Functional Movement

Assessment
Barbara J. Hoogenboom, Michael L. Voight,
Gray Cook, and Greg Rose

After completion of this chapter, the physical

O B J E C T I VE S therapist should be able to do the following:

 Explain the benefits of a functional, comprehensive movement screening process versus the
traditional impairment-based evaluation approach.

 Differentiate between movement, testing, and assessment.

 Explain how poor movement patterns and dysfunctional movement strategies can result in injury
or reinjury.

 Explain the use and components of the Functional Movement Screen and the Selective
Functional Movement Assessment.

 Describe, score, and interpret the movement patterns of the Functional Movement Screen and
the Selective Functional Movement Assessment and how the results from each can have an
impact on clinical interventions.

 Articulate the difference between movement screening and specific functional performance tests.

 Apply specific functional performance test to clinical practice.

463

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 463 21/10/13 1:04 PM

 464 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

Introduction
Movement is at the core of the human journey. It is foundational to the human experi-
ence and allows us to interact with our environment in ways different from other mam-
mals. Movement, which begins in the womb, is the basis of early growth and development.
It proceeds in a highly predictable manner in infants and young children and is known as
the developmental sequence or traditional motor development. Once an individual reaches
a certain age, full integration of reflexive behavior allows the development of purposive,
highly developed, and unique mature motor programs. We continue to move functionally
throughout a lifetime until the effects of aging alter the normalcy of movement.

Motion versus Movement

Because movement is complex, it must be differentiated from the simpler construct of
motion. We believe that many professionals lack a true understanding of movement; they
err on the side of quantitative assessment of motion and fail to understand the hierarchic
progression from general, fundamental movement patterns to specific, highly special-
ized movements. These highly specialized movements have complex, fine-tuned motor
programs that support their consistency and intricacy. Most rehabilitation and medical
professionals have been trained to measure isolated joint motion with goniometers, incli-
nometers, linear measurements, and ligament laxity tests. These types of motion assess-
ment are not wrong, but rather only a piece of a much bigger puzzle of “movement” and
the inherent stability and mobility demands that are part of the synchronous, elegant, coor-
dinated activities that make up activities of daily living, work tasks, and sport maneuvers.
Mere motion measurements cannot capture the whole spectrum of human movement, nor
the complexity of human function.

Systems Approach to Movement

The premise of this chapter and the chapter that follows is that impairment-based, highly
specialized motion assessment is far too limiting, and predisposes practitioners to errors
in professional judgment. It is too narrow an approach, which focuses on small, discrete
pieces of an integrated functional task or movement. The alternative of a more functional,
comprehensive movement screen is vitally important for understanding human function
and identifying impairments and dysfunctional movement patterns that diminish the qual-
ity of function. In many cases, weakness or tightness of a muscle or group is often identified
and then treated with isolated stretching or strengthening activities instead of using a stan-
dard movement pattern that could address several impairments at once. Likewise, many
professionals often focus on a specific region of complaint instead of beginning by identify-
ing a comprehensive movement profile and relating the profile to dysfunction.

“Fundamentals First”
Where does one start with the examination and assessment of something as complex as
human function? Standard, frequently used, fundamental or general movements would
seem the logical place to start. To prepare an athlete for the wide variety of activities needed
to participate in the demands of sport, analysis of fundamental movements should be
incorporated into preparticipation screening. Assessment of fundamental movements can
help the rehabilitation professional determine who possesses or lacks the ability to per-
form a wide variety of essential movements. We believe that assessment of fundamental or

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 464 21/10/13 1:04 PM

 Introduction 465
composite movements is necessary before the assessment of highly specific or specialized
motions or movements. Consider the following statements in the context of assessment of
an athlete:
• What appears to be muscular weakness may be muscular inhibition.
• Identifiable weakness in a prime mover may be the result of a dysfunctional stabilizer
or group of muscular stabilizers.
• Diminished function in an agonist may actually be dysfunction of the antagonist.
• What is described as muscular tightness may be protective muscle tone leading to
guarding and inadequate muscle coordination during movement.
• “Bad” technique might be the only option for an individual performing poorly
selected, “off-target” exercises.
• Diminished general fitness may be related to the increased metabolic demand
required by patients who use inferior neuromuscular coordination and
compensations.
It is vital that fundamental, essential movements be examined to develop a working
hypothesis regarding the source of the dysfunction. This approach allows the rehabilitation
professional to see “the big picture” and attempt to discern the cause of the dysfunction
rather than just identifying and treating specific, isolated impairments. This fundamental
first approach, typically used when teaching a motor skill, holds true for assessment and
correction of movement.

The Mobility–Stability Continuum

Movement becomes less than optimal (dysfunctional) as a result of “breakdowns” in parts
of the movement system. Typically, such breakdowns are described as mobility or stabil-
ity dysfunction. Unfortunately, the terms mobility and stability are not universally defined
and can imply different things to clinicians with different backgrounds. For this reason it is
important to describe the approach of the authors regarding descriptions of mobility and
stability.
Mobility dysfunction can be broken down into 2 unique subcategories:

• Tissue extensibility dysfunction involves tissues that are extraarticular. Examples

include active or passive muscle insufficiency, neural tension, fascial tension, muscle
shortening, scarring, and fibrosis.
• Joint mobility dysfunction involves structures that are articular or intraarticular.
Examples include osteoarthritis, fusion, subluxation, adhesive capsulitis, and
intraarticular loose bodies.

Stability dysfunction may include an isolated muscular weakness or joint laxity, but it
is frequently more complex and refers to multiple systems that are involved in the complex
construct known as motor control. To account for the complexity of a stability problem,
the term stability motor control dysfunction is used. Stability motor control dysfunction is
an encompassing, broad description of problems in movement pattern stability. Tradition-
ally, stability dysfunction is often addressed by attempting to concentrically strengthen the
muscle groups identified as stabilizers of a region or joint. This approach neglects the con-
cept that true stabilization is reflex driven and relies on proprioception and timing rather
than isolated, gross muscular strength. By using the term stability motor control dysfunc-
tion to distinguish stability problems, the clinician is forced to consider the central nervous
system, peripheral nervous system, motor programs, movement organization, timing, coor-
dination, proprioception, joint and postural alignment, structural instability, and muscular

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 465 21/10/13 1:04 PM

 466 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

inhibition, as well as the absolute strength of the stabilizers. The concepts of mobility and
stability are discussed further in the context of the Selective Functional Movement Assess-
ment (SFMA) later in this chapter.
The purpose of this chapter, as part of a sports medicine rehabilitation text, is to pro-
vide the context for and convince the reader of the importance of a timely, accurate, and
reproducible functional movement assessment. Although a part of examination, isolated
measurements and quantitative assessments are not enough to capture the essence of func-
tional movement in activities of life.

Movement Screening, Testing, and Assessment

Athletic trainers screen during the preseason. Physical therapists are involved in screen-
ing, prevention, and wellness initiatives. Physicians serve patients by medically or surgically
“fixing problems” but also attempt to prevent repeat injury. The number 1 risk for injury is
previous injury.1-6 What contributes to this paradigm? Poor screening that does not iden-
tify athletes at risk for injury? Poor rehabilitation that does not “finish the job”? “Poor” or
untested surgical or medical interventions that do not get to the “root” of the problem?
Each is a possibility, and all disciplines may be responsible for unsuccessfully preparing
or providing the building blocks for full return to movement normalcy. It is the “job” of all
health professionals to adequately screen, test, assess, and identify movement dysfunction
and offer solutions to restore movement efficiency and normalcy.
At this point it is important to distinguish between screening, testing, and assessment
(Table 17-1). This chapter is written to enhance the reader’s ability to comprehensively
assess the “movement” (recall the previous discussion of movement versus motion) of
patients, athletes, and clients. Many would argue that assessment of movement is impor-
tant before embarking on a physical performance endeavor because the ability to move
provides the foundation for the ability to perform physical fitness activities, work and
athletic tasks, and basic activities of daily living. It is important to be able to distinguish
dysfunctional movement from “normal” movement during preparticipation or preseason
screening, as well as during postinjury or postoperative rehabilitation. It is also important
to acknowledge that training through or despite “poor” movement patterns reinforces poor
quality of movement and is likely to increase the risk for injury and predispose to greater

Table 17-1 Difference between Screening, Testing, and Assessment

Term Definition Meaning

Screening A system for selecting suitable people; To create grouping and

to protect somebody from something classification; to check risk
unpleasant or dangerous

