functional movement screen and ankle stability

7/22/2019 Functional Movement Screen and Ankle Stability

1/43

Functional Movement Screen and Ankle Stability

Mary A. Dunyak

Meredith College


2/43

ii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT...iii

LIST OF FIGURESiv

CHAPTERS

I. REVIEW OF LITERATURE..1 II. METHODS11

III. RESULTS..21IV. DISCUSSION24 REFERENCES..30

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT..34

APPENDIX B BESS SCRIPT..36


3/43

iii

Abstract

Injuries occur in the ankle joint more often in any other joint in the body (Fong et al.,

2007), and those injuries often lead to chronic symptoms of residual instability (Yeung et al.,

1994). The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) has advertised itself as a tool to identify an

individuals risk of injury. The purpose of this research was to identify any potential

relationships between the FMS and a measure of ankle stability, to see if the FMS could be a

valid tool for predicting ankle injury. The researcher investigated the screen as a whole,

individual movements, gender differences, and differences in those with past injury. Sixty

individuals participated in this study. Each participant took part of an FMS, performing only the

movements that require the ankle joint. They then took the Balance Error Scoring System

(BESS) test as the measure of ankle stability. Bivariate correlations were used to analyze the

results. This study concludes that the FMS may not be the best form of an ankle injury screen.

Since the FMS is often performed in sport performance or physical therapy settings, this research

may provide insight to the usefulness of this screen in those settings.


4/43

iv

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 Relationship between FMS score and BESS score......21

Figure 3.2 Relationship between FMS score and BESS score in Previously Injured Participants

22

Figure 3.3 Relationship between FMS score and BESS score in Female Participants..23

Figure 3.4 Relationship between Active Straight Leg Raise and BESS scores in Female

Participants.23

Figure 3.5 Relationship between In-Line Lunge Score and BESS score in Male Participants.23


5/43

1

Review of Literature

Ankle sprains occur more often in sports than any other injury (Fong, Hong, Chan, Yung

& Chan, 2007). Over one-third of injuries occur in the ankle joint, and ankle sprains are

estimated to account for 50% to 76% of all ankle injuries (Fong et al., 2007; Garrick & Requa,

1988). In terms of collegiate sports, the Injury Surveillance System predicts that around 11,000

ankle sprains occur per year in NCAA athletics alone (Hootman, Dick & Agel, 2007). Not only

are ankle sprains extremely prevalent, but they are also difficult to fully heal from. It has been

well documented that a previous ankle injury increases the risk of future ankle injury (Chan,

Ding, & Mroczek, 2011; Freeman, Dean & Hanham, 1965; Yeung, Chan, So, & Yuan, 1994).

Since ankle injuries are so dominant in athletics, being able to identify an individuals risk for

one would prove to be extremely useful in preventing injuries and enhancing health.

The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) has introduced itself as a tool for predicting the

risk of injury in an individual. It does so by observing stability, range of motion, and

asymmetries across the individuals body (Cook, Burton, & Hoogenboom, 2006a; Cook, Burton,

& Hoogenboom, 2006b). Theoretically, this tool could be potentially useful in identifying ankle

injury risk. Muscular imbalances have been shown to have a positive relationship with ankle

injury rates (Riegger, 1988; Willems et al., 2005). However, there is no current research that

supports that the FMS shows validity in identifying ankle injuries.

The researcher has organized this review in order that the reader better understands the

complexity of measuring ankle stability. An anatomical overview of the ankle joint is presented

first, followed by how the researcher defines the term ankle instability and what predisposes an

individual for ankle instability. Furthermore, several modes to measure ankle stability are

discussed, followed by a description about the functional movement screen.

Anatomical Overview


6/43

2

Anatomy of the ankle. The ankle itself is a very complex anatomical structure. The

ankle complex is located at the intersection of the tibia, fibula, and the talus bones, and is

comprised of the talocrucial joint, the subtalar joint, and the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis

(Hertel, 2002). There are eight ligaments and six muscles that cross the ankle joint (Riegger,

1988). Its range features multiple movements (dorsiflexion, plantarflexion, internal rotation,

external rotation, abduction, and adduction), that occur in the frontal, sagittal, and transverse

planes (Riegger, 1988).

Anatomy of sprains. A sprain of the ankle occurs when the ligaments surrounding the

joint stretch or tear (Glasgow, Jackson, & Jamieson, 1980). The most common occurring sprain

of the ankle is a lateral ankle sprain (Hertel, 2002). A lateral ankle sprain occurs when the sprain

affects either the anterior talofibular ligament, the calcaneofibular ligament, or the posterior

talofibular ligament (Glasgow et al., 1980). The etiology involves extreme plantarflexion and

inversion in the ankle, although plantarflexion has been more indicative of injury than inversion

(Wright, Neptune, van den Bogert, & Nigg, 2000).

Medial ankle sprains are also possible, and occur under extreme dorsiflexion and

eversion of the ankle (Wolfe, Uhl, Mattacola, & McCluskey, 2001). However, the medial

ligaments of the ankle have been found to be stronger than the lateral ligaments (Riegger, 1988).

This increases stability of the medial ankle joint and thus decreases the risk of sprain.

Defining Ankle Instability

There are two different types of ankle instability noted in research. Functional instability

describes a deficit in neuromuscular control or proprioception, whereas mechanical instability is

associated with structural inefficiencies of the joint (Hertel, 2002). When these symptoms occur

over a period of time, they are considered to be chronic. Although ankle instability is very


7/43

3

common amongst people, there is no universally accepted definition of an unstable ankle

(Kaminski, & Hartsell, 2002).

Previous research studies have developed a variety of definitions for various types of

ankle instability. Hertel (2002) defined lateral ankle instability as the existence of an unstable

ankle due to lateral ligamentous damage caused by excessive supination or inversion of the

rearfoot(p. 365). Hertel (2002) further defined chronic lateral ankle instability as the

occurrence of repetitive bouts of lateral ankle instability, resulting in numerous ankle sprains (p.

365). Tropp, Odenrick and Gillquist (1985), defined functional instability as a recurrent sprain

or a feeling of giving way of the ankle (p. 180) whereas Hansen, Damholt, and Termansen

(1979) defined functional instability as a feeling of insecurity and a tendency for the foot to

give way (p. 700). Lee, Lin, and Huang (2006), added that a person could not have had any

previous fracture to the bones surrounding the ankle joint in order to be considered functionally

instable.

