USING THE FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN™ TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING
USING THE FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN™ TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING
复制标题
DOI：
10.1519/jsc.0b013e318234ec59
复制
发表时间：
2012-06-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
McGill, Stuart M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Frost, David M.;Beach, Tyson A. C.;McGill, Stuart M.
Frost，DM，海滩，TAC，Callaghan，JP和麦吉尔，SM。采用功能运动屏幕（TM）评估训练效果。J Strength Cond Res 26（6）：1620-1630，2012-功能性运动筛选（TM）（FMS）已证明在预测损伤方面具有一定的功效，因此许多从业者使用它来提出运动建议。然而，关于其作为评估培训效果的一种手段的效用，仍然存在问题。60名消防员自愿参加，他们的FMS分数在12周的训练前后进行了检查。个人的评分是根据他们选择如何表现，而不是他们如何表现。参与者被分配到3组中的1组：干预1，干预2或对照组。两个干预组每周接受三次1.5小时的训练，并在运动质量上有所不同。采用3种方法对FMS进行评分：标准0-3量表、对特定代偿进行加权的100分量表（研究标准）和修改后的100分量表，根据存在的代偿总数进行评分。训练后任何组的FMS总分均无显著差异。然而，85%没有接受培训的消防员的分数确实发生了变化。100分量表方法导致更多的FMS评分变化训练后，但组间的相互作用是相同的，发现与标准评分方法。对照组的分数训练前和训练后不一致，因此，无法评估每种干预措施的影响。目前，FMS可能提供一般运动质量的瞬时印象，尽管进一步的努力可能有助于开发更好的方法来实施测试，解释结果并生成可靠的分数。
Frost, DM, Beach, TAC, Callaghan, JP, and McGill, SM. Using the functional movement screen (TM) to evaluate the effectiveness of training. J Strength Cond Res 26(6): 1620-1630, 2012-The Functional Movement Screen (TM) (FMS) has demonstrated some efficacy in the prediction of injuries and is thus used by many practitioners to make recommendations for exercise. However, questions remain regarding its utility as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of training. Sixty firefighters volunteered to participate, and their FMS scores were examined before and after 12 weeks of training. Individuals were graded on how they chose to perform rather than how they could perform. The participants were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: intervention 1, intervention 2, or control. The 2 intervention groups received three 1.5-hour training sessions each week and differed in the emphasis that was placed on movement quality. Sagittal and frontal plane videos were used to grade the FMS with 3 methods: the standard 0-3 scale, a 100-point scale that weighted specific compensations (research standard), and a modified 100-point scale whereby grades were assigned based on the total number of compensations present. There were no significant differences in the total FMS scores for any group posttraining. However, the scores of 85% of the firefighters who did not receive training did change. The 100-point scale methods resulted in more FMS score changes posttraining, but the between-group interactions were identical to those found with the standard scoring method. The control group's scores were not consistent pretraining and posttraining; thus, the influence of each intervention could not be evaluated. Currently, the FMS might provide a momentary impression of general movement quality, although further efforts would likely assist in the development of better ways to implement the test, interpret the results, and generate reliable scores.