [doi]
AB  - Everard, EM, Harrison, AJ, and Lyons, M. Examining the relationship between the 
      functional movement screen and the landing error scoring system in an active, 
      male collegiate population. J Strength Cond Res 31(5): 1265-1272, 2017-In recent 
      years, there has been an increasing focus on movement screening as the principal 
      aspect of preparticipation testing. Two of the most common movement screening 
      tools are the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and the Landing Error Scoring 
      System (LESS). Several studies have examined the reliability and validity of 
      these tools, but so far, there have been no studies comparing the results of 
      these 2 screening tools against each other. Therefore, the purpose of this study 
      was to determine the relationship between FMS scores and LESS scores. 
      Ninety-eight male college athletes actively competing in sport (Gaelic games, 
      soccer, athletics, boxing/mixed martial arts, Olympic weightlifting) participated 
      in the study and performed the FMS and LESS screens. Both the 21-point and 
      100-point scoring systems were used to score the FMS. Spearman's correlation 
      coefficients were used to determine the relationship between the 2 screening 
      scores. The results showed a significant moderate correlation between FMS and 
      LESS scores (rho 100 and 21 point = -0.528; -0.487; p < 0.001). In addition, r 
      values of 0.26 and 0.23 indicate a poor shared variance between the 2 screens. 
      The results indicate that performing well in one of the screens does not 
      necessarily equate to performing well in the other. This has practical 
      implications as it highlights that both screens may assess different movement 
      patterns and should not be used as a substitute for each other.
FAU - Everard, Eoin M
AU  - Everard EM
AD  - 1Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, 
      Limerick, Ireland; and 2Department of Sports and Finance, Limerick Institute of 
      Technology, Limerick, Ireland.
FAU - Harrison, Andrew J
AU  - Harrison AJ
FAU - Lyons, Mark
AU  - Lyons M
LA  - eng
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  - Adult
MH  - *Athletes
MH  - Exercise Test/*methods
MH  - Humans
MH  - Lower Extremity/physiology
MH  - Male
MH  - Movement/*physiology
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - *Universities
MH  - Young Adult
EDAT- 2016/07/29 06:00
MHDA- 2017/06/01 06:00
CRDT- 2016/07/29 06:00
PHST- 2016/07/29 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2017/06/01 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2016/07/29 06:00 [entrez]
AID - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001582 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Strength Cond Res. 2017 May;31(5):1265-1272. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001582.