Testing A series of questions, problems, or practical To gauge ability

tasks to gauge knowledge, experience, or
ability; measurement with no interpretation
needed

Assessment To examine something; to judge or evaluate To estimate inability

it; to calculate a value based on various
factors

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 466 21/10/13 1:05 PM

 Movement Screening, Testing, and Assessment 467
levels of dysfunction.4-6 Even highly skilled athletes may have fundamental imperfections
in movement.
We propose that the astute sports medicine professional combine the tasks of screen-
ing, testing, and assessment to systematically ascertain the risk, ability, or inability of each
athlete, patient, or client. The outcome of such a logical and refined procedure would pro-
vide the caregiver the best possible information to formulate opinions regarding readiness
for participation or return to activities.
Therefore, screening might come first in the assessment process, and the outcome of a
useful, practical movement screening tool or approach would allow the provider to do the
following:
• Demonstrate movement patterns that produce pain within expected ranges of
movement.
• Identify individuals with nonpainful but limited movement patterns who are likely to
demonstrate higher potential risk for injury with exercise and activity.
• Identify specific exercises and activities to avoid until competency in the required
movement is achieved.
• Identify and logically link screening movements to the most effective and efficient
corrective exercise path to restore movement competency.
• Build a description of standardized, fundamental movement patterns against which
broader movement can be compared.
Sahrmann, Kendall, and Janda have each offered valuable perspectives regarding
human movement, posture, and function.7-9 They have been instrumental in describing
examination of structural, as well as functional, symmetry or lack thereof. Rehabilitation
professionals have progressed from examination of isolated muscles and posture7 to appre-
ciation of the necessity of examining complex movement patterns.9

There are numerous ways in which slight subtleties in movement patterns contribute
to specific muscle weaknesses. The relationship between altered movement patterns
and specific muscle weaknesses requires that remediation address the changes to the
movement pattern; the performance of strengthening exercises alone will not likely
affect the timing and manner of recruitment during functional performance.
—Dr. Shirley Sahrmann

The transition from analysis of motion to analysis of functional movement and move-
ment patterns helps rehabilitation providers discern the underlying cause of the dysfunc-
tion or imbalance. This paradigm shift propels rehabilitation providers toward the big
picture, cause-and-effect, and regional interdependence thinking necessary for success in
the 21st century.
Most would agree that it is difficult to qualitatively discern the quality of movement
unless provided with a framework for making a judgment. Systematic screening, testing,
and assessment of movement require not only a framework, but also benchmarks or cri-
teria that define the proper method of performing a movement. We propose 3 possible
general outcomes of movement assessment (Table 17-2) as determined by comparison
between the movement performed by the athlete and predetermined descriptors of
success.
Training through or despite identified “poor” movement patterns reinforces poor qual-
ity and increases the risk for injury, even during low-stress activities, and the possibility of
progression to greater movement dysfunction. Training and functional exercise techniques
and strategies are covered in Chapter 20; however, it is important to note here that that poor
movement patterns must be identified and addressed before embarking on high-level func-
tional training.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 467 21/10/13 1:05 PM

 468 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

Table 17-2 Outcomes of Movement Assessment

Outcome Description

Acceptable Movement is good enough to allow the individual to be cleared for

activity without an increase in risk for injury.

Unacceptable Movements are dysfunctional and the individual may be at risk for injury
unless movement patterns are improved.

Painful Screening movements produce pain. Currently injured regions require

additional, more advanced movement and physical assessment, including
imaging, by a qualified health care provider.

Movement Related to Injury Potential

and Return from Injury
The greatest risk for injury is a history of previous injury,1-6 and this fact has been demon-
strated in a wide variety of populations and athletes. Yet how might this relate to an unin-
jured athlete or worker? Are there certain “markers” or performance measures that could
separate high-quality, proper or correct movement from low-quality, improper or incorrect
movements? Conceptually, if movement is dysfunctional, all activities, including activities of
daily living, work tasks, and athletic performance built on that dysfunction, may be flawed
and predispose the individual to increased risk for the development of even greater dysfunc-
tion. This statement is true even when dysfunctional base movements are masked by appar-
ently acceptable, age-appropriate, and even highly skilled performance. It is possible to move
poorly and not experience pain, and, conversely, to move well and yet experience pain. Over
time, poor movement patterns and dysfunctional movement strategies are likely to produce
pain. An example might be a gymnast with an exaggerated lordosis that is “functional” for
her sport but is likely, over time, to result in facet joint compression in the lumbar spine and
decreased flexibility of the hip flexors. It is important to note that although poor movement
patterns may increase risk for injury with activity, good movement patterns do not guaran-
tee decreased risk for injury. It is the job of the astute health care professional to target and
address identifiable risk factors, such as tight muscles, weak muscles, or poor balance or coor-
dination, during movement and their biomechanical influences on movement. Once poor
movement patterns are addressed, proper movement must be enhanced with appropriate
strength, endurance, coordination, and skill development, but proper movement comes first!

The Functional Movement Screen and the

Selective Functional Movement Assessment
The 2 movement assessment systems described in this chapter work together and use some
common patterns of movement, but each possesses unique aspects. They serve to provide
common language and “thinking” between a wide variety of health and fitness professions.
Both are about the assessment of quality and not so much about the assessment of quan-
tity of movement. Both stress the clinician’s ability to rate performance quality, rank and
describe the greatest dysfunction, and measure, if necessary, within the context of founda-
tional, general movements.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 468 21/10/13 1:05 PM

 The Functional Movement Screen and the Selective Functional Movement Assessment 469

The Functional Movement Screen

The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a predictive, but not diagnostic, functional
screening system. The FMS is an evaluation or screening tool created for use by profes-
sionals who work with patients and clients for whom movement is a key part of exercise,
recreation, fitness, and athletics. It may also be used for screening within the military, fire
service, public safety, industrial laborers, and other highly active workers. This screening
tool fills the void between preparticipation/preplacement screening and specific perfor-
mance tests by examining individuals in a more general dynamic and functional capacity.
Research suggests that tests that assess multiple facets of function such as balance, strength,
range of motion (ROM), and motor control simultaneously may assist professionals in iden-
tifying athletes at risk for injury.10-12
The FMS, described by Cook et al,13,14 is composed of 7 fundamental movement patterns
that require a balance of mobility and stability for successful completion. These functional
movement patterns were designed to provide observable performance tasks that relate to
basic locomotive, manipulative, and stabilizing movements. The tests use a variety of com-
mon positions and movements appropriate for providing sufficient challenge to illuminate
weakness, imbalance, or poor motor control. It has been observed that even individuals
who perform at high functional levels during normal activities may be unable to perform
these simple movements if appropriate mobility or stability is not present.10,11 An important
aspect of this assessment system is its foundation on principles of proprioception and kin-
esthesia. Proprioceptors must function in each segment of the kinetic chain and associated
neuromuscular control must be present for efficient movement patterns to occur.
The FMS is not intended for use in individuals displaying pain during basic movement
patterns or in those with documented musculoskeletal injuries. Painful movement is cov-
ered subsequently in the section on the SFMA. The FMS is for healthy, active people and for
healthy, inactive people who want to increase their physical activity. Interrater reliability of
the FMS has been reported by Minick et al15 to be high, which means that the assessment
protocol can be applied and reliable scores obtained by trained individuals when there is
adherence to standard procedures.
The FMS consists of 7 movement patterns that serve as a comprehensive sample of
functional movement (Box 17-1). Additionally, 3 clearing tests, each associated with one of
the FMS movement patterns, assess for pain with shoulder rotation motions, trunk exten-
sion, or trunk flexion.
A kit for FMS testing is available commercially ([Link]); however,
simple tools such as a dowel, 2 × 6 board, tape, tape measure, a piece of string or rope,
and a measuring stick are enough to complete the testing procedures. When conducting
the screening tests, athletes should not be bombarded with multiple instructions about
how to perform the tests; rather, they should be positioned in the start position and offered
simple commands to allow achievement of the test movement while observing their per-
formance. The FMS is scored on an ordinal scale, with 4 possible scores ranging from 0 to 3
(Table 17-3). The clearing tests mentioned earlier consider only pain, which would indicate
a “positive” clearing test and requires a score of 0 for the test with which it is associated.

Box 17-1 Seven Movement Patterns of the Functional Movement Screen

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 469 21/10/13 1:05 PM

 470 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

Table 17-3 Scoring System for the Functional Movement Screen

A Score of . . . Is Given if. . .

