Objective: To synthesize the literature and perform a meta-analysis for both the interrater and intrarater reliability of the FMS™. Methods: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Medline and SportsDiscus databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2015. Studies were included if the primary purpose was to determine the interrater or intrarater reliability of the FMS™, assessed and scored all 7-items using the standard scoring criteria, provided a composite score and employed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Studies were excluded if reliability was not the primary aim, participants were injured at data collection, or a modified FMS™ or scoring system was utilized. Results: Seven papers were included; 6 assessing interrater and 6 assessing intrarater reliability. There was moderate evidence in good interrater reliability with a summary ICC of 0.843 (95% CI = 0.640, 0.936; Q7 = 84.915, p < 0.0001). There was moderate evidence in good intrarater reliability with a summary ICC of 0.869 (95% CI = 0.785, 0.921; Q12 = 60.763, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: There was moderate evidence for both forms of reliability. The sensitivity assessments revealed this interpretation is stable and not influenced by any one study. Overall, the FMS™ is a reliable tool for clinical practice.
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||Physical Therapy in Sport|
|State||Published - May 1 2016|
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
- Functional performance assessment
- Injury prevention screening
- Pre-participation physical examination
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
- Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation