Functional Movement ScreenEdit
The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a concise, field-based assessment designed to observe how people move through seven fundamental patterns. Developed for use by coaches, therapists, and clinicians, the screen aims to identify limitations and asymmetries in movement that could predispose to injury or limit performance. By highlighting deficits before they become injuries, the FMS seeks to guide efficient, targeted training rather than relying on guesswork or costly, invasive diagnostics.
Proponents argue that the FMS offers a simple, cost-effective way to triage movement quality in athletes, military recruits, and general populations. The test is quick to administer, requires minimal equipment, and provides a common language for practitioners to discuss movement, progression, and corrective exercise. When used correctly, FMS results can help practitioners allocate time and resources to address clear movement faults, prioritize preventive work, and monitor progress over time. See Functional Movement Screen discussions of its application across sports, rehabilitation, and performance settings, and how it interfaces with other movement-focused tools such as Selective Functional Movement Assessment.
Detractors note that, while the tool can be useful, its ability to predict injury on its own is limited. Several studies and meta-analyses have found that a low total FMS score does not consistently forecast who will get injured across all populations or sports. Critics also point to variability in how the test is administered and scored, which can undermine reliability if evaluators are not properly trained. From this perspective, FMS should be viewed as one piece of a broader risk-management and conditioning strategy, not a definitive gatekeeper for athletic participation. Supporters reply that reliability and predictive power improve with standardized administration, adequate practitioner training, and integration with sport-specific loading programs.
The FMS sits within a broader framework that emphasizes movement quality as a foundation for safe, effective training. It reflects a philosophy that practical, low-cost screening can inform smarter programming, reduce wasted effort in training, and empower individuals to take charge of their own fitness and health. This perspective aligns with market-based approaches to fitness and rehabilitation, where observable movement mechanics guide targeted interventions rather than rely solely on subjective judgments or blanket protocols.
Origins and development
The Functional Movement Screen emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s as a practical tool for translating biomechanical observation into actionable training recommendations. It was developed by practitioners who sought a standardized method to assess fundamental movement patterns that underpin vigor, resilience, and performance. The screen is commonly associated with Gray Cook and his collaborators, who popularized the approach as a concise way to identify movement faults and inform corrective strategies. The goal was to move beyond abstract concepts of flexibility or strength alone and examine how well a person can coordinate multiple body regions through common patterns.
Over time, the FMS has been adopted across professional sports organizations, athletic programs, military settings, and rehabilitation clinics. Its accessibility—requiring little equipment and minimal time—made it appealing in environments where practical risk management and performance optimization are priorities. See Functional Movement Screen for a fuller history and discussion of how the tool has been deployed in different contexts.
How the test works
The FMS consists of seven movements, each designed to reveal coordination, mobility, and stability in basic patterns that underlie athletic function. Each movement is scored on a simple 0–3 scale, with 3 indicating the pattern was performed correctly with no compensations, 2 indicating some compensation or imperfection, 1 indicating the movement could not be completed, and 0 indicating pain during the movement. A total score is the sum of the seven patterns, with a maximum of 21.
- Deep Squat: Assesses hips, knees, ankles, and thoracic spine control as the body moves through a squat pattern. See Deep Squat.
- Hurdle Step: Looks at hip, knee, and ankle stability and mobility as the leg clears a hurdle path. See Hurdle Step.
- In-Line Lunge: Examines step sequence, hip and ankle mobility, and trunk stability as the body moves through a lunge with a narrow stance. See In-Line Lunge.
- Shoulder Mobility: Evaluates shoulder range of motion and thoracic spine mobility through a combined two-arm mobility test. See Shoulder Mobility.
- Active Straight-Leg Raise: Tests active hip flexor and hamstring flexibility and pelvic control while lifting one leg with the other leg stabilized. See Active Straight-Leg Raise.
- Trunk Stability Push-Up: Assesses core stability and symmetrical trunk function during upper-body pushing. See Trunk Stability Push-Up.
- Rotary Stability: Measures multi-directional trunk and hip control when the body moves in a diagonal pattern. See Rotary Stability.
Beyond the raw score, practitioners often consider symmetry between sides and the quality of movement in each pattern. Poor performance on constellations of tests can prompt targeted corrective exercises, progressive loading, and re-assessment to track improvements. The test suite is designed to be integrated with broader training and rehabilitation plans rather than used as an isolated verdict.
Evidence and contemporary debates
Supporters point to the pragmatic value of FMS as a low-cost, executable screening that can guide individualized training plans and injury-prevention strategies. They emphasize that, when combined with proper coaching, conditioning, and load management, improvements on the FMS often accompany better movement efficiency and a reduced risk of overuse injuries.
Critics, however, stress that the literature on predictive validity is mixed. Some studies find associations between lower FMS scores and higher injury risk in certain cohorts (e.g., some military and athletic populations), while others find weak or inconsistent predictive power when controlling for age, sport, training load, and prior injury. Reliability can also be variable across populations and rater experience, which has fueled calls for rigorous standardization and ongoing training for screen administrators. See discussions on injury risk assessment and the limits of single-measure screening in Injury and Sports medicine literature.
From a market-oriented, evidence-led perspective, the controversy centers on whether FMS should be used to bar participation or to guide corrective programming. Proponents argue that, even if the total score is not a perfect predictor of injury, the process of screening raises awareness about movement quality and focuses attention on modifiable risk factors. Critics may contend that overreliance on a single score can misclassify risk or create a false sense of certainty about injury outcomes. In this frame, the value of FMS lies in its ability to standardize observation, stimulate corrective work, and complement broader risk-management practices—rather than replacing clinical judgment or sport-specific conditioning.
Some debates touch on how to interpret results across diverse populations. Differences in body size, training history, and sport-specific demands can influence how a given score should be read. Advocates for standardized practice argue for certified training, consistent scoring rubrics, and ongoing calibration among evaluators. Skeptics caution against overgeneralizing results from one sport or setting to another, particularly where testing protocols or readiness-to-train criteria differ.
Woke criticisms of movement screening—where critics argue that tests may reinforce biases or distract from broader systemic factors—are commonly addressed by noting that FMS is a practical tool, not a social policy. Proponents contend that improvements in functional movement are universally beneficial and that the best response is rigorous, data-driven training, not ideological opposition to screening methods. In other words, the practical question is whether the tool helps people move better and train smarter, and whether its use is guided by professional judgment and evidence, not political narratives.
Implementation and practice
In practice, FMS is typically administered by professionals with training in movement assessment. The tester observes each pattern, records the score, and notes any compensations or asymmetries. The resulting profile informs a corrective program tailored to the individual, often including targeted mobility work, stability training, and progressive loading plans. Regular re-assessment helps track progress and adjust the training plan accordingly.
The tool’s appeal lies in its simplicity and its ability to focus coaching resources where they are most needed. In athletic programs, it may be used as part of a pre-season screening routine, to structure injury-prevention work during the off-season, or to monitor the impact of a corrective exercise program. In clinical and rehabilitation settings, FMS can complement other functional assessments and guide decisions about progression to more demanding activities.
See also Gray Cook for the original development narrative, Selective Functional Movement Assessment for a related, more diagnosis-oriented approach, and Injury prevention for broader context on how movement screening fits into risk-reduction strategies.