The April 2002 issue of Training & Conditioning magazine featured an article
("Weak Links" p29) which promoted the use of seven tests reputed to validly
identify "functional" weaknesses in several key areas of athletic
performance. The reader is referred to the following website for details of
these tests:
http://www.functionalmovement.com/
This is how this website is introduced:
" Functional Movement Screen™ is a company that has developed practical and
applied screening and training tools in the areas of sports medicine and
strength and conditioning. Up until recently, the sports medicine
professional's approach to injury prevention has been the pre-participation
physical. Likewise the strength and conditioning coach uses assessments of
strength, speed and power to determine quantitative performance potential.
The diverse approaches of these two disciplines, however, leaves a gap
regarding the quality of movement as it relates to the efficiency in which an
athlete performs. Also left uncovered are the underlying movement problems
and musculo-skeletal anomalies that only inhibit maximal performance
potential, but may lead to increased tendency of non-contact injuries.
Functional Movement Screen TM has developed a tool to help in the
identification and correction of such movement dysfunctions as well as
maximize the training efficiency and efficacy of athletes.
The tool is the Functional Movement Screen™. "
This "Screen" offers these tests:
1. The Deep Squat - to assess bilateral, symmetrical, mobility of the hips,
knees, and ankles. The dowel held overhead assesses bilateral, symmetrical
mobility of the shoulders as well as the thoracic spine.
[The athlete modelling the overhead squat with a dowel shows that this test
can also be an even better test of shoulder mobility in one plane - he would
never be able to hold even half bodymass overhead in that position. His neck
was also thrust far forward and his lumbar spine appeared to rather rounded,
so that this test was quite revealing about this specific athlete! MCS]
2. The Hurdle Step - to assess bilateral mobility and stability of the hips,
knees, and ankles.
3. The In-Line Lunge -to assess bilateral mobility and stability, as well as
ankle and knee stability.
4. The Shoulder Mobility Screen - to assess bilateral shoulder range of
motion combining internal rotation with adduction and external rotation with
abduction.
[This requires one to try to grip the hands behind one's back with one arm
going over the one shoulder and the
opposite arm trying to reach it from below. This test does not take into
account the fact that its outcome depends very heavily on relative length of
arm and forearm and often has little to do with "shoulder mobility" (which
after all has to be measured in several different directions. MCS]
5. The Active Straight Leg Raise test - to assess active hamstring and
gastroc/soleus flexibility, while maintaining a stable pelvis.
6. The Trunk Stability Push-Up - to assess trunk stability in the sagittal
plane while a symmetrical upper extremity motion is performed.
7. The Rotational Stability test - to assess multi-planar stability while a
combined upper and lower extremity motion is performed.
[Here one is required to kneel down and balance on one knee and the arm of
the same side, etc. How this is meant to assess dynamic stability in
athletic action is not discussed or validated. MCS]
---------
Since the entire website refers to "Functional Movement", we can safely
assume that its methods are meant to apply to *movement* in sport, and more
specifically, the "functional" movements involved in all sports. Is it not
curious, then, that all of the screening tests are entirely static and
involve no dynamic movement whatsoever? Moreover, some of these tests are
carried out in postures which are not "functionally" specific to many sports.
These tests are also offered without any apparent scientific analysis or
studies which show exactly why and how these tests correlate strongly with
functional movement in a wide variety of sports. As they stand, these tests
appear to have been devised on the sole basis of personal opinion. While the
authors are to be complimented in attempting to devise some additional field
tests to evaluate important motor qualities and abilities in sport, they fall
far short of their target by relying solely on limited static tests of
minimal or no proven validity.
My analysis barely scratches the surface of these tests, but I trust that it
sets the stage for others to attempt a more thorough job. So - over to any
other analysts!
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
|