Each definition includes attributes of both mechanical and functional instability, because

it is believed that feelings of instability involve a combination of both (Hertel, 2002). Based on

the above, for the purpose of this study ankle instability will be defined as repetitive bouts of

unsteadiness in the ankle joint due to a sprain in the ankle or a feeling of giving way.

Risk Factors for Ankle Instability

There are two classifications of risk factors for injuries. Extrinsic variables describe the

outside-the-body characteristics that could affect injury such as environment or weather

(Beynnon et al., 2001). Intrinsic variables describe risk factors associated with the body, such as

size, joint position, or proprioception (Beynnon et al., 2001).


8/43

4

Muscular weaknesses and imbalances have been attributed to symptoms of chronic ankle

instability. It was found that weakness in the pronator or evertor muscle groups can lead to

symptoms of ankle instability (Kaminski & Hartsell, 2002). In addition, the ligamentous

structures in the lateral side of the ankle joint are naturally weaker than the medial side (Riegger,

1988), which has been attributed to the high level of lateral ankle sprains. Similarly, it was found

that those with stronger dorsiflexors were more prone to ankle sprains (Willems et al., 2005).

Ankle sprains are believed to be the greatest risk factor in functional instability of the

ankle (Yeung et al., 1994). It has been suggested that up to 73% of ankle sprains will result in

some form of functional ankle stability symptom (Yeung et al., 1994). It is also estimated that

20% people who suffer an ankle sprain with develop chronic symptoms of ankle instability

(Chan et al., 2011).

It has been theorized that a ligament injury can cause partial deafferentation of nerve

fibers, which slows down the central nervous systems reaction to sudden instability in the joint

(Freeman et al., 1965). As a result, the body would not be able to stabilize the joint quick

enough, which leads to the feelings of instability (Freeman et al., 1965). This permanent damage

resulting from an ankle sprain could explain the relationship between functional instability as a

residual symptom of an ankle sprain.

Measuring Ankle Stability

Force plates. Force plates have shown to be a strong measure ankle stability, and can be

used in a variety of ways. During a single-leg stance, they can show where a participants center

of balance is, and how that changes throughout the time in balance. Using this technique, Tropp

and colleagues (1985) found that those with functionally stable ankles had a more stable center

of pressure in comparison to those with functionally unstable ankles. Similarly, Ross,


9/43

5

Guskiewicz, Gross, & Yu (2009) used force plates to time how long it took for a persons ankle

to reach a stable position while remaining stationary in a single-leg stance, as well as jumping

single-leg. Both of these studies found that those with stable ankles reached a stable position

much faster than those who had functional ankle instability. McGuine, Greene, Best, &

Leverson (2000) measured postural sway in basketball players using a force plate, and found a

positive relationship between the amount of postural sway in an individual and their

susceptibility to ankle injuries.

Ross, Guskiewicz, & Yu (2005) had their subjects perform a single leg jump test on a

force plate, with the landing on their unstable ankle. They observed how long it took for their

subjects to stabilize themselves in both the anterior/posterior direction and the medial/lateral

directions. They found that those who had functional ankle instability took longer to stabilize

their bodies. On top of that, they suggested that using a single-leg jump-landing test would not

only measure stability, but also show jump landing patterns (Ross et al., 2005). The authors of

this study found that observing an individuals jump landing pattern could help them discover

and correct poor mechanics prior to returning to activity which could also decrease risk of future

injury.

Force plates are extremely useful tools in measuring the stability of an ankle, due to the

accurate measures that researchers can obtain of a persons postural sway and center of gravity in

certain moments. However, force plates are expensive and are often out of a research budget.

Self-Reported questionnaires. Self-reports from individuals have also been noted to

show patterns in ankle instability. This type of measurement is less expensive and does not

require a lot of the researchers time.


10/43

6

The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), is a questionnaire that uses a Likert scale

to show how effortlessly the subjects perform activities of daily living and sports-related

activities (Carcia, Martin, & Drouin, 2008). Carcia and colleagues (2008) found that this tool is

valid in showing ankle instability in individuals.

A potential limitation of questionnaires involves different individuals perceptions of

instability. Each subject will perceive their symptoms differently in comparison to each other;

even though two subjects may be experience the same symptoms, one will perceive their

symptoms as worse than the other. These differences in perception could potentially cause error

in the data.

Balance tests. There are several balance protocols that have been followed while

measuring ankle stability. The star excursion balance test is a measure of dynamic stability, and

involves the subject balancing on one leg while reaching the other leg as far as possible in eight

different directions (Olmsted, Carcia, Hertel, & Shultz, 2002). Research has found that patients

cannot reach their leg as far of a distance while standing on an ankle that is considered to be

chronically unstable (Olmsted et al., 2002). The Balance Error Scoring System (BESS), which

has traditionally been used for concussion testing, has recently shown to be a valid measure of

ankle stability (Bell, Guskiewicz, Clark & Padua, 2011). Docherty and colleagues (2006) were

the first study to demonstrate that the BESS can identify ankle instability in an individual. They

selected half of their participants with history of ankle injury and ankle instability, and half with

no previous ankle dysfunctions. They found that those with a history of instability scored higher

on the BESS test, showing that the BESS can identify ankle instabilities (Docherty et al., 2006).


11/43

7

While using a simple balance test may not give the specifics that force plates can provide,

they have shown to be just as accurate in measuring ankle stability. They are also extremely cost

efficient and do not require much equipment.

Functional Movement Screen (FMS)

The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) was formally introduced in 2006 (Cook et al.,

2006a). It is a screen that observes the participant performing seven common movement

patterns, and looks for movement deficiencies which could identify a potential injury risk. More

specifically, it looks at the bodys stability, flexibility, and asymmetries throughout the

movements. It implies that the best way to identify potential injury risks is through a screen that

involves movement, since injuries generally occur while the body is in motion.

Development of inefficient movement patterns. It is stated by Cook and colleagues that

poor movement patterns commonly arise through either cognitive programming of poor

movement patterns or through compensation after injury (2006a). It has been found that as

movements are repeated by the body, the central nervous system adapts and stores the movement

in memory (Lephart, Pincivero, Giraldo, & Fu, 1997). Over time, this allows the movements to

be performed without consciousness command. In laymans terms, the body learns the

movement pattern and does not have to actively think about performing it. Cognitive

programming of a movement becomes an issue when the movement is learned incorrectly (Cook

et al., 2006a).

Considering previous injuries, research has theorized that proprioceptive deficits are

observed in previously injured joints (Freeman et al., 1965). Proprioception, which refers to the

bodys sensation of joint movement and joint position in space (Lephart et al., 1997), affects the


12/43

8

bodys kinetic linkage. Therefore, it has been concluded that an alteration in a joints

proprioception can affect the bodys kinetic linkage of certain movements (Cook et al., 2006a).

FMS and fixing movement errors. Cook and colleagues (2006a) believe that the best

approach to detecting movement errors was to isolate movements that require proximal-to-distal

movement activation. The seven tests within the FMS involve movements that are functional in

everyday motion and sport, but all target different potential movement deficiencies. Therefore,

the result of a FMS can show which specific movement deficiency the participant has.

Narrowing down and identifying the movement deficiency can help therapists and coaches

correct the movement inefficiencies.

Validity and reliability of the FMS. To date, there has been no formal review of the

FMS and its validity or its reliability. This could be attributed to the fact that the FMS is a

relatively new tool, and few studies have attempted to identify its validity.

Research has shown mixed results in the validity of the FMS since its introduction.

Kiesel, Plisky, and Voight (2007) found that NFL players who scored a 15 or greater (out of 21)

on their FMS spend significantly less time on the injured reserve in comparison to those who

scored a 14 or less. Similarly, Chorba, Chorba, Bouillon, Overmyer and Landis (2010) found

that female athletes who scored a 14 or below on their FMS displayed a four-fold injury risk

increase in comparison to those who scored a 15 or higher. This has led to the implication that

the higher the FMS score is, the lower the injury risk is (Cook et al., 2006a). However,

OConnor et al. (2011) found that those who scored a score of 18 on their FMS were more likely

to be injured than those who scored a 17. This study was the first to find a negative relationship

between the score of the FMS and the individuals injury risk.


13/43

9

Intrarater reliability has found to be strong in several studies. Smith, Chimera, Wright,

and Warren (2013) concluded good intra-rater reliability in their study with their intraclass

correlation coefficients ranging from 0.81-0.91 for their participants. There are several other

studies that confirm a strong intra-rater reliability of the FMS (Gribble, Brigle, Pietrosimone,

Pfile, & Webster, 2013; Shultz, Anderson, Matheson, Marcello, & Besier, 2013). Only Teyhen et

al. (2012) found only moderate to good intra-rater reliability.

Research in FMS and Ankle Stability

To date, there have been no studies that have exclusively examined ankle stability and the

FMS. Research has focused on injury risk as a whole rather than the identification of specific

injury sites on the body. To the researchers knowledge, there is no current research on the FMS

and its ability to identify a specific injury.

The prevalence and role of ankle injuries has already been extensively discussed. The

large role that the ankle plays in athletics and activities of daily living, on top of its anatomy,

causes it to be a commonly injured site on the body. Despite the occurrence of these injuries,

research is still unsure of a true definition of a stable versus unstable ankle and what the best

corrective and preventative measures are.

The Functional Movement Screen is a potentially valid tool in identifying risks of

injuries. Ankle sprains occur while the body is in motion, which is the methodology behind the

FMS. Furthermore, the FMS looks at the bodys asymmetries meaning it could potentially

identify a weaker or unstable side of the body. Being able to identify a relationship between the

FMS and ankle stability would provide extremely useful in lowering the prevalence of ankle

injuries and improving health. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether or


14/43

10

not the FMS is a valid tool in measuring a persons ankle stability, using the BESS as a valid

way to measure ankle stability.


15/43

11

Methods

The purpose of this study was to examine whether or not the functional movement screen

(FMS) could be a valid tool in predicting potential ankle injury. Since ankle injuries are so

prevalent, being able to identify validity in this could prove extremely helpful in enhancing

health of those who are at risk. The researcher set out to answer the following questions:

1) Is there a relationship between total FMS score and ankle stability?2) Is there a relationship between each of the four FMS movements and ankle stability?3) Is the relationship between total FMS score and ankle stability different in

participants who have previously suffered injuries?

4) Does the relationship between total FMS score and ankle stability differ by gender?Subjects

The participants from this study feature 60 young adults, male and female, between the

ages of 18 and 25. They were asked personally by the experimenter if they would be willing to

donate 10-15 minutes of their time for the research. There was no requirement for their level of

physical activity in order to participate. Prior to the start, they signed an informed consent that

was approved by an Institutional Review Board (Appendix A).

Instruments and Test Equipment

For the purpose of performing the FMS screen, a FMS kit was used. The FMS kit

included a measuring board, the measuring dowel, and the hurdle complex. For the Balance

Error Scoring System (BESS), a 20" x 16.4" x 2.5" Airex foam pad was used. For recording the

time of each stance, an iPhone stopwatch was used.

Measures


16/43

12

Data was recorded by the experimenter throughout the stance. The experimenter chose to

crease a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for the purpose of entering data.

Each FMS movement was scored on a scale of 0-3, which was recorded after each

movement was complete. For the bilateral movements, each side was recorded and then the

lower of the two sides was denoted the final score for that movement. At the conclusion of the

FMS, the scores for the four movements were summed to give the participants total FMS score.

There was a formula utilized in the spreadsheet to do the calculations. The maximum score that

a participant could achieve on the FMS was a 12.

Each BESS stance was recorded separately. Once the twenty second testing period

began, the experimenter would count each time the participant had an error in balance. At the

conclusion of each twenty second period, the experimenter would record the number of errors

that the participant had. At the conclusion of all six stances, the total number of errors would be

calculated to represent the total BESS score. This total was calculated via a formula inserted into

the spreadsheet.

Procedures

The testing began once the participant signed the informed consent. The participants

were asked to remove their shoes prior to being tested in order to eliminate any extra stability.

Each testing session lasted 10-15 minutes, of which the participants were informed of prior.

Prior to the start of the functional movement screen, the experimenter will ask the

participant about any previous lower extremity joint injuries. In order for an injury to be

considered, it would have had to have been diagnosed by a doctor, and have occurred in either

the hip, knee, or ankle joint. The researcher will note the joint, side, and severity of the injury.


17/43

13

Functional movement screen (FMS). The measurement for the FMS was based off of

the guidelines outlined by Cook and colleagues (2006a). For the purpose of this study, only four

of the seven movements were performed. It has been noted in the past that performing part of

the screen is just as predictive of injury as performing the full screen (OConnor, Deuster, Davis,

Pappas, & Knapik, 2011). Since this study was focused on the ankle joint, the four movements

used were the ones that utilized the ankle joint: the deep squat, the hurdle step, the in line lunge,

and the active straight leg raise.

Each movement of the FMS was scored on a scale of 0-3. A score of three indicated that

the movement was performed correctly. A score of two specified that the movement was

successfully performed, but done so incorrectly. An incorrect movement pattern meant that the

subject was compensating in some form, and therefore not performing the movement as

efficiently as possible. A score of one meant that the participant could not complete the

movement. This could happen under several circumstances, such as the participant loosing

balance or being unable to get into the position necessary to score. A score of zero was only

given when the participant experienced pain throughout the movement. At the conclusion of the

FMS, each movement score will be added together to get the participants total FMS score. For

the purpose of this study, the maximum score that an individual could receive on their FMS was

12.

The experimenters job while giving the test was to make sure the participant knew what

movement to do without being coached into perform it correctly. This was important in ensuring

that the participant performed the movement how they would do it naturally, rather than the

correct way. The experimenter also used partial demonstration of the movement rather than

completely demonstrating the movement. While scoring a subject whose movement was


18/43

14

between scores, it was suggested to score the participant the lower of the two scores. When

scoring a bilateral movement, the experimenter scored each side separately, and took the lower

of the two sides for the total score for that movement.

Deep squat.The first movement that was performed was the deep squat. The participant

began standing with their feet shoulder-width apart. The subject held the dowel across the top of

their head so that their elbows formed a ninety-degree angle. On a cue by the experimenter, the

participant pressed the dowel up so that their elbows were extended, squatted as deeply as

possible, and then returned to the start position. The purpose of this movement was to look at the

closed kinetic chain movement of ankle dorsiflexion, knee flexion, hip flexion, thoracic spine

extension, and shoulder flexion and abduction. Specifically at the ankle joint, the ankles range

of motion in dorsiflexion was tested.

There are several parts of the movement that the experimenter must look at. The dowel

must remain above the participants feet the entire time; dowel movement in the sagittal plane

will reduce the score. The participants femur should also drop below horizontal. The

participants knees should also stay aligned above the feet. The absence of any of these cues will

result in a lower score. The participant got three attempts to complete this movement, and the

highest of the three scores was counted.

If the participant performed the movement correctly, they received a score of three. If the

experimenter found any error with the movement pattern, the next step was to have the

participant perform the deep squat in the heel raised position. Here, they stood with their heels

raised on the edge of the board, but their forefoot still on the ground. They will, again, repeat the

movement. If the participant performed the movement correctly with their heels raised, then


19/43

15

they were awarded a score of two. If the movement still had errors to it, then they were awarded

a one. If the participant felt pain at any point during the test, then they were awarded a zero.

Hurdle step.The hurdle step is the first of the bilateral movements. Prior to the

beginning of the hurdle step, the experimenter determined where the subjects tibial tuberosity is,

and measured its height from the ground using the dowel. The experimenter then would set up

the equipment so that the hurdle was aligned with the height of the tibial tuberosity. The subject

started behind the board, with their toes right up against the board. The dowel was placed across

the shoulders behind the neck, with the subject lightly holding onto it. The participant then

stepped over the hurdle without touching it, lightly tapped their heel on the ground in front of it,

and then returned to the starting position. The leg that was stepping over the hurdle was

considered the scoring side. The hurdle step observes single-leg stability, as well as stability

in the knees and hips.

The experimenter was looking for alignment of the lower extremities during the stepping

motion. Therefore, it was important to look for the hip, knee, and ankle to keep movement

within the sagittal plane. It was also important to look for stability, so the participant should also

limit spinal movement and keep the dowel parallel to the floor for the entire movement. The

participant got three attempts on each leg, and the highest of the three tries was recorded.

If the moving leg stays aligned in the sagittal plane, with the participant showing no torso

movement, then they received a score of three. If either of these errors were noted, then the

participant received a score of two. If the participant could not complete the movement they

received a score of one. A score of zero was only awarded if the subject experienced pain at any

point during the movement.


20/43

16

In-line lunge. The in-line lunge tested the participants stability in the knee and torso,

flexibility in the quadriceps, and the stability and mobility of the hips and ankles. The

participant began standing on the board with one foot in front of the other. The distance between

the feet matched the height of the hurdle used in the hurdle step movement (the height of the

participants tibia). The dowel was set along the participants spine, with one hand holding at the

cervical spine, and the other holding at the lumbar spine. The arm on the cervical spine

corresponded with the leg that was in the back. The instructor asked the subject to lunge down,

tap their back knee on the board, and then return to the starting position. It was important that

the dowel remained in three points of contact throughout the movement: at the head, the thoracic

spine, and the sacrum.

The in-line lunge measured many movement pattern deficiencies. It observed the

stability in the hip, knee, and ankle joints. It required core stability and balance, and tested the

flexibility in the calf and the quadriceps. Performance could also be affected if the individuals

abductor muscles are tight, or their adductors are weak, as those groups serve to help stabilize the

hips and keep the body aligned during the movement.

There were several aspects of the movement that the researcher focused on. The dowel

must have remained in contact with the participants head, thoracic spine, and sacrum for the

entire duration of the test. The torso also had to remain straight and free from any movement in

the transverse plane. The participant must have been able to get their knee to the board without

their front heel coming up from the board. The feet and knees had to stay aligned in the sagittal

plane for the entire movement duration, and avoid any internal or external rotations.

If the participant performed the movement correctly, then they were awarded a score of

three. If any of the above movement deficiencies occurred, then they were awarded a two. If the


21/43

17

participant could not complete the movement, they were awarded a score of one. Examples of a

person unable to complete the movement were extreme loss of balance, not being able to get into

the start position, or not being able to return to the end position. A score of zero was awarded if

the participant experienced pain at any moment during the test.

Active Straight Leg Raise.The active straight leg raise test observed the flexibility of

the hamstring gastroc-soleus complex while isolating the movement from the rest of the body.

The participant began lying supine in anatomical position with the board positioned underneath

the participants knees. The experimenter found the midpoint between the anterior superior iliac

spine (ASIS) and the mid-patella, and held the dowel upwards in that spot next to the

participants leg. On the experimenters cue, the participant extended both knees, dorsiflexed

both ankles, and lifted one leg as high as possible. It was important that the hip being scored was

isolated in its movement, and that there was no rotation in the torso or other hip. The participant

got three attempts per leg.

