title: FMS™ scores and low-back loading during lifting--whole-body movement screening as an ergonomic tool?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Previous research suggests that a general whole-body movement screen could be used to identify personal movement attributes that promote potentially injurious low-back loading patterns at work. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) composite scores and the low-back loading response to lifting.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifteen men who scored greater than 14 on the FMS (high-scorers) and 15 height- and weight-matched low-scorers (FMS < 14) performed sagittally symmetric and asymmetric laboratory-based lifting tasks. A three-dimensional dynamic biomechanical model was used to calculate peak low-back loading levels, and the angle of the lumbar spine was captured at the instant when the peak compressive force was applied.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Regardless of the lifting task performed, there were no differences in peak low-back compression (p ≥ 0.4157), anterior/posterior reaction shear (p ≥ 0.5645), or medial/lateral reaction shear (p ≥ 0.2581) forces between the high- and low-scorers. At the instant when peak compressive forces were applied, differences in the lumbar spine angle between high- and low-scores were not statistically significant about the lateral bend (p ≥ 0.4215), axial twist (p ≥ 0.2734), or flexion/extension (p ≥ 0.1354) axes, but there was a tendency for the lumbar spine to be more deviated in the low-scorers.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Using the previously established injury prediction threshold value of 14, the composite FMS score was not related to the peak low-back loading magnitudes in lifting. Though not statistically significant, the tendency for the lumbar spines of low-scorers to be more deviated when the peak low-back compression force was imposed could be biomechanically meaningful because spinal load tolerance varies with posture. Future attempts to modify or reinterpret FMS scoring are warranted given that several previous studies have revealed links between composite FMS scores and musculoskeletal complaints.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2W6, Canada.
authors.forename: Tyson A C
authors.initials: TA
authors.lastname: Beach
authors.affiliation: Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada.
authors.forename: David M
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Frost
authors.affiliation: Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. Electronic address: callagha@uwaterloo.ca.
authors.forename: Jack P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Callaghan
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001415:Back / Q000502:physiology; D006804:Ergonomics / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D017770:Lifting; D017116:Low Back Pain / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009068:Movement / Q000502:physiology*; D009784:Occupational Diseases / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: Functional movement screen; Movement quality; Musculoskeletal injury prevention