0 At any time during testing the athlete has pain anywhere in the body.
Note: The clearing tests consider only pain, which would indicate a
“positive” clearing test and requires a score of 0 for the test with which
it is associated.

1 The person is unable to complete the movement pattern or is unable to

assume the position to perform the movement.

2 The person is able to complete the movement but must compensate in

some way to complete the task.

3 The person performs the movement correctly, without any compensation.

Three is the highest or best score that can be achieved on any single test, and 21 is the best
total score that can be achieved.
The majority of the movements test both the right and left sides, and it is important
that the sides be scored independently. The lower score of the 2 sides is recorded and used
for the total FMS score, with note made of any imbalances or asymmetry occurring during
performance of the task (Figure 17-1). The creators of the FMS suggest that when in doubt,
the athlete should be scored low.

Seven Movement Patterns of the Functional Movement Assessment

The Deep Squat (Figure 17-2) The squat is a movement needed in most athletic events;
it is the “ready position” that is required for many power movements such as jumping and
landing. The deep squat assesses bilateral, symmetric mobility and stability of the hips,
knees, ankles, and core. The overhead position of the
arms (holding the dowel) also assesses the mobility
and symmetry of the shoulders and thoracic spine.
FMS™ Test Right Left Score (for bilateral tests,
eboose lowest To perform a deep squat, the athlete starts with the
Overhead deep squat X X score to record) feet at approximately shoulder width apart in the
Trunk stability push-up X X sagittal plane. The dowel is grasped with both hands,
Hurdle step
and the arms are pressed overhead while keep-
(droped by among LE) ing the dowel in line with the trunk and the elbows
In-line lunge extended. The athlete is instructed to descend slowly
(droped by forward LE)
and fully into a squat position while keeping the
Shoulder mobility
(droped by upper UE) heels on the ground and the hands above the head.
Active straight leg raise
The Hurdle Step (Figure 17-3) The hurdle step
Rotary stability
(droped by among LE) is designed to challenge the ability to stride, bal-
ance, and perform a single-limb stance during coor-
Total Score /21
dinated movement of the lower extremity (LE). The
athlete assumes the start position by placing the feet
together and aligning the toes just in contact with
Figure 17-1 Functional Movement Screen scoring
the base of the hurdle or 2 × 6 board. The height of
sheet
the hurdle or string should be equal to the height of
the tibial tubercle of the athlete. The dowel is place
LE, Lower extremity; UE, upper extremity across the shoulders below the neck, and the athlete

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 470 21/10/13 1:05 PM

 The Functional Movement Screen and the Selective Functional Movement Assessment 471

A B C

Figure 17-2 Overhead deep squat maneuver

Beginning (A) and end (B) of movement, frontal view, and midrange, side view (C).

A B

Figure 17-3 Hurdle step maneuver

Midmotion (A) and end motion (B) before return.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 471 21/10/13 1:05 PM

 472 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

A B

Figure 17-4 In-line lunge

Beginning (A) and end (B) of maneuver.

is asked to step up and over the hurdle, touch the heel to the floor (without accepting
weight) while maintaining the stance leg in an extended position, and return to the start
position. The leg that is stepping over the hurdle is scored.

In-Line Lunge (Figure 17-4) The in-line lunge attempts to challenge the athlete
with a movement that simulates dynamic deceleration with balance and lateral chal-
lenge. Lunge length is determined by the tester by measuring the distance to the tibial
tubercle. A piece of tape or a tape measure is placed on the floor at the determined lunge
distance. The arms are used to grasp the dowel behind the back with the top arm exter-
nally rotated, the bottom arm internally rotated, and the fists in contact with the neck and
low back region. The hand opposite the front or lunging foot should be on top. The dowel
must begin in contact with the thoracic spine, back of the head, and sacrum. The athlete
is instructed to lunge out and place the heel of the front/lunge foot on the tape mark.
The athlete is then instructed to slowly lower the back knee enough to touch the floor
while keeping the trunk erect and return to the start position. The front leg identifies the
side being scored.

Shoulder Mobility (Figure 17-5) This mobility screen assesses bilateral shoulder
ROM by combining rotation and abduction/adduction motions. It also requires normal
scapular and thoracic mobility. Begin by determining the length of the hand of the ath-
lete by measuring from the distal wrist crease to the tip of the third digit. This distance is
used during scoring of the test. The athlete is instructed to make a fist with each hand with
the thumb placed inside the fist. The athlete is then asked to place both hands behind
the back in a smooth motion (without walking or creeping them upward)—the upper arm
in an externally rotated, abducted position (with a flexed elbow) and the bottom arm in
an internally rotated, extended, adducted position (also with a flexed elbow). The tester

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 472 21/10/13 1:05 PM

 The Functional Movement Screen and the Selective Functional Movement Assessment 473

B C

Figure 17-5 Shoulder mobility test

Hand measurement (A), at end of motion (B), and how motion is related to hand measurement (C).

measures the distance between the 2 fists. The flexed (uppermost) arm
identifies the side being scored.

Shoulder Clearing Test (Figure 17-6) After the previous test is per-
formed, the athlete places a hand on the opposite shoulder and attempt
to point the elbow upward and touch the forehead (Yocum test). If pain-
ful, this clearing test is considered positive and the previous test must be
scored as 0.
Active Straight-Leg Raise (Figure 17-7) This test assesses the abil-
ity to move the LE separately from the trunk, as well as tests for flexibil-
ity of the hamstring and gastrocnemius. The athlete begins in a supine
position, arms at the side. The tester identifies the midpoint between the
anterior superior iliac spine and the middle of the patella and places a
dowel on the ground, held perpendicular to the ground. The athlete is
instructed to slowly lift the test leg with a dorsiflexed ankle and a straight
knee as far as possible while keeping the opposite leg extended and Figure 17-6
in contact with the ground. Make note to see where the LE ends at its
maximal excursion. If the heel clears the dowel, a score of 3 is given; if Screening test for shoulder, also known as the
the lower part of the leg (between the foot and the knee) lines up with Yocum test. If positive for pain, the athlete
the dowel, a score of 2 is given; and if the patient is only able to have the scores 0 on the shoulder mobility test.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 473 21/10/13 1:05 PM

 474 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

thigh (between the knee and the hip) line up with the dowel,
a score of 1 is given.

Trunk Stability Pushup (Figure 17-8) This test assesses

the ability to stabilize the spine in anterior/posterior and
sagittal planes during a closed-chain upper-body move-
ment. The athlete assumes a prone position with the feet
together, toes in contact with the floor, and hands placed
shoulder width apart (level determined by gender per crite-
ria described later) (Table 17-4), as though ready to perform
a pushup from the ground. The athlete is instructed to per-
form a single pushup in this position with the body lifted as
a unit. If the athlete is unable to do this, the hands should
be moved to a less-challenging position per criteria and a
pushup attempted again. The chest and stomach should
Figure 17-7
come off the floor at the same instance, and no “lag” should
Active straight-leg raise test, end of motion. occur in the lumbar spine.
A clearing examination is performed at the end of the
trunk stability pushup test and graded as pass or fail, failure
occurring when pain is experienced during the test. Spinal
A extension is cleared by using a full-range prone press-up
maneuver from the beginning pushup position (Figure 17-9);
if pain is associated with this motion, a score of 0 is given.

Rotary Stability (Figure 17-10) The rotary stability test

is a complex movement that requires neuromuscular control
of the trunk and extremities and the ability to transfer energy
B between segments of the body. It assesses multiplane stabil-
ity during a combined upper extremity (UE) and LE motion.
The athlete assumes the staring position of quadruped with
the shoulders and hips at 90 degrees of flexion. The athlete is
instructed to lift a hand off the ground and extend the same-
side shoulder (allowing the elbow to flex) while concurrently
lifting the knee off the ground and flexing the hip and knee.
Figure 17-8 Trunk stability pushup test The athlete needs to raise the extremities only approximately
6 inches from the floor while bringing the elbow and knee
Beginning of motion (A) and midmotion (B). Note that together (see Figure 17-10A and B) until they touch and
the hand position is for a score of 3 for females (thumbs then return them to the ground. The test is repeated on the
at chin); to score a 2, females start with the thumbs at opposite side. The UE that moves during testing is scored.
clavicular height. In males, a score of 3 is achieved with Completion of this task allows a score of 3. If unable to per-
the thumbs at forehead level and a 2 with the thumbs at form, the athlete is cued to perform the same maneuver with
chin level.