The participant was scored based off of where the position of their malleolus was when

their leg was raised maximally. If the participants malleolus was located between the dowel and

their ASIS, then they were scored a three. If the participants malleolus was between the dowel

and their mid-patella, then they were scored a two. If their malleolus could not reach the mid-

patella line, then they were scored a one. If they experience pain at any point during the test,

then they will be scored a zero. It was important to note that the participant should be scored at

the position that the malleolus reaches before external rotation of the opposite hip.

Balance Error Scoring System (BESS). The protocol that the researcher used for the

BESS was outlined by Bell and colleagues (2011). The BESS has only been recently used to

look at ankle stability. While only two studies have studied this, both have found that the BESS


22/43

18

can be a valid measure of ankle stability (Bell et al., 2011; Docherty, Valovich McLeod &

Shultz, 2006).

The BESS test used three stances on two different surfaces to measure ankle stability.

The researcher utilized a script during the BESS portion of the study to ensure that all

participants were given the same cues (Appendix B).

The first stance was the double leg stance, and it required the participant standing on two

legs, with their feet together and their hands on their hips. The second stance was a single leg

stance. The participant was asked to identify, and then stand on their non-dominant leg. The

participant was to hold their dominant leg at thirty degrees of hip flexion and forty five degrees

of knee flexion, and balance with their hands on their hips. The third stance was the tandem

stance. The participant was asked to balance one foot in front of the other, heel to toe, with the

non-dominant foot in back and their hands on their hips. Each of these stances was first

performed on a hard, stable floor, and then on the Airex pad. The participants had to remain in

their position for twenty seconds, which began when the participants shut their eyes. The

participants were to keep their eyes closed for the duration of each stance, until the experimenter

cued them to stop.

During each twenty-second period, the researcher counted the number of errors that the

individual made. An error was defined as:

1. Opening the eyes.2. Lifting the hands off of the hips.3. Stepping, or stumbling out of position.4. Lifting forefoot or heel.5. Abducting the hip more than thirty degrees.


23/43

19

6. Failing to return to the test position in more than 5 seconds (Bell et al., 2011).The researcher recorded the number of errors for each individual stance. The researcher then

summed the six scores together to create their total BESS score.

The BESS has been shown to have good intra-rater reliability, with an intraclass

correlation coefficient of 0.74 (Finnoff, Peterson, Holloman & Smith, 2009). Intra-rater

reliability is noted for the purpose of this study, because all of the BESS tests will be given by

the same researcher. It is believed that reliability is high for this test, because the protocol

includes a script for the researcher to follow, ensuring that every test is performed exactly the

same (Bell et al., 2011).

Pilot Study: Learning Effect of the FMS and BESS

The researcher originally intended to investigate the learning effects of both of the FMS

and the BESS. The researcher pilot tested this methodology on fourteen participants. These

participants performed the FMS and BESS as expected, but then immediately repeated both tests.

There was no rest time in between the tests, and the researcher gave the same cues both times the

tests were conducted. Due to lack of participants and time, the researcher chose not to further

investigate this phenomenon.

Design and Analysis

The goal of this research study was to determine if the FMS was a valid tool for

measuring ankle stability. For the analysis of data, the individual served as the independent

variable. The two dependent variables were the individuals FMS score and BESS score. High

FMS scores are associated with a lower risk for injury. Low BESS scores are associated with

good ankle stability. The experimenters goal was to compare the two dependent variables to see

if a relationship exists between them for each participant.


24/43

20

Research Question 1. Is there a relationship between total FMS score and ankle

stability? The researcher plans on using a bivariate correlation. The researcher will compare

each individuals total FMS score to their total BESS score, and see if a relationship exists

between the two scores.

Research Question 2. Is there a relationship between each of the four FMS movements

and ankle stability? The researcher will use a bivariate correlation to analyze these variables.

The researcher will run the correlation between the participants total BESS score with each of

the four FMS movements.

Research Question 3. Is the relationship between total FMS score and ankle stability

different in participants who have previously suffered injuries? The purpose of this question is

to examine if the FMS can identify residual symptoms of ankle instability in those participants

who have previously suffered an injury. The researcher will use a bivariate correlation to analyze

this data. The researcher will compare the relationship between FMS score and BESS score in

only those participants who have previously suffered from an ankle or knee doctor diagnosed

injury. The researcher will also run the correlations between the BESS and each of the four

individual FMS movements in this population.

Research Question 4. Does the relationship between total FMS score and ankle stability

differ by gender? The researcher will run bivariate correlations between the male and female

populations separately. The researcher will first investigate any potential relationships between

the participants FMS and BESS score. The researcher will investigate further by investigating

the relationship between BESS score and the individual FMS movements in each of the male and

female populations.


25/43

21

Results

The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between FMS scores and ankle

stability. The researcher added the participants four FMS movement scores together to create

the participants total FMS score.The total BESS score is used in this study as the measure of

ankle stability. The number of participants (N) who were included in this research was sixty.

The researcher set out to answer the following research questions:

1) Is there a relationship between total FMS score and ankle stability?2) Is there a relationship between each of the four FMS movements and ankle stability?3)

Is the relationship between total FMS score and ankle stability different in

participants who have previously suffered injuries?

4) Does the relationship between total FMS score and ankle stability differ by gender?For the purpose of this study, the researcher set an alpha level at 0.05. In order for the

relationships to be deemed statistically significance, the p-value (p) must have been less than or

equal to this alpha level.

Relationship between FMS and Ankle Stability

The researcher conducted a bivariate correlation between the participants total FMS

score and total BESS score, for the purpose of examining the relationship between these two

variables. The results showed a negative moderate correlation between the two variables, with a

Pearson correlation (r) of -0.315 (p = 0.014) (Figure 3.1).

Relationship between Individual FMS Movements and Ankle Stability

The researcher further investigated the relationships between the participants ankle

stability with the individual FMS movements (deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, and active

straight leg raise). The researcher conducted a bivariate correlation between the participants


26/43

22

total BESS score and each of the four FMS movement scores. No statistically significant

relationship was found between any of the movements and the total BESS score.

Despite the statistical insignificance of the results, the deep squat and the in-line lunge

approached statistical significance. The deep squat neared a negative minor correlation with the

BESS score (r = -0.240, p = 0.065), as did the in-line lunge (r = -0.233, p= 0.73).

