Can the FMS predict sports injury?

I’ve been reading a lot about why the FMS is good and why it’s not recently. I’ve even co-written a point-counterpoint discussion with Bret Contreras about it.

I am a proponent of the FMS, but I have read some studies that have made me question it. I also attended a couple of very compelling presentations at a strength & conditioning conference at the University of Toronto recently that pointed out some shortcomings.

I have not read or heard enough (yet?) to change my mind about continuing to use the FMS for my clients, but I have just started to use a new assessment approach for my clients in addition to the FMS. For the next few months, I will use both approaches and will take notes about how well each one worked, both during the initial client consultation and over the first few training sessions.

I will also continue to read and listen. In fact I just read a study this morning that suggests the FMS is very beneficial in predicting injury. Here is a link to the study, titled ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN AND INJURY DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGE ATHLETES. Or more specifically, that an FMS score of less than 14 combined with previous history of injury equated to athletes (in the study group) being 15 times more likely to sustain an injury over the course of a season.

I didn’t love the study abstract and write up because it didn’t address the difference between the FMS, the previous injury, or the combination of the two. Thankfully one of the tables in the study did just that. And as you can see from the screenshot below, it would appear that the combination of previous injury and an FMS score of less than 14 is a strong predictor.

Screenshot 2015-05-14 11.05.15

What I would like to see (and maybe I just missed it in the presentation of the data) is what this number changes to with higher FMS scores. What was the injury rate among athletes in the group with a history of injury and an FMS score of 15? of 16? If there is a significant drop there, then that makes for a very compelling case for a combination of:

  1. using the FMS
  2. finding out about previous injury from your clients or athlets
  3. appropriate training as a means to in increase the FMS (and conveniently training is also a great option for performance improvement)
  4. re-FMS to see if the person has moved into a lesser risk range

I think this study does show that having a low FMS score and a history of previous injury makes one much more likely to sustain an injury. That is good information to have, but only if there is something we can do with it. If there is also a proven link that the risk is lower with a higher FMS score paired with a history of previous injury, and if there is a proven link that appropriate training is a tool to get us to the higher FMS score (which I believe there is, although I need to re-review the literature), then that would be a very compelling reason to use the FMS for athletic clients. While the study is not quite a home run, it definitely sits in the “pro” column for continuing to use the FMS.

Elsbeth Vaino is an engineer turned personal trainer who enjoys the science of training

Want more articles? I send out a monthly (ish) newsletter with the top articles from that period. Sign up below:

Sign up for my (non-spammy) newsletter

* indicates required


Email Format


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>