Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Multicomponent Musculoskeletal Movement Assessment Tools: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Their Development and Applicability to Professional Practice

Bennett, Hunter; Davison, Kade; Arnold, John; Slattery, Flynn; Martin, Max; Norton, Kevin

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: October 2017 - Volume 31 - Issue 10 - p 2903–2919
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002058
Brief Review

Abstract: Bennett, H, Davison, K, Arnold, J, Slattery, F, Martin, M, and Norton, K. Multicomponent musculoskeletal movement assessment tools: a systematic review and critical appraisal of their development and applicability to professional practice. J Strength Cond Res 31(10): 2903–2919, 2017—Multicomponent movement assessment tools have become commonplace to measure movement quality, proposing to indicate injury risk and performance capabilities. Despite popular use, there has been no attempt to compare the components of each tool reported in the literature, the processes in which they were developed, or the underpinning rationale for their included content. As such, the objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive summary of current movement assessment tools and appraise the evidence supporting their development. A systematic literature search was performed using PRISMA guidelines to identify multicomponent movement assessment tools. Commonalities between tools and the evidence provided to support the content of each tool was identified. Each tool underwent critical appraisal to identify the rigor in which it was developed, and its applicability to professional practice. Eleven tools were identified, of which 5 provided evidence to support their content as assessments of movement quality. One assessment tool (Soccer Injury Movement Screen [SIMS]) received an overall score of above 65% on critical appraisal, with a further 2 tools (Movement Competency Screen [MCS] and modified 4 movement screen [M4-MS]) scoring above 60%. Only the MCS provided clear justification for its developmental process. The remaining 8 tools scored between 40 and 60%. On appraisal, the MCS, M4-MS, and SIMS seem to provide the most practical value for assessing movement quality as they provide the strongest reports of developmental rigor and an identifiable evidence base. In addition, considering the evidence provided, these tools may have the strongest potential for identifying performance capabilities and guiding exercise prescription in athletic and sport-specific populations.

Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity, Sansom Institute for Health Research, Universitiy of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

Address correspondence to Hunter Bennett, hunter.bennett@mymail.unisa.edu.au.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr).

Copyright © 2017 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association.