Relationship between FMS and Ankle Stability in Participants with Past Injury

Injured participants. For the purpose of this study, the researcher only included injuries

that were doctor diagnosed to the knee or ankle joint. The researcher ran a series of bivariate

correlations in only the participants who had previously suffered a past injury to the ankle or

knee joint (N=26). A negative moderate correlation was found to exist between the previously

injured participants total FMS score and total BESS score (r = -0.391, p = 0.048) (Figure 3.2).

The researcher ran a series of bivariate correlations between the participants total BESS

score and each of the four FMS movement scores. No statistically significant relationships were

found to exist for any of the movements.

Non-injured participants. The researcher also investigated the relationship between

total FMS score and total BESS score in participants who have never suffered a doctor diagnosed

ankle or knee injury (N= 34). The researcher ran a bivariate correlation to explore this

relationship. No significant relationships were found to exist between the participants total

FMS score and total BESS score.

The researcher further investigated the relationship between each participants total BESS

score with the four individual FMS movement, through the use of a bivariate correlation. No

significant relationships were found to exist.

Gender Differences in the relationship between the FMS and Ankle Stability


27/43

23

Females. The researcher ran a bivariate correlation between the female participants

(N=40) total FMS and total BESS scores. A negative moderate correlation was found to exist

between the two variables (r = -0.345, p = 0.029) (Figure 3.3).

The researcher further investigated the relationship between the female participants total

BESS score with each of the four FMS movements. A negative moderate relationship was found

to exist between the BESS score and the active straight leg raise (r = -0.398, p = 0.011) (Figure

3.4). No other significant relationships were found to exist between the BESS score and the

individual FMS movements.

Males. The researcher ran a bivariate correlation between the female participants (N=20)

total FMS and total BESS scores. No significant relationship was found to exist between the

participants total FMS score and total BESS score.

The researcher further investigated the relationship between the male participants total

BESS score with each of the four FMS movements. A negative large relationship was found to

exist between the participants in-line lunge score and total BESS score (r = -0.624, p = 0.003)

(Figure 3.5). No other significant relationships were found to exist between the participants

total BESS score and individual FMS movement scores.


28/43

24

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential relationships between the

Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and ankle stability. The ankle is well documented as the

most common injury site in the body (Fong et al., 2007). Therefore, being able to screen an

individual for their likelihood of ankle injury would be extremely useful. The FMS advertises

itself as a way to predict the likelihood of injury in an individual (Cook et al., 2006a). The

researcher sought out to examine whether or not the FMS can be a tool for identifying risk of the

ankle joint.

No previous research has been conducted to investigate the FMSs ability to predict ankle

injuries, exclusively. In terms of general injury predictability, research has shown mixed results

on the validity of the FMS. This study supports the notion that the FMS may not be the most

valid tool for identifying ankle instabilities.

Relationship between FMS and Ankle Stability

The results of this study showed a negative moderate correlation between the FMS and

the researchers measure of ankle stability. The moderate correlation suggests that the

relationship between the two variables is not entirely strong. The FMS could not differentiate

between participants with different levels of ankle stability. Therefore, this suggests that the

FMS may not be an accurate way to determine a persons likelihood of ankle injury.

Relationship between Individual FMS Movements and Ankle Stability

None of the individual FMS movements showed a significant relationship with ankle

stability. Despite this, the deep squat and the in-line lunge approached significant relationships.

Their minor correlation suggests that those two tests would not be able to identify ankle stability


29/43

25

on their own. However, no conclusions can be made due to the technical statistical

insignificance of the results.

Relationship between FMS and Ankle Stability in Participants with Past Injury

For the purpose of this study, the researcher considered an injury to be a doctor-

diagnosed injury in the ankle or knee joint. The researcher collected information on hip injuries,

but chose to leave this information out of the results due to the distance of the hip from the ankle

joint.

Previous ankle injuries often lead to symptoms of ankle instability (Chan et al., 2011;

Yeung et al., 1994), which increases the risk of them suffering from further injury. The

researcher investigated whether or not the FMS could identify these symptoms in previously-

injured participants. A negative moderate correlation existed in participants who identified

having a previous injury, as outlined by the definition for this study. This moderate correlation

suggests that the instability present in the ankle joint was not identified in the FMS. Therefore,

for this study, the FMS was not a useful tool for identifying ankle instability in individuals who

have previously suffered from an injury.

The researcher further investigated whether or not the FMS could identify symptoms of

ankle instability in participants who have not previously been injured. No significant

relationships were identified in this population. Therefore, no conclusions can be made from this

study for this population.

Gender Differences in the relationship between the FMS and Ankle Stability

The researcher examined the relationships between the FMS and ankle stability in each

gender. No previous research has investigated these relationships.


30/43

26

Females. Overall, the FMS may not be a reliable tool for identifying ankle instabilities of

the female population. The moderate correlation observed in female participants between their

FMS scores and ankle stability measure suggests that the FMS was unable to identify ankle

instabilities in this population. Furthermore, the moderate correlation found between the active

straight leg movement and the measure of ankle stability suggests that this movement on its own

may not be able to identify ankle instabilities.

No conclusions can be made for the other three FMS movements since no statistically

significant relationship could be identified.

Males. Since no significant relationship was found between male participants FMS score

and ankle stability measure, this study cannot conclude whether or not the FMS could be used to

identify ankle injury risk in this population. However, the large relationship observed between

the in-line lunge score and the ankle stability measure implies that this movement may be a

useful tool to identify ankle instability symptoms in the male population. No other relationships

were found in the other FMS movements, so this study cannot conclude if these movements can

identify ankle injury risk or not.

Limitations

Several potential limitations exist within this study. The researcher outlined several

potential limitations of the current methodology which are discussed below.

Environment. Due to the nature of this study, not all of the tests were performed in the

same environment. However, the researcher ensured that every participant completed their tests

in similar environments. The researcher ensured that a safe, hard flooring surface was used and

that the participants were surrounded by minimal distractions. Despite this, the results could


31/43

27

have been affected by these inconsistencies in testing environment. The differences consisted of

space available, lighting, temperature, and flooring surface.

Injuries. The classification of an injury in this study was categorized very broadly.

There was a wide range of injuries used during this research. The severity of the injury could

have easily affected how the participants performed during this test.

