101. Fitness Assessment, Exercise Training, and Performance of Athletes and Healthy People - fitness assessment of healthy people Scientific Abstract

2560 - Functional Movement Screen Scores And Injury Risk Factors In NCAA Division III Football Players

Session Type
Free Communication/Poster
Session Name
E-25 - Muscle and Mechanics
Session Category Text
Fitness Assessment, Exercise Training, and Performance of Athletes and Healthy People
Disclosures
 A.B. Freire Ribeiro: None.

Abstract

The functional movement screen (FMS) is used to identify asymmetries and imbalances in the body. It contains seven movement patterns rated on a 0 to 3 scale: deep squat (DS), hurdle step (HS), in-line lunge (ILL), shoulder mobility (SM), active straight leg raise (ASLR), trunk stability push up (TSPU), and rotary stability (RS) (Cook, 2006). In professional football players, FMS composite scores below 14 are associated with increased injury risk (Kiesel, 2007). In junior Australian players, the presence of two tests with asymmetries was indicative of injury risk (Chalmers, 2017). There are no established normative scores for NCAA Division III football players; furthermore, it is not known how many athletes display risk factors for injury.PURPOSE: To describe FMS scores and potential injury risk in NCAA Division III football players.METHODS: Fourteen current football players from an urban Midwestern University were recruited and consented to participate in this pilot study. Participants were assessed in the FMS by one certified level 1 tester, according to the procedures described by Cook et al. (2006). Scores below 14 and players with more than two asymmetrical scores were totaled.
RESULTS: The mean FMS composite score was 14.57 (SD=2.2). Three (21%) athletes had composite scores below 14. Two athletes (14%) had two or more asymmetries.
DISCUSSION: FMS composite scores were similar to the mean score of 14.1 described for healthy Division I athletes by Warren (2015), but below the mean of 16.9 for professional football players (Kiesel, 2007). Two of the athletes with scores below 14 had sustained previous knee injuries, but were fully rehabilitated at the time of the testing. One of these athletes also had a composite score below 14, suggesting that a history of previous injury places athletes at greater risk for re-injury. Athletic training and coaching staff should consider these factors when assessing return to play readiness in DIII football players.
CONCLUSIONS: FMS composite scores for DIII were similar to DI football players, but lower than professionals. Previous history of injury may impact the number of asymmetries displayed in the FMS, potentially resulting in higher re-injury risk.
Collapse