Functional Motor Competence, Health-Related Fitness, and Injury in Youth Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the United States there millions of youth who participate in sport.1-3 Unfortunately there is also a high rate of musculoskeletal injury in sport,4,5 accompanied by millions of dollar in medical cost.6 The development of functional motor competence and health-related fitness (HRF) is important as these two constructs are related to health, performance, and injury incidence in youth sport.7,8 It is assumed that children develop their movement ability and physical fitness as they age, however recent evidence suggests that youth functional motor competence and HRF decrease across childhood.9-13 An evaluation of functional motor competence gaining popularity among health and strength and conditioning professionals, is the Functional Movement Screen (FMS™). The FMS™ has been utilized as a screening tool to evaluate individuals at risk from dysfunctional movement.14-16 The evaluation and modification of risk factors and mechanisms for injury incidence in youth sport is critical to aid in the reduction of injury. Therefore, the following three studies were conducted. The first study evaluated the mean and distribution of the FMS™ in youth sport (age 11-18), and if there was a composite FMS™ score which was predictive of increased injury risk. Results indicated that youth sport participants have a mean composite FMS™ score of 13.54 + 2.66, revealing that these individuals demonstrated some level of dysfunctional movement. There were two composite FMS™ scores which were predictive of increased risk of injury (FMS™ < 14, < 15), however when adjusting for sport, there were no significant composite FMS™ scores that were predictive of increased risk of injury. The second study evaluated the HRF of youth sport participants (age 11-18), and provided a comparison between Canadian youth normative data and youth in sport. The results revealed that HRF in youth sport participants needs improvement, and that on several measures of HRF there were no differences between the Canadian youth normative data and youth in sport. Furthermore, this study highlights the need to evaluate and address HRF in youth as these measures may related to future health, sport performance, and risk of injury. The final study evaluated the relationship between HRF and the FMS™ in youth sport (age 11-18), and evaluated if the combination of both HRF and the FMS™ has utility for prediction of injury in youth sport. Results indicated that there are variable relationships between the FMS™ tasks and multiple measures of HRF, with not overall relationship noted. The combination of the FMS™ and HRF for the prediction of injury in sport revealed that the three salient factors for increased odds of injury risk an individual’s sex, cardiorespiratory endurance, and muscular power. The relationship between the inline lunge task of the FMS™ and HRF variables may provide insight for strength and conditioning professionals to re-evaluation their selection of training tasks based on the importance of developing both functional motor coordination and HRF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".