While the researcher expected that those with injuries would have lower ankle stability

than those who have never suffered from an injury. However, this was found to not be the case

as the mean BESS score for those who had not suffered an injury (22.76) was greater than the

mean value for those who had previously suffered an injury (21.46). There are several

limitations that could have contributed to this phenomenon. There were two outliers within the

injured population; if these outliers were removed, the mean BESS score increases to a value

greater than the mean of the uninjured population (23.04). Another contributing factor could be

the effectiveness of physical therapy. Those who have been previously injured could have

attended physical therapy for their injuries, in which they did similar activities to those required

in the BESS (balancing on an unstable surface). This would have given them prior experience in

this activity, which would give them a learning advantage over those who had not previously

attended physical therapy before. However, the researcher did not collect physical therapy

information on the participants, and therefore has no knowledge of the percentage of injured

participants who attended physical therapy for their injuries.

Research has shown that rehabilitation programs do improve symptoms of ankle

instability (Hale, Hertel & Olmsted-Kramer, 2007). Future research on this subject should

investigate whether or not physical therapy improves an individuals FMS score. Investigating

the relationship between FMS score and ankle stability in participants who have sprained their


32/43

28

ankles, and comparing the difference between those who have had therapy and those who have

not, could help provide some insight to the effect of physical therapy on these injuries.

Further research on this subject should also focus on targeting ankle sprains, specifically.

Due to lack of participants, the researcher was unable to isolate ankle sprains in their own

category. However, when investigating the prevalence of ankle instability, ankle sprains should

be the main injury investigated since they are the common result of having an unstable ankle.

Future research should isolate those who have suffered an ankle sprain as their own population

category.

Activity level of participants. The population chosen for this study featured a very wide

range of current activity level. The participants ranged from completely sedentary individuals to

division one NCAA athletes. During physical testing, such as the ones performed in this study,

being an active individual would be an advantage and those participants likely saw better results.

However, the researcher did not record current activity level in the participants, and therefore

cannot classify the results based off of this assumption.

Some of the participants in this study indicated that they had seen a FMS or BESS test be

performed previously. Some participants indicated that they had even performed one of these

tests prior to participating in this study. It has been well documented that there is a learning

effect on the FMS (Frost, Beach, Callaghan, & Mcgill, 2013) which could have increased their

performance during this study. The BESS has been shown to have a learning effect, but only

after 5 and 7 day rest intervals (Valovich et al., 2004). Further research should be done on the

more immediate learning effects of the BESS. The researcher pilot tested investigating the

learning effect on the FMS and BESS by having some participants perform these tests back-to-


33/43

29

back. However, due to lack of time and participants, the researcher chose not to pursue this

research.

Practical Applications

The Functional Movement Screen is commonly used in several clinical settings as a tool

for assessing movement quality and risk of injury. Despite its intended purpose, this study found

that this screen could not identify individuals who were at higher risk for ankle injury based off

of their ankle stability scores. With the high occurrence of ankle injuries, it is important for

clinicians to know that the FMS may not be an effective way of identifying the risk factors for

injuries of this joint. However, while evaluating any joint for injury, the researcher supports the

claim that functional evaluation is important in determining how the joint functions in real-life

movement situations. Clinicians should investigate other means of functionally evaluating the

ankle joint in working with their patients


34/43

30

References

Balance Error Scoring System (BESS). Retrieved from:http://www.sportsconcussion.com/pdf/management/BESSProtocolNATA09.pdf

Bell, D. R., Guskiewicz, K. M., Clark, M. A., & Padua, D. A. (2011). Systematic Review of theBalance Error Scoring System. Sports Health, 3(3), 287-295.

Beynnon, B. D., Renstrm, P. A., Alosa, D. M., Baumhauer, J. F., & Vacek, P. M. (2001). Ankle

Ligament Injury Risk Factors: A Prospective Study of College Athletes. Journal of

Orthopaedic Research, 19(2), 213-220.

Carcia, C. R., Martin, R. L, & Drouin, J. M. (2008). Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability

Measure in Athletes with Chronic Ankle Instability.Journal of Athletic Training, 43(2),

179-183.

Chan, K. W., Ding, B. C., & Mroczek, K. J. (2011). Acute and chronic lateral ankle instability in

the athlete.Bulletin of the NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, 69(1), 17-26.

Chorba, R. S., Chorba, D. J., Bouillon, L. E., Overmyer, C. A., & Landis, J. A. (2010). Use of aFunctional Movement Screening Tool to Determine Injury Risk in Female Collegiate

Athletes.North American Journal of Sports Physical Therapy,5(2), 47-54.

Cook, G, Burton, L, & Hoogenboom, B. (2006a). Pre-Participation Screening: The Use of

Fundamental Movements as an Assessment of Function- Part 1. North American Journalof Sports Physical Therapy, 1(2), 62-72.

Cook, G, Burton, L, & Hoogenboom, B. (2006b). Pre-Participation Screening: The Use of

Fundamental Movements as an Assessment of Function- Part 2. North American Journalof Sports Physical Therapy, 1(3), 132-139.

Docherty, C. L., Valovich McLeod, T. C., & Shultz, S. J. (2006). Postural control deficits in

participants with functional ankle instability as measured by the balance error scoring

system. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 16(3), 203-208.

Finnoff, J. T., Peterson, V. J., Holloman, J. H., & Smith, J. (2009). Intrarater and interraterreliability of the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS).P M &R: the Journal of Injury,

Function, and Rehabilitation, 1(1), 50-54.

Freeman, M. A. R., Dean, M. R. E., & Hanham, I. W. F. (1965). The Etiology and Prevention of

Functional Instability of the Foot. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 47B(4), 678685.

Frost, D. M., Beach, T. A. C., Callaghan, J. P., & Mcgill, S. M. (in press). FMS scores change

with performers knowledge of the grading criteria Are general whole-body movementscreens capturing dysfunction?. Journal of Strengthand Conditioning,


35/43

31

Fong, D.T., Hong, Y., Chan, L.K., Yung, P.S., & Chan, K.M. (2007). A Systematic Review on

Ankle Injury and Ankle Sprain in Sports. Sports Medicine, 37(1), 73-94.

Garrick, J. G. & Requa, R. K. (1988). The Epidemiology of Foot and Ankle Injuries in Sport.

Clinics in Sport Medicine.7(1), 29-36.

Gribble, P.A., Brigle, J., Pietrosimone, B. G., Pfile, K. R., & Webster, K. A. (2013). Intrarater

reliability of the functional movement screen.Journal of Strength and ConditioningResearch,27(4), 978-981.