Table 17-4 Alignment Criteria for a Trunk Stability Pushup by Gender

Position Level Male Female

III Thumbs aligned with the forehead Thumbs aligned with the chin

II Thumbs aligned with the chin Thumbs aligned with the clavicle

The athlete receives a score of 1 if unable to perform a pushup at level II.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 474 21/10/13 1:05 PM

 The Functional Movement Screen and the Selective Functional Movement Assessment 475
the opposite LE and UE (see Figure 17-10C and D), which
allows a score of 2 to be awarded. Inability to perform a
diagonal (level II) stability results in a score of 1.
A clearing examination is performed at the end of this
test and again is scored as positive if pain is reproduced.
From the beginning position for this test, the athlete rocks
back into spinal flexion and touches the buttocks to the
heels and the chest to the thighs (Figure 17-11). The hands
should remain in contact with the ground. Pain on this
clearing test overrides any score for the rotary stability test
and causes the athlete to receive a score of 0.
A total score of 21 is the highest possible score on
the FMS, which implies excellent and symmetric (in tests
that are performed bilaterally) performance of the vari- Figure 17-9 Screening (clearing) test for
ety of screening maneuvers. Total FMS scores have been spinal extension
investigated in relation to injury in National Football
League football players11 and in female collegiate soc- If positive for pain, the athlete scores 0 on the trunk
cer, basketball, and volleyball players.10 Kiesel et al11 stability pushup.

A B

C D

Figure 17-10 Rotary stability test

Flexed position for a score of 3 (A), extended position for a score of 3 (B), flexed position for a score of 2 (C), and
extended position for a score of 2 (D).

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 475 21/10/13 1:06 PM

 476 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

reported a 51% probability of football players sustaining

a serious injury over the course of 1 season, and Chorba
et al10 found a significant correlation between low FMS
scores (<14) in female athletes and injury. Furthermore,
a score of 14 or less on the FMS resulted in an 11-fold
increase in the chance of sustaining injury in profes-
sional football players and a 4-fold increase in the risk for
LE injury in female collegiate athletes.10,11 Okada et al16
investigated the relationship between the FMS and tests
of core stability and functional performance. Significant
Figure 17-11 Screening test for spinal flexion correlations between some of the FMS screening tests
and performance tests of the upper and lower quarter
If positive for pain, the athlete scores 0 on the rotary were reported, but these correlations were not consistent
stability test. among all screening maneuvers. No significant correla-
tions were found between measures of core stability and
FMS variables.

The Selective Functional Movement Assessment

Musculoskeletal pain is the reason that most patients seek medical attention. The contem-
porary understanding of pain has moved beyond the traditional tissue damage model to
include the cognitive and behavioral facets. Most scientists accept that pain alters motor
function, although the mechanism of these changes has not been clearly identified. The
central nervous system response to painful stimuli is complex, but motor changes have
consistently been demonstrated and seem to be influenced by higher centers, consis-
tent with a change in transmission of the motor command. The human body migrates to
predictable patterns of movement in response to injury and in the presence of weakness,
tightness, or structural abnormality. Richardson et al17 summarized the evidence that pain
alters motor control at higher levels of the central nervous system than previously thought
by stating,

Consistent with the identification of changes in motors planning, there is compelling

evidence that pain has strong effects at the supraspinal level. Both short- and long-
term changes are thought to occur with pain in the activity of the supraspinal structures
including the cortex. One area that has been consistently found to be affected is the
anterior cingulated cortex, which has long thought to be important in motor responses
with its direct projections to motor and supplementary motor areas.17

The SFMA is a movement-based diagnostic system for clinical use. This system is used
by professionals working with patients experiencing pain on movement. The goal of the
SFMA is to observe and capture the patterns of posture and function for comparison against
a baseline. It uses movement to provoke symptoms, demonstrate limitations, and offer
information regarding movement pattern deficiency related to the patient’s primary com-
plaint. The SFMA uses a series of movements with a specific organizational method to rank
the quality of functional movements and, when suboptimal, identify the source of provoca-
tion of symptoms during movement. The SFMA has been refined and expanded to help the
health care professional in musculoskeletal examination, diagnosis, and treatment geared
toward choosing the optimal rehabilitative and therapeutic interventions. It helps the clini-
cian identify the most dysfunctional movement patterns, which are then assessed in detail.
By identifying all facets of dysfunction within multiple patterns, specific targeted therapeu-
tic interventions designed to capture or illuminate tightness, weakness, poor mobility, or
poor stability can be chosen. Thus, the facets of movement identified to most represent or

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 476 21/10/13 1:06 PM

 The Functional Movement Screen and the Selective Functional Movement Assessment 477
define the dysfunction and thereby affect movement can be addressed. Manual therapy and
corrective exercises are focused on movement dysfunction, not pain.
The SFMA is one way of quantifying the qualitative assessment of functional movement
and is not a substitute for the traditional examination process. Rather, the SFMA is the first
step in a functional orthopedic examination process that serves to focus and direct choices
made during the remaining portions of the examination that are pertinent to the functional
needs of the patient. The approach taken with the SFMA places less emphasis on identi-
fying the source of the symptoms and more on identifying the cause. An example of this
assessment scheme is illustrated by a runner with low back pain. Frequently, the symptoms
associated with low back pain are not examined in light of other secondary causes such as
hip mobility. Lack of mobility at the hip may be compensated for by increased mobility or
instability of the spine. The global approach taken by the SFMA would identify the cause of
the low back dysfunction.
We believe it is important to start with a whole-body functional approach, such as the
SFMA, before specific impairment assessments, to direct the evaluation in a systematic and
constructive manner. Unfortunately, a functional orthopedic examination often involves
provocation of symptoms. Provocation of symptoms may occur during the interplay of pos-
ture tests, movement in transition, and specific movement tests. Production of these symp-
toms creates the road map that the clinician will follow to a more specific diagnosis:
• Once symptoms have been provoked, the clinician should work backwards to a more
specific breakdown of the component parts of the movement.
• Inconsistencies observed between provocation of symptoms that are not the result of
symptom magnification may suggest a stability problem.
• Consistent limitations and provocation of symptoms can be indicative of a mobility
problem.
The functional assessment process emphasizes analysis of function to restore
proper movement for specific physical tasks. Use of movement patterns and the
application of specific stress and overpressure assist in determining whether
dysfunction or pain (or both) are present. The movement patterns will reaffirm
hypotheses or redirect the clinician to the cause of the musculoskeletal problem.
As an example, the SFMA standing rotation test (Figure 17-12) is performed with
the patient’s feet planted side-by-side and stationary. The subject makes a com-
plete rotation with segments of the entire body first in one direction and then in
the other. When consistent production of pain in the left thoracic spine is noted
during standing left rotation, the same maneuver can be repeated in the seated
posture (Figure 17-13). The 2 motions, although similar in demands for spinal
rotation, have several differences; with the hips and lower extremities removed
from the movement, an entirely different level of postural control may result.
When nearly the same provocation of symptoms and limitations at the same
degree of left rotation are noted during both standing and seated, the cause
may be an underlying mobility problem somewhere in the spine. Alternatively,
if the seated rotation does not produce a consistent limitation and provocation
of symptoms in the same direction and to the same degree, a stability problem
might be present. This change in position results in a different degree of postural
alignment, muscle tone, proprioception, muscle activation or inhibition, and
reflex stabilization. The clinician must investigate the lower body component of
this problem. Once consistency or inconsistency is observed with respect to limi-
tation of movement or provocation of symptoms, the clinician should continue to
look for other instances that support the suspicion.
Maintaining or restoring proper movement of specific segments is key to Figure 17-12 Total-body
preventing or correcting musculoskeletal pain. The SFMA also identifies where rotation test while standing

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 477 21/10/13 1:06 PM

 478 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

functional exercise may be beneficial and provides feedback regarding the

effectiveness of such exercise. A functional approach to exercise uses key
specific movements that are common to the patient regardless of the specific
activity or sport. Exercise that uses repeated movement patterns required for
desired function is not only realistic but also practical and time efficient. Such
functional exercises are discussed in Chapter 18.

