Physio Hub:
Evidence-Based Article
Functional Movement Screen (FMS): Can It Actually Prevent Sports Injuries?
A Clear, Evidence-Based Look for Athletes and Coaches
The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) has become one of the most widely used tools for identifying movement limitations and potential injury risk in athletes. You’ve probably seen athletes performing deep squats, hurdle steps, or in-line lunges while being scored. But what does the research really say? Can the FMS actually prevent injuries?
Let’s break it down.
What Is the Functional Movement Screen (FMS)?
The FMS is a seven-part movement assessment designed to measure mobility, stability, coordination, and left–right asymmetries. The seven tests include:
-
Deep Squat
-
Hurdle Step
-
In-Line Lunge
-
Shoulder Mobility
-
Active Straight-Leg Raise
-
Trunk Stability Push-Up
-
Rotary Stability
Each movement is scored from 0 to 3, producing both individual scores and a composite score out of 21.
✔ What the FMS does well
-
Identifies movement limitations
-
Highlights asymmetries that may contribute to injury
-
Helps guide corrective exercise programming
-
Shows excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.81, Bonazza et al., 2017)
✔ What the FMS does not do well
-
Accurately predict injuries on its own
-
Serve as a complete physical performance assessment
-
Replace strength testing, conditioning monitoring, or medical evaluation
Does the FMS Actually Prevent Injuries?
The evidence is mixed, and this is where misunderstandings often occur.
✔ What research suggests
Athletes with low FMS scores (≤14) are more likely to get injured, with odds ratios ranging from 1.25 to 10.42 in various studies. This means low scores can act as risk indicators.
✘ What the FMS cannot do
Predict with certainty who will or will not get injured.
Sensitivity is only 28–63%, and specificity often falls below 50%.
In other words, the FMS shouldn’t be treated as a pass/fail injury predictor.
✔ Where the FMS is valuable
-
Identifying red-flag movement issues
-
Directing individualized corrective exercises
-
Improving movement quality over time
-
Reducing injury rates when paired with targeted interventions
The FMS is best used as one part of a broader assessment system — not the entire system.
The Bottom Line: Should Athletes Use the FMS?
Yes — but with realistic expectations.
The FMS does not prevent every injury, nor does it perfectly predict them.
However, it does an excellent job identifying movement dysfunctions and asymmetries that, when corrected, may reduce injury risk and improve performance.
Used properly, the FMS is a helpful screening tool for:
-
Coaches designing warm-ups and corrective programs
-
Athletes wanting to improve movement quality
-
Clinicians assessing mobility and stability limitations
-
Teams seeking consistent, scalable movement assessments
Think of the FMS as a starting point, not a diagnosis.
< Recommendation by Our Experts>
✔ Use the FMS to Identify, Not Diagnose
Treat the FMS as a way to find movement limitations and asymmetries—not as a standalone injury predictor.
✔ Combine It With Other Assessments
Pair FMS findings with strength testing, conditioning metrics, workload monitoring, and sport-specific evaluations for a comprehensive injury-risk profile.
✔ Apply Targeted Correctives
Use FMS results to build individualized mobility, stability, and strength exercises that address the specific patterns holding an athlete back.
< Reference >
- Vehrs, Pat R., Martina Uvacsek, and Aaron W. Johnson. “Assessment of Dysfunctional Movements and Asymmetries in Children and Adolescents Using the Functional Movement Screen—A Narrative Review.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 23 (2021): 12501. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312501.
- Warren, Meghan, Monica Lininger, Nicole Chimera, and Craig Smith. “Utility of FMS to Understand Injury Incidence in Sports: Current Perspectives.” Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine Volume 9 (September 2018): 171–82. https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJSM.S149139.
- Dorrel, Bryan, Terry Long, Scott Shaffer, and Gregory D. Myer. “The Functional Movement Screen as a Predictor of Injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Athletes.” Journal of Athletic Training 53, no. 1 (2018): 29–34. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-528-15.
- Duke, Sean R., Steve E. Martin, and Catherine A. Gaul. “Preseason Functional Movement Screen Predicts Risk of Time-Loss Injury in Experienced Male Rugby Union Athletes.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 31, no. 10 (2017): 2740–47. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001838.
- Bushman, Timothy T., Tyson L. Grier, Michelle Canham-Chervak, Morgan K. Anderson, William J. North, and Bruce H. Jones. “The Functional Movement Screen and Injury Risk: Association and Predictive Value in Active Men.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine 44, no. 2 (2016): 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515614815.
- Bonazza, Nicholas A., Dallas Smuin, Cayce A. Onks, Matthew L. Silvis, and Aman Dhawan. “Reliability, Validity, and Injury Predictive Value of the Functional Movement Screen: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine 45, no. 3 (2017): 725–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516641937.
- Mokha, Monique, Peter A. Sprague, and Dustin R. Gatens. “Predicting Musculoskeletal Injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Athletes From Asymmetries and Individual-Test Versus Composite Functional Movement Screen Scores.” Journal of Athletic Training 51, no. 4 (2016): 276–82. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-51.2.07.
- Dinc, Engin, Bekir Eray Kilinc, Muge Bulat, Yunus Turgay Erten, and Bülent Bayraktar. “Effects of Special Exercise Programs on Functional Movement Screen Scores and Injury Prevention in Preprofessional Young Football Players.” Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation 13, no. 5 (2017): 535–40. https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.1735068.534.