Glasgow, M., Jackson, A., & Jamieson, A. M. (1980). Instability of the Ankle after LigamentInjury to the Lateral Ligament. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 62B(2), 196-200.

Hale, S. A., Hertel, J., & Olmsted-Kramer, L. C. (2007). The Effect of a 4-Week ComprehensiveRehabilitation Program on Postural Control and Lower Extremity Function in Individuals

with Chronic Ankle Instability.Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy,

37(6), 303-311.

Hansen, H., Damholt, V., & Termansen, N. B. (1979). Clinical and Social Status Following

Injury to the Lateral Ligaments of the Ankle.Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 59(6 pt1), 699-704.

Hertel, J. (2002). Functional Anatomy, Pathomechanics, and Pathophysiology of Lateral AnkleInstability. Journal of Athletic Training,37(4), 364-375.

Hootman, J., Dick, R., & Agel, J. (2007). Epidemiology of Collegiate Injuries for 15 Sports:

Summary and Recommendations for Injury Prevention Initiatives.Journal of Athletic

Training, 42(2), 311319.

Kaminski, T. W. & Hartsell, H. D. (2002). Factors Contributing to Chronic Ankle Instability: A

Strength Perspective.Journal of Athletic Training, 37(4), 394-405.

Kiesel, K., Plisky, P., & Voight, M. (2007). Can Serious Injury in Professional Football be

Predicted by a Preseason Functional Movement Screen?. North American Journal ofSports Physical Therapy, 2(3), 147-158.

Lee, A. J. Y., Lin, W., & Huang, C. H. (2006). Impaired Proprioception and Poor static PosturalControls in Subjects with Functional Instability of the Ankle.Journal of Exercise, Science

and Fitness, 4(2), 117-125.

Lephart, S. M., Pincivero, D. M., Giraldo, J. L., & Fu, F. H. (1997). The Role of Proprioception

in the Management and Rehabilitation of Athletic Injuries. The American Journal of

Sports Medicine,25(1), 130-137.

McGuine, T. A., Greene, J. J., Best, T., & Leverson, G. (2000). Balance as a Predictor of

Injuries in High School Basketball Players. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine: officialJournal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine, 10(4), 239-44.


36/43

32

OConnor, F. G., Deuster, P.A., Davis, J., Pappas, C.G., & Knapik, J. J. (2011). Functional

Movement Screening: Predicting Injuries in Officer Candidates.Medicine & Science in

Sports & Exercise, 43(12), 2224-2230.

Olmsted, L. C., Carcia, C. R., Hertel, J., & Shultz, S. J. (2002). Efficacy of the Star Excursion

Balance Tests in Detecting Reach Deficits in Subjects with Chronic Ankle Instability.Journal of Athletic Training, 37(4), 501506.

Riegger, C. L. (1988). Anatomy of the Ankle and Foot.Physical Therapy, 68(12), 1802-1814.

Ross, S. E., Guskiewicz, K. M., Gross, M. T., & Yu, B. (2009). Balance Measures forDiscriminating between Functionally Unstable and Stable Ankles.Medicine and Science

in Sport and Exercise, 41(2), 399-407.

Ross, S. E., Guskiewicz, K. M., & Yu, B. (2005). Single-leg jump-landing stabilization times insubjects with functionally unstable ankles.Journal of athletic training, 40(4), 298304.

Shultz, R., Anderson, S. C., Matheson, G. O., Marcello, B., & Besier, T. (2013). Test-retest and

interrater reliability of the Functional Movement Screen.Journal of Athletic Training,

48(3), 331-336.

Smith, C. A., Chimera, N. J., Wright, N. J., & Warren, M. (2013). Interrater and intrarater

reliability of the functional movement screen.Journal of Strength and ConditioningResearch, 27(4), 982-987.

Teyhen, D. S., Shaffer, S. W., Lorenson, C. L., Halfpap, J. P., Donofry, D. F., Walker, M. J.,Dugan, J. L., & Childs, J. D. (2012). The Functional Movement Screen: a reliability

study. The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 42(6), 530-540.

Tropp, H., Odenrick, P., Gillquist, J. (1985). Stabilometry Recordings in Functional and

Mechanical Instability of the Ankle Joint.International Journal of Sports Medicine, 6(3),

180-182.

Valovich McLeod, T. C., Perrin, D. H., Guskiewicz, K. M., Shultz, S. J., Diamond, R., &Gansneder, B. M. (2004). Serial Administration of Clinical Concussion Assessments and

Learning Effects in Healthy Young Athletes. Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, 14(5),

287-295.

Willems, T. M., Witvrouw, E., Delbaere K., Philippaerts R., De Bourdeaudhuij I., & De Clercq

D. (2005). Intrinsic risk factors for inversion ankle sprains in femalesa prospectivestudy. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 15(5), 336-345.

Wolfe, M. W., Uhl, T. L., Mattacola, C. G., & McCluskey, L. C. (2001). Management of AnkleSprains.American Family Physician, 63(1), 93-104.

Wright, I. C., Neptune, R. R., van den Bogert, A. J., & Nigg, B. M. (2000). The influence of foot

positioning on ankle sprains.Journal of biomechanics, 33(5), 513519.


37/43

33

Yeung, M. S., Chan, K., So, C. H., & Yuan, W. Y. (1994). An epidemiological survey on ankle

sprain.British Journal of Sports Medicine, 28(2), 112-116.


38/43

34

Appendix A


39/43

35


40/43

36

Appendix B


41/43

37

Figures

Figure 3.1. Relationship between FMS score and BESS score

Figure 3.2. Relationship between FMS score and BESS score in Previously Injured Participants

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Relationship between FMS score and BESS score

BESS

Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Relationship between FMS score and BESS score in Previously Injured

Participants

FMS Score

BESS

Score

FMS Score


42/43

38

Figure 3.3. Relationship between FMS score and BESS score in Female Participants

Figure 3.4. Relationship between Active Straight Leg Raise and BESS scores in Female

Participants

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Relationship between FMS score and BESS score in Female Participants

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3

Relationship between Active Straight Leg Raise and Ankle Stability in

Female Participants

FMS Score

BESS

Score

Active Straight Leg Raise Score

BESS

Score


43/43

Figure 3.5. Relationship between In-Line Lunge Score and BESS score in Male Participants

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3

Relationship between In-Line Lunge and BESS score in Male Participants

In-Line Lunge Score

BESS

Score

functional movement screen and ankle stability

Documents