Scoring System for the Selective Functional

Movement Assessment
The hallmark of the SFMA is the use of simple, basic movements to reveal natu-
ral reactions and responses by the patient. These movements should be viewed
in both loaded and unloaded conditions whenever possible and bilaterally to
examine functional symmetry. The SFMA uses seven basic movement patterns
(Box 17-2) to rate and rank the 2 variables of pain and function. In addition,
4 optional tests can be used to further refine movement dysfunction.
The term functional describes any unlimited or unrestricted movement.
The term dysfunctional describes movements that are limited or restricted in
some way because of lack of mobility, stability, or symmetry within a given
movement pattern. Painful denotes a situation in which the selective func-
tional movement reproduces symptoms, increases symptoms, or brings about
secondary symptoms that need to be noted. Therefore, by combining the words
Figure 17-13 Spinal rotation functional, dysfunctional, painful, and nonpainful, each pattern of the SFMA
in the sitting, unloaded position must be scored with one of 4 possible outcomes (Table 17-5).

Basic Movements in the Selective Functional Movement Assessment

The 7 basic movements or motions included in the SFMA screen look simple but require
good flexibility and control. They are referred to as “top-tier” tests or patterns. A patient
who is (a) unable to perform a movement correctly, (b) shows a major limitation in 1 or
more of the movement patterns, or (c) demonstrates an obvious difference between the
left and right sides of the body has exposed a significant finding that may be the key to cor-
recting the problem. The 7 basic movements of the SFMA are described in the following
sections.

Cervical Spine Assessment (Figure 17-14)

• The cervical spine is cleared for pain and dysfunction by the patient actively
demonstrating three patterns of motion: flexion (both upper and lower cervical),
extension, and cervical rotation with side bending.

Box 17-2 Movement Patterns of the Selective Functional Movement

Assessment

Seven Basic Movements Four Optional Movements

Cervical spine assessment Plank with a twist
Upper-extremity movement pattern assessment Single-leg squat
Multisegmental flexion assessment In-line lunge with lean, press, and lift
Multisegmental extension assessment Single-leg hop for distance
Multisegmental rotation assessment
Single-leg stance (standing knee lift) assessment
Overhead deep squat assessment

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 478 21/10/13 1:06 PM

 The Functional Movement Screen and the Selective Functional Movement Assessment 479

Table 17-5 Scoring System for the Selective Functional Movement Assessment Based on Function
and Pain Reproduction

Label of Outcome of
Pattern Performance Description of Outcome

Functional nonpainful (FN) Unlimited, unrestricted movement that is performed without pain or increased symptoms

Functional painful (FP) Unlimited, unrestricted movement that reproduces or increases symptoms or brings on
secondary symptoms

Dysfunctional painful (DP) Movement that is limited or restricted in some way because of lack of mobility, stability,
or symmetry; reproduces or increases symptoms; or brings on secondary symptoms

Dysfunctional nonpainful Movement that is limited or restricted in some way because of lack of mobility, stability,
or symmetry and is performed without pain or increased symptoms

A B

Figure 17-14 Cervical spine assessment

Flexion (A), extension (B), and combined side bending/rotation (C).

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 479 21/10/13 1:06 PM

 480 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

A B

Figure 17-15 Shoulder mobility tests

A. Internal rotation, adduction, and extension. B. External rotation, abduction, and flexion.

Upper Extremity Movement Pattern Assessments

(Figure 17-15)
• The UE movement pattern assessments check for
total ROM in the shoulder.
• Pattern 1 assesses internal rotation-extension, and
adduction of the shoulder (Figure 17-15A).
• Pattern 2 assesses external rotation, flexion, and
abduction of the shoulder (Figure 17-15B).

Multisegmental Flexion Assessment (Figure 17-16)

• The multisegmental flexion assessment tests for
normal flexion in the hips and spine. The patient
assumes the starting position by standing erect
with the feet together and the toes pointing
forward. The patient then bends forward at the
hips and spine and attempts to touch the ends of
the fingers to the tips of the toes without bending
the knees.
Figure 17-16 Multisegmental flexion test: • Observe for the following criteria to be met:
end of maneuver ■ Posterior weight shift
■ Touching the toes
Note the straight legs, posterior weight shift, and ■ Uniform curve of the lumbar spine
distributed spinal curves. ■ No lateral spinal bending

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 480 21/10/13 1:06 PM

 The Functional Movement Screen and the Selective Functional Movement Assessment 481

Multisegmental Extension Assessment (Figure 17-17)

• The multisegmental extension assessment tests for normal extension in
the shoulders, hips, and spine. The patient assumes the starting position
by standing erect with the feet together and the toes pointing forward. The
patient should raise the arms directly overhead and observe the response.
• The arms are then lowered back to the starting position while the
examiner looks for synchrony and symmetry of scapular motion.
■ The ability to move one body part independently of another is called
dissociation. Dissociation problems can be caused by poor stabilizing
patterns that do not allow full mobility and stability at the same time.
If the patient can maintain stability only by limiting limb or trunk
movement, the patient is functionally rigid rather than dynamically
stable. The patient may appear to have a restriction in mobility when
in fact the true dysfunction is inadequate postural or motor control.
As the patient raises the arms overhead, the clinician observes for
the ability to move only one body part and that bilateral symmetry
is present. The ideal response is for the patient to raise the arms
180 degrees with the pelvis maintaining a neutral position.
• The patient raises the arms back up to over the head with the elbows
in line with the ear. The midhand line should clear the posterior
aspect of the shoulder at the end range of shoulder flexion. The elbows
Figure 17-17 Multisegmental
extension test: end of maneuver
should remain extended and in line with the ears. At this point have
the patient bend backwards as far as possible while making sure that
Note the anterior shift of the pelvis,
the hips go forward and the arms go back simultaneously. The spine
extension of the upper extremities, and
of the scapula should move posteriorly enough to clear the heels.
distribution of spinal curves.
Both anterior superior iliac spines should move
anteriorly, past the toes.
• Observe for the following criteria to be met:
A B
■ The anterior superior iliac spine must clear the
toes. Forward rotation of the pelvis will pull
the lumbar spine out of a neutral position into
extension. The pelvis slides forward by shifting
body weight toward the front of the feet and
again pulls the lumbar spine out of neutral.
■ Symmetric spinal curves should be present and
the spine of the scapula must clear a vertical line
drawn from the patient’s heels.
■ Arms/elbows in line with the ears represent
180 degrees of shoulder flexion.

Multisegmental Rotation Assessment (Figure 17-18)

• The multisegmental rotation assessment examines
the total rotational motion available from the foot
to the top of the spine. Usually, rotation occurs
as a result of many parts contributing to the total
motion. This assessment tests rotational mobility
in the trunk, pelvis, hips, knees, and feet. The Figure 17-18 Multisegmental rotation test
patient assumes a starting position by standing
erect with the feet together, toes pointing forward, Start of maneuver (A) and end of maneuver (B). Note the
and arms relaxed to the sides at about waist height. rotation at the pelvis and trunk and the upright posture.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 481 21/10/13 1:06 PM

 482 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

The patient then rotates the entire body as far as possible to the right
while the foot position remains unchanged. The patient returns to the
starting position and then rotates toward the left.
■ There should be at least 50 degrees of rotation from the starting
position of the pelvis and lower quarter bilaterally.
■ In addition to the 50 degrees of pelvic rotation, there should also
be at least 50 degrees of rotation from the thorax bilaterally, for
a combined total of 100 degrees of total-body rotation from the
starting position.
• Observe for the following criteria to be met:
■ Pelvis rotating greater than 50 degrees
■ Trunk rotating greater than 50 degrees
■ No loss of body height with the rotation testing
■ Note: Because both sides are tested simultaneously with the feet
together, the externally rotating hip is also extending and can thus
limit motion. Close attention should be paid to each segment of
the body. One area may be hypermobile because of restriction in
an adjacent segment. Rotation should be symmetric on each side
(within 10 degrees).

Figure 17-19 Single-limb Single-Leg Stance (Standing Knee Lift) Assessment (Figure 17-19)
stance, eyes open • The single-leg stance assessment evaluates the ability to independently
stabilize on each leg in a static and dynamic posture. The static
portion of the test looks at the fundamental foundation for control of
movement. The patient assumes the starting position by standing erect
with the feet together, toes pointing forward, and arms raised out to
the side at shoulder height. The patient should be instructed to stand
tall before testing. The patient should lift the right leg up so that the hip
and knee are both flexed to 90 degrees. The patient should maintain
this posture for 10 seconds. The test is repeated on the left leg. The
examiner should look to see whether the patient maintains a level
pelvis (no Trendelenburg position present).
• The test is repeated again with the eyes closed. The body has 3
main systems that contribute to balance: visual, vestibular, and
somatosensory. When the eyes are closed and vision is eliminated,
the patient must rely on the other 2 systems to maintain an upright
posture.
■ Foot position should remain unchanged throughout the movement,
and the hands should remain resting on the hips.
■ Look for loss of posture or height when moving from 2 to 1 leg. Any
of the 3 portions of the test are scored as dysfunctional if the patient
loses posture.

