Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
ISSN: 1303 - 2968   
Ios-APP Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Androit-APP Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Views
434
Download
88
 
©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2021) 20, 759 - 765   DOI: https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2021.759

Research article
Comparison of Lower Extremity Kinematics during the Overhead Deep Squat by Functional Movement Screen Score
Caitlyn Heredia1, Robert G. Lockie2, Scott K. Lynn2, Derek N. Pamukoff3, 
Author Information
1 Northern Arizona University, Phoenix Biomedical Campus, Phoenix, AZ, USA
2 California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton CA, USA
3 Western University, School of Kinesiology, London ON, USA

Derek N. Pamukoff
‚úČ Ass. Prof., Western University, School of Kinesiology; London ON, USA
Email: dpamukof@uwo.ca
Publish Date
Received: 17-07-2021
Accepted: 15-09-2021
Published (online): 01-10-2021
Share this article
 
 
ABSTRACT

It is unclear if the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) scoring criteria identify kinematics that have been associated with lower extremity injury risk. The purpose was to compare lower extremity kinematics of the overhead deep squat (OHDS) during the FMS between individuals who were grouped on FMS scoring. Forty-five adults who were free of injury and without knowledge of the FMS or its scoring criteria (males = 19, females = 26; height = 1.68 0.08 m; mass = 70.7 7 13.0 kg). Three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics during an OHDS were measured using a motion capture system. One-way MANOVA was used to compare kinematic outcomes (peak hip flexion angle, hip adduction angle, knee flexion angle, knee abduction angle, knee internal rotation angle, and ankle dorsiflexion angle) between FMS groups. Those who scored a 3 had greater peak hip flexion angle (F2,42 = 8.75; p = 0.001), knee flexion angle (F2,42 = 13.53; p = 0.001), knee internal rotation angle (F2,42 = 12.91; p = 0.001), and dorsiflexion angle (F2,42 = 9.00; p = 0.001) compared to those who scored a 2 or a 1. However, no differences were found in any outcome between those who scored a 2 and those who scored a 1, or in frontal plane hip or knee kinematics. FMS scoring for the OHDS identified differences in squat depth, which was characterized by larger peak hip, knee, and dorsi- flexion angles in those who scored a 3 compared with those who scored 2 or 1. However, no differences were found between those who scored a 2 or 1, and caution is recommended when interpreting these scores. Despite a different FMS score, few differences were observed in frontal or transverse plane hip and knee kinematics, and other tasks may be needed to assess frontal plane kinematics.

Key words: FMS, injury, biomechanics


           Key Points
  • The FMS scoring criteria of the OHDS largely identified differences in squat depth
  • Other tasks are needed to evaluate frontal and transverse plane movement patterns.
  • The FMS scoring criteria of the OHDS may be unable to categorize individuals across 3 levels, and caution is needed when comparing scores of 2 and 1.Kinematic evaluations should not be limited to the peak value, as kinematic differences between scoring FMS categories is evident throughout the OHDS.
 
 
Home Issues About Authors
Contact Current Editorial board Authors instructions
Email alerts In Press Mission For Reviewers
Archive Scope
Supplements Statistics
Most Read Articles
  Most Cited Articles
 
  
 
JSSM | Copyright 2001-2020 | All rights reserved. | LEGAL NOTICES | Publisher

It is forbidden the total or partial reproduction of this web site and the published materials, the treatment of its database, any kind of transition and for any means, either electronic, mechanic or other methods, without the previous written permission of the JSSM.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.