Correlation of Functional Movement Screen Scores in Division III Womens Basketball Players Alyssa Stirling

Abstract
Injuries are a common part of any sport. In womens basketball, 29% of injuries are non-contact and therefore preventable (Agel, Olson & Sikka, 2007). The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a tool that can be used to assess the likelihood of a non-contact injury occurring throughout a competition season. Though the FMS has been proven to be a valuable tool in predicting injuries, it is time consuming when done on larger populations (sports teams). The purpose of this study was to determine if correlations exist between scores of the individual tests and the individual test score to the total score. In this study 19 NCAA Division III womens basketball players were assessed using the FMS. When comparing individual tests to each other, Active Straight Leg Raise (ASLR) and Rotary Stability had the strongest correlation (p=.000 , r=.736). This study found that both the ASLR (p=.001, r=.702) and In-line Lunge (p=.006 , r= .608) correlated to the overall score. These results show the potential to shorten the FMS to make it more time efficient.

Methods
Participants: Previously collected data from NCAA Division III womens basketball Preseason of the 2011-2012 season Instrumentation: The functional movement screen Consists of seven movements (deep squat , hurdle step, in-line lunge , shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise , trunk stability push up and rotary stability). Each movement is score on a scale of zero (individual experienced pain to three (individual displayed no compensations while completing the movement. Statistical Analysis: SPSS Correlation Coefficients

Conclusions
The Active Straight Leg Raise has the strongest correlation to total score. The Active Straight Leg Raise also had the strongest correlation to the In-line Lunge and the Rotary Stability movements. From this population it is concluded the strongest predictor of total score is the Active Straight Leg Raise . Due to the correlations found, there is the potential to shorten the FMS by eliminating the In-Line Lunge and Rotary Stability movements and just using the Active Straight Leg Raise.

Introduction
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) , tracks injuries using the injury surveillance system (ISS). Through a sixteen year span (1988-2004) the ISS found that in womens basketball that 29% of injuries that occur are noncontact (Agel, Olson & Sikka, 2007). This draws attention to an important area of exploration, prevention and the methods that can be implemented in order to limit the occurrence of sports- related injuries in student athletes. One method is using movement screens such as the Functional Movement Screen in order to assess the readiness to compete in their respective sport. The functional movement screen consists of seven movements each rated on a scale of zero to three. Purpose: The goal of this research study is to find correlations between individual test scores and the total score and correlations between individual test scores themselves; in hopes to be able to eliminate movements of the FMS to make the screen more time efficient.

Results
Table 1: Individual Movement compared to Total Score

Further Research
Significance (p value) .548 .340 .006* .019* .001* .006* .141 Although there is prior research on the correlations of scores to injury rate, there is no prior research on the movements themselves. In the future it would be a benefit to research the correlations in different populations of both athletes and non-athletes. This would make the results more generalizable. .

Pearson (r value)
\ Deep Squat Hurdle Step In-Line Lunge Shoulder Mobility Active Straight Leg Raise Rotary Stability Trunk Stability Push-up

.147 .232 .608 .533 .702 .602 .351

* Significant at the p<0.05 value

Table 2: Active Straight Leg Raise compared to Individual Scores

Mean (SD) Active Straight Leg Raise Deep Squat Hurdle Step In-Line Lunge Shoulder Mobility Rotary Stability Trunk Stability Push-Up 2.37 (.684) 1.21 (.419) 1.84 (.375) 2.16 (.688) 2.21 (.713) 1.53 (.697) 1.11 (.315)

Pearson (r value) -.092 .023 .578 .174 .736 .068

Significance (p value) .708 .926 .010* .477 .000* .783

* Significant at the p<0.05 value

Department of Human Movement Sciences, Advisor: Dr. Kelly A. Stalker, ATC