Overhead Deep Squat Assessment (Figure 17-20)

• Same as used in the FMS.
• The overhead deep squat assessment tests for bilateral mobility of
the hips, knees, and ankles. When combined with the overhead UE
Figure 17-20 Overhead deep position, this test also assesses bilateral mobility of the shoulders, as
squat well as extension of the thoracic spine.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 482 21/10/13 1:06 PM

 The Functional Movement Screen and the Selective Functional Movement Assessment 483
• The patient assumes the starting position by placing the instep of the feet in vertical
alignment with the outside of the shoulders. The feet should be in the sagittal plane,
with no external rotation of the feet. The patient then raises the arms overhead, arms
abducted slightly wider than shoulder width and the elbows fully extended. The
patient slowly descends as deeply as possible into a full squat position. The squat
position should be attempted while maintaining the heels on the floor, the head and
chest facing forward, and the hands overhead. The knees should be aligned over the
feet with no valgus collapse.
■ Hand width should not increase as the patient descends into the squat position.
■ The UEs and hands should not deviate from the plane of the tibias as the squat is
performed.
■ The ability to perform this test requires closed chain dorsiflexion of the ankles,
flexion of the hips and knees, extension of the thoracic spine, and flexion abduction
of the shoulders.
Each movement is graded with a notation of functional nonpainful, functional pain-
ful, dysfunctional painful, or dysfunctional nonpainful (see Table 17-5). All responses other
than functional nonpainful are then assessed in greater detail to help refine the movement
information and direct the clinical testing. Detailed algorithmic SFMA breakouts are avail-
able for each of the movement patterns, but they are beyond the scope of this chapter to
describe in detail.

Optional Movements of the Selective Functional Movement Assessment

In addition to the SFMA top-tier or base assessments, four optional assessments have
recently been added to further refine the movement dysfunction. They serve to illuminate
movement dysfunction in higher-functioning patients.
Once dysfunction, or symptoms, or both, have been provoked in a functional man-
ner, it is necessary to work backwards to more specific assessments of the component
parts of the functional movement by using special tests or ROM comparisons. As the
gross functional movement is broken down into its component parts, the clinician
should examine for consistencies and inconsistencies, as well as the level of dysfunction,
in each test with respect to the optimal movement pattern. Provocation of symptoms, as
well as limitations in movement or an inability to maintain stability during movements,
should be noted.

Further Refinement of Movement Dysfunction: Using the Breakouts

Once dysfunction is noted, the clinician can use the SFMA to systematically dissect each of
the major pattern dysfunctions with breakout algorithms. The breakouts provide an algo-
rithmic approach to testing all areas potentially involved in the dysfunction to isolate limita-
tions or determine dysfunction by the process of elimination. The breakouts include active
and passive movements, weightbearing and non-weightbearing positions, multiple-joint
and single-joint functional movement assessments, and unilateral and bilateral challenges.
By performing parts of the test movements in both loaded and unloaded conditions, the
clinician can draw conclusions about the interplay between the patient’s available mobility
and stability. If any of the top-tier movements are restricted when performed in the loaded
position (eg, limited or in some way painful before the end of ROM), a clue is provided
regarding functional movement. For example, if a movement is performed easily (does not
provoke symptoms or have any limitation) in an unloaded situation, it would seem logical
that the appropriate joint ROM and muscle flexibility exist and therefore a stability problem
may be the reason why the patient cannot perform the movement in a loaded position. In
this case, a patient has the requisite available biomechanical ability to go through the nec-
essary ROM to perform the task, but the neurophysiologic response needed for stabilization

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 483 21/10/13 1:06 PM

 484 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

that creates dynamic alignment and postural support is not available when the functional
movement is performed.
If the patient is observed to have limitation, restriction, or pain when unloaded, the
patient displays consistent abnormal biomechanical behavior of one or more joints and
would therefore require specific clinical assessment of each relevant joint and muscle
complex to identify the barriers that are restricting movement and may be responsible for
the provocation of pain. Consistent limitation and provocation of symptoms in both the
loaded and unloaded conditions may be indicative of a mobility problem. True restric-
tions in mobility often require appropriate manual therapy in conjunction with corrective
exercise.
The SFMA breakout testing applies the same categorizations as its top-tier assess-
ment, with isolated focus on each pattern demonstrating pain or dysfunction. This focus
helps identify gross limitations in mobility and stability. Recall that the SFMA uses specific
descriptors to identify dysfunction in both mobility and stability, as described earlier in this
chapter.
• Tissue extensibility dysfunction involves tissues that are extraarticular. Examples can
include active or passive muscle insufficiency, neural tension, fascial tension, muscle
shortening, scarring, and fibrosis.
• Joint mobility dysfunction involves structures that are articular or intraarticular.
Examples can include osteoarthritis, fusion, subluxation, adhesive capsulitis, and
intraarticular loose bodies.
Figure 17-21 provides an example of the overhead deep squat pattern breakout.
As can be seen on the algorithm, the clinician is directed to move from a weighted to an
unweighted posture, and active and passive movements are used to systematically isolate
all the different variables that could cause dysfunction during the overhead deep squat.

How to Interpret the Results of Selective Functional

Movement Assessment
Once the SFMA has been completed, the clinician should be able to: (a) Identify the major
sources of dysfunction and movements that are affected. (b) Identify patterns of movement
that cause pain, with reproduction of pain indicating either mechanical deformation or an
inflammatory process affecting nociceptors in the symptomatic structures. The key follow-
up question must be, “Which of the functional movements caused the tissue to become
painful?” (c) Once the pattern of dysfunction has been identified, the problem is classi-
fied as dysfunction of either mobility or stability to determine where intervention should
commence.
With the SFMA, treatment is not about alleviating mechanical pain; rather, the SFMA
guides the clinician to begin by choosing interventions designed to improve the dysfunc-
tional nonpainful patterns first. This philosophy of intervention does not ignore the source
of pain; instead, it takes the approach of removing the mechanical dysfunction that caused
the tissues to become symptomatic in the first place.
Pain-free functional movement is the goal for all. It is requisite for work performance,
athletic success, and healthy aging. The pain-free functional movement necessary to allow
participation in activities of daily living, work, and athletics has many components: pos-
ture, ROM, muscle performance, and motor control. Impairments in any of these com-
ponents can potentially alter functional movement. The authors believe that the SFMA
incorporates the essential elements of many daily, work, and sports activities and provides
a schema for addressing movement-related dysfunction. (More information can be found at
[Link].) Appendices A5 to A-7 are examples of score sheets used with
the SFMA.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 484 21/10/13 1:06 PM

 The Functional Movement Screen and the Selective Functional Movement Assessment 485

OVERHEAD DEEP SQUATTING PATTERN BREAKOUTS

Limited overhead deep squat

Interlocked fingers behind neck deep squat

DN, DP, or FP If squat is now functional and

non-painful – Go recheck all
extension breakout flowcharts.

Assisted squat

DN, DP, or FP FN

Core SMCD, plus make sure

multi-segmental extension
breakouts are clear.

Half kneeling dorsiflexion

FN, FP, or DP DN

Lower posterior chain TED and/or

ankle JMD, plus make sure MSE
and SLS breakouts are clear.

Supine knees to chest holding shins

DN, DP, or FP FN

Supine knees to If dorsiflexion was FN = weight bearing core,

chest holding thighs knee and/or hip flexion SMCD. If dorsiflexion
was DN, consider knees, hips, and core normal.
If dorsiflexion was DP or FP then consider this
a red box and treat dorsiflexion. Plus make sure
multi-segmental extension breakouts are clear.

FN FP or DP DN

Knee JMD (flexion) and/or lower anterior Hip JMD and/or posterior chain TED – Proceed to
chain TED, plus make sure multi-segmental multi-segmental flexion for hips, but still can be knee
extension breakouts are clear. JMD – Go to multi-segmental extension breakout.

