Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Examining the Relationship Between the Functional Movement Screen and the Landing Error Scoring System in an Active, Male Collegiate Population

Everard, Eoin M.1,2; Harrison, Andrew J.1; Lyons, Mark1

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: May 2017 - Volume 31 - Issue 5 - p 1265–1272
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001582
Original Research

Everard, EM, Harrison, AJ, and Lyons, M. Examining the relationship between the functional movement screen and the landing error scoring system in an active, male collegiate population. J Strength Cond Res 31(5): 1265–1272, 2017—In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on movement screening as the principal aspect of preparticipation testing. Two of the most common movement screening tools are the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS). Several studies have examined the reliability and validity of these tools, but so far, there have been no studies comparing the results of these 2 screening tools against each other. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between FMS scores and LESS scores. Ninety-eight male college athletes actively competing in sport (Gaelic games, soccer, athletics, boxing/mixed martial arts, Olympic weightlifting) participated in the study and performed the FMS and LESS screens. Both the 21-point and 100-point scoring systems were used to score the FMS. Spearman's correlation coefficients were used to determine the relationship between the 2 screening scores. The results showed a significant moderate correlation between FMS and LESS scores (rho 100 and 21 point = −0.528; −0.487; p < 0.001). In addition, r 2 values of 0.26 and 0.23 indicate a poor shared variance between the 2 screens. The results indicate that performing well in one of the screens does not necessarily equate to performing well in the other. This has practical implications as it highlights that both screens may assess different movement patterns and should not be used as a substitute for each other.

1Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; and

2Department of Sports and Finance, Limerick Institute of Technology, Limerick, Ireland

Address correspondence to Eoin M. Everard, Eoin.Everard@ul.ie.

Copyright © 2017 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association.