Figure 17-21
Overhead deep squat pattern breakout. DN, Dysfunctional nonpainful; DP, dysfunctional
painful; FN, functional nonpainful; FP, functional painful; JMD, joint mobility dysfunction;
MSE, multisegmental extension; SLS, single leg stance; SMCD, stability motor control dysfunction;
TED, tissue extensibility dysfunction.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 485 21/10/13 1:07 PM

 486 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

Movement Screening versus Specific

Functional Performance Tests
The fundamental movement screening tests described in this chapter do not assess the
whole of function. They do not include power tasks, running, jumping, acceleration, or
deceleration, which are important facets of almost all sports and must therefore be exam-
ined before return of an athlete to practice or competition. The following section discusses
the evidence that is available and the current utility of several common specific functional
performance tests.
Professionals involved with athletes perform a wide variety of functional performance
tests. Objective, quantitative assessment of functional limitations by the use of functional
performance testing has been described in the literature for more than 20 years.18-24 Func-
tional performance assessment may be used in an attempt to describe an athlete’s aptitude,
identify talent, monitor performance, describe asymmetry or dysfunction, and determine
readiness to participate in sports. Before sports participation athletes are frequently timed
in a 40-yard dash, measured for vertical jump abilities, or assessed for performance on agil-
ity tests such as the timed T-test. This often occurs as part of a preparticipation examination.
After progressing through postinjury or postsurgical rehabilitation, patients are assessed
for their ability to perform functional tasks such as step-downs, hopping, jumping, landing,
and cutting. Functional tests such as these are frequently used to simulate sporting activi-
ties or actions in the context of whole-body dynamic movement to contribute to the deci-
sion regarding whether an athlete is “fit” or physically prepared to begin sport participation
or ready to return to play. It is our assertion that these specific functional tests should be
performed only after movement screening has taken place and successful mastery of the
fundamental movements previously described has been demonstrated.
Functional performance testing should examine athletes under conditions that imi-
tate the necessary functional demands of their sports. Functional performance tests use
dynamic skills or tasks to assess multiple components of function, including muscular
strength, neuromuscular control/coordination, and joint stability.25,26 They can be used for
assessment of patients after LE injury, surgery, muscular contusions, overuse conditions
such as tendinopathy or patellofemoral dysfunction, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruc-
tion (ACLR), and ankle instability.19-21,26,27 Ideally, such tests should be time efficient and
simple, require little or inexpensive equipment, and be able to be performed in a clinical
setting.11,21,28 If at all possible, such tests should be able to identify subjects at risk for injury
or reinjury.28-31 Above all, functional performance tests should be objective, reliable, and
sensitive to change.19,24,27,29,32 The root requirement for establishing the objectivity and reli-
ability of any functional test is the use of standardized protocols and instructions.27
The validity of functional performance tests is difficult to establish. Many tests assess
or examine only a portion of the requirements for the composite performance of a com-
plex sporting activity. Single-limb assessments may have advantages in evaluating ath-
letes who rely on unilateral limb performance, such as runners,33 or athletes for whom
running accounts for a large part of their sport demands. Single-limb tasks or “hops”
offer considerable information regarding functional readiness in a wide variety of ath-
letes because many sports entail single-limb weight acceptance, hopping, or landing as
a part of their performance. Single-limb assessments offer specific benefits in the realm
of objectivity because of their ability to provide within-subject, between-limb compari-
sons, described as a “biologic baseline,” versus having to use population-derived norms.
Tests such as the single-limb leg press (Figure 17-22), step-down performed either to the
front or laterally (Figure 17-23),27,34 squat,35 hop for distance, triple hop for distance, cross-
over hop for distance (Figure 17-24),18,20,21 stair hop,29,30 and the 6-meter timed single-
limb hop20,21 are examples of commonly used single-limb tests that allow establishment

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 486 21/10/13 1:07 PM

 Movement Screening versus Specific Functional Performance Tests 487
of the limb symmetry index (LSI), which helps identify
existing or residual postoperative asymmetry between
limbs.20,21,25,29,30 The functional status of the knee has
been categorized as “compromised” if the LSI is less
than 85%.18,20,21 Single-limb tasks offer a wide variety of
imposed demands on the LE that can be used at various
times during the rehabilitation process for assessment
of symmetry, recovery, and readiness to resume sports
participation.27,29,30 The triple hop for distance has been
demonstrated to be a strong predictor of both power (as
measured by vertical jump) and isokinetic strength.22,25,36
Sekir et al26 describe a lateral single-limb hop test that may
be an important facet of functional assessment for ath-
letes who rely on repetitive lateral movements for sport
proficiency. Several researchers also advocate assess-
ment of lateral movement during single-limb hop test-
Figure 17-22 Single-leg press
ing or the side-cutting maneuver because it may be more
valid for athletes who move and cut laterally.37,38 Several
authors18,20,21,29,30 have related the LSI to functional status; for example, a lower LSI after
ACLR is related to poorer function, and improvements in raw scores on the single-limb
hop test, as well as the LSI, represent functional recovery over 52 weeks after ACLR. Noyes
et al20,21 suggested that the LSI should be higher than 85% before return to sport. Loudon
et al27 suggested that in the case of patellofemoral pain syndrome, the LSI should be closer
to 90% to prevent reinjury. Bilateral assessments, including squats, leg presses, and 2-legged
“jumps” such as the drop jump (Figure 17-25) or tuck jump (Figure 17-26), may be more
valid for assessing athletes in whom 2-legged jumping and landing tasks are important.31,33

A B C

Figure 17-23 Step-down test

Monitor for LE biomechanics and control. A. Front step down; note the trunk and hands. B. Front step-down close-up;
note the alignment of the stance knee. C. Lateral step-down with same qualitative criteria.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 487 21/10/13 1:07 PM

 488 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

A B C

Figure 17-24 Crossover hop for distance

Start (A), lateral movement (B), and final lateral movement (C). Note: The athlete must “stick”
or control the landing. The athlete attempts to go as far as possible in the combined 3 hops.

A B C

Figure 17-25 Drop jump assessment

Start position (A), midposition (B), and landing (C). Note the deep flexion angle in landing and alignment of the hips
and knees.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 488 21/10/13 1:07 PM

 Movement Screening versus Specific Functional Performance Tests 489

A B C

Figure 17-26 Tuck jump assessment

Beginning of movement (A), midmovement (B), and in air in a tucked position (C). Note that this test must be observed
from the side and the front to analyze performance.

Most athletic skills require a combination of vertical, horizontal, and lateral movement by
1 or both LEs. Probably the most important requirement for successful sport performance
is a series of highly developed motor control strategies to allow speed and agility during
performance.33 If an LE reach, jump, hop, or agility test could be used to objectively screen
athletes’ neuromuscular performance and suggest intervention before either sport partici-
pation or return to sport, that functional performance test would be valuable for preventing
injury or decreasing the likelihood of reinjury.12,21,28,31,37
We know of no single optimal, valid, and reliable test that can determine an athlete’s
readiness for participation or return to sport. Given the wide variation and complexity of
the demands of sport, this is not surprising. Many professionals suggest the use of func-
tional test batteries or a series of functional tests that are related to the specific demands
of a specific sport or that can be related to the probable mechanisms of injury for a specific
pathology. A combination of 2 or more tests is recommended for relevant, sensitive, respon-
sive functional assessment.18,20,21,39,40 Bjorklund et al39 proposed a functional test instrument
(battery) named the Test for Athletes with Knee Injuries that they describe as valid, reliable,
and sensitive for use after ACLR. The Test for Athletes with Knee Injuries is composed of
8 evaluations, including jogging, running, single-limb squat, rising from sitting (single leg),
bilateral squat, single-limb hop for distance, single-limb vertical jump (performed plyo-
metrically), and the single-limb crossover hop (8 meters). The authors present suggested
scoring criteria for each test that take into account qualitative assessment of performance of
the 8 tests. This is just one such example of combining several functional performance tests
into a series for examination of a group of patients. Clearly, all functional performance tests
are not relevant for all athletes, and it is the role of the rehabilitation professional to select
valid, reliable, sensitive, and relevant functional performance tests.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 489 21/10/13 1:07 PM

 490 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

SUMMARY
Movement Scoring Systems
1. One of the most difficult decisions that must be made by rehabilitation providers is
whether an athlete is ready to participate in sports or safely return to sport participation.
2. Acceptance plus use of fundamental movement screening systems such as the FMS
and the SFMA is sweeping across the country. These screens offer valuable informa-
tion to professionals regarding the fundamental functional abilities of an athlete in the
realm of movement by identifying compensatory movements or deficits in mobility or
stability.

Functional Performance Tests

1. Functional performance tests or test batteries can be used to assess athletes of all ages
and skill levels who participate in a wide variety of sports.
2. Frequently, functional performance tests assess a facet or single part the vast de-
mands of any given sport, and therefore the validity of such tests is hard to determine.
Although not providing a complete picture of athletic function, these tests are essential
tools for the rehabilitation professional. It is critical that the rehabilitation professional
be familiar with the use of such screens and tests to discern readiness for participation.
3. Skillful combinations of movement screening, functional performance testing, and
sport-specific movement testing offer the best assessment of an athlete’s readiness for
return to sport.

Future Research
1. Although evidence regarding tests and systems that are objective, valid, and reliable is
beginning to mount (Minick, DiMattia, Loudon, and others), many questions regard-
ing the big picture of return to function exist. Does the FMS relate to core stability?
Does it predict performance in athletics or merely identify potential for injury? Which
functional performance measures are best used for athletes who participate in certain
sports? Normative scores for the FMS and other functional performance tests by age
and gender would be very helpful for comparison between athletes.
2. As the published evidence on functional testing continues to accumulate, rehabilita-
tion professionals will have to keep abreast of changes and adapt their use of screens
and tests accordingly.

REFERENCES
1. Fuller C, Drawer S. The application of risk management in 3. Reed FE. The preparticipation athletic exam process. South
sports. Sports Med. 2004;19:2108-2114. Med J. 2004;97:871-872.
2. Paterno MV, Schmitt LC, Ford KR, et al. Biomechanical 4. Van Mechelen W, Hlobil H, Kemper HC, et al. Incidence,
measures during landing and postural stability severity, etiology and prevention of sports injuries. Sports
predict second anterior cruciate ligament injury Med. 1992;14:82-89.
after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction 5. Van Mechelen W, Twisk J, Molendjk A, et al. Subject related
and return to sport. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38: risk factors for sports injuries: a 1-year prospective study in
1968-1978. young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996;28:1171-1179.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 490 21/10/13 1:07 PM

 Movement Screening versus Specific Functional Performance Tests 491
6. Watson AW. Sports injuries related to flexibility, posture, 22. Petschnig R, Baron R, Albrecht M. The relationship
acceleration, clinical deficits, and previous injury in high- between isokinetic quadriceps strength test and hop tests
level players of body contact sports. Int J Sports Med. for distance and one-legged vertical jump test following
2001;22:220-225. anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports
7. Kendall FP. Muscle Testing and Function. 5th ed. Phys Ther. 1998;28:23-31.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. 23. Risberg MA, Ekeland A. Assessment of functional tests
8. Page P, Frank CC, Lordner R. Assessment and Treatment of after anterior cruciate ligament surgery. J Orthop Sports
Muscle Imbalance: The Janda Approach. Champaign, IL: Phys Ther. 1994;19:212-217.
Human Kinetics; 2011. 24. Ross MD, Langford B, Whelan PJ. Test-retest reliability of 4
9. Sahrmann SA. Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement single-leg hop tests. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16:617-622.
Impairment Syndromes. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2002. 25. Hamilton RT, Shultz SJ, Schmitz RJ, Perrin DH. Triple-hop
10. Chorba RS, Chorba DJ, Bouillon LE, et al. Use of a distance as a valid predictor of lower limb strength and
functional movement screening tool to determine injury power. J Athl Train. 2008;43:144-151.
risk in female collegiate athletes. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 26. Sekir U, Yildiz Y, Hazneci B, et al. Reliability of a functional
2010;5:47-54. test battery evaluating functionality, proprioception, and
11. Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight ML. Can serious injury in strength in recreational athletes with functional ankle
professional football be predicted by a preseason instability. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2008;44:407-415.
functional movement screen? N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 27. Loudon JK, Waiesner D, Goist-Foley LH, et al. Intrarater
2007;2:147-152. reliability of functional performance tests for subjects
12. Plisky PJ, Rauh MJ, Kaminski TW, Underwood FB. Star with patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Athl Train.
excursion balance test as a predictor of lower extremity 2002;37:256-261.
injury in high school basketball players. J Orthop Sports 28. Myer GD, Ford KR, Hewett TE. Tuck jump assessment for
Phys Ther. 2006;36:911-919. reducing anterior cruciate ligament injury risk. Athl Ther
13. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation Today. 2008;13:(5):39-44.
screening: the use of fundamental movements as an 29. Hopper DM, Goh SC, Wentworth LA, et al. Test-retest
assessment of function—part 1. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. reliability of knee rating scales and functional hop
2006;1:62-72. tests one year following anterior cruciate ligament
14. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation reconstruction. Phys Ther Sport. 2002;3:10-18.
screening: the use of fundamental movements as an 30. Hopper DM, Strauss GR, Boyle JJ, Bell J. Functional
assessment of function—part 2. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction:
2004;1:132-139. a longitudinal perspective. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
15. Minick KI, Kiesel KM, Burton L, et al. Interrater reliability 2008;89:1535-1541.
of the functional movement screen. J Strength Cond Res. 31. Padua DA, Marshall SW, Boling MC, et al. The landing
2010;24:479-486. error scoring system (LESS) is a valid and reliable clinical
16. Okada T, Huxel KC, Nesser TW. Relationship between assessment tool of jump-landing biomechanics: the JUMP-
core stability, functional movement, and performance. J ACL study. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:1996-2002.
Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:252-261. 32. Brosky J, Nitz A, Malone T, et al. Intrarater reliability of
17. Richardson C, Hodges P, Hides J. Therapeutic Exercise for selected clinical outcome measures following anterior
Lumbopelvic Stabilization: A Motor Control Approach for cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys
the Treatment and Prevention of Low Back Pain. 2nd ed. Ther. 1999;29:39-48.
Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone; 2004. 33. Meylan C, McMaster T, Cronin J, et al. Single-leg lateral,
18. Barber SD, Noyes FR, Mangine RE, et al. Quantitative horizontal, and vertical jump assessment: reliability,
assessment of functional limitation in normal and anterior interrelationships, and ability to predict sprint and
cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. change-of-direction performance. J Strength Cond Res.
1990;255:204-214. 2009;23:1140-1147.
19. Bolgla LA, Keskula DR. Reliability of lower extremity 34. Piva SR, Fitzgerald K, Irrgang JJ, et al. Reliability of
functional performance tests. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. measures of impairments associated with patellofemoral
1997;26:138-142. pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:33-46.
20. Noyes FR, Barber SD, Mangine RE. Abnormal lower 35. DiMattia MA, Livengood AL, Uhl TL, et al. What are the
limb symmetry determined by functional hop tests after validity of the single-leg-squat test and its relationship
anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Am J Sports Med. to hip abduction strength? J Sport Rehabil. 2005;14:
1991;19:513-518. 108-123.
21. Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD, Fleckenstein C, et al. The 36. Wilk KE, Romaniello WT, Soscia SM, et al. The relationship
drop-jump screening test: difference in lower limb control between subjective knee scores, isokinetic testing and
by gender and effect of neuromuscular training in female functional testing in the ACL-reconstructed knee. J Orthop
athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33:197-207. Sports Phys Ther. 1994;20:60-73.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 491 21/10/13 1:07 PM

 492 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

37. Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR, Slauterbeck JR. 39. Bjorklund K, Andersson L, Dalen N. Validity and
Preparticipation physical examination using a responsiveness of the test of athletes with knee injuries:
box drop vertical jump test in young athletes: the the new criterion based functional performance test
effects of puberty and sex. Clin J Sport Med. instrument. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.
2006;16:298-304. 2009;17:435-445.
38. Zebis MK, Andersen LL, Bencke J, et al. Identification 40. Gustavsson A, Neeter C, Thomee P, et al. A test battery for
of athletes at future risk of anterior cruciate ligament evaluation of hop performance in patients with ACL injury
ruptures by neuromuscular screening. Am J Sports Med. and patients who have undergone ACL reconstruction.
2009;37:1967-1973. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:778-788.

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 492 21/10/13 1:07 PM

 Movement Screening versus Specific Functional Performance Tests 493

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 493 21/10/13 1:07 PM

 494 Chapter 17 Functional Movement Assessment

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 494 21/10/13 1:08 PM

Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 495 21/10/13 1:08 PM
Hoog_Ch17_0463-[Link] 496 21/10/13 1:08 PM