Factor Structure and Internal Validity of the Functional Movement Screen in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The factor structure and internal consistency of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) have not been examined in a general healthcare population. Replicating the factor structure of the FMS is important because it illustrates the interdependence between each of the subtests, enabling the strength and conditioning professional to better interpret and act on an individual's FMS score. Anthropometric data and FMS scores were collected from 1,113 clients of a multidisciplinary healthcare clinic in Vancouver, BC The mean (SD) ages were 53.4 (11.1) for men (n = 656) and 49.3 (12.3) for women (n = 457). The mean FMS Summary Score was 13.7 (2.9) and was significantly negatively correlated with both age (r = -0.25; p < 0.001) and body mass index (r = -0.37; p < 0.001). The internal consistency of the FMS scale, which was assessed with both ordinal and Cronbach's alpha, was 0.73 and 0.64, respectively. Polychoric correlations between individual movements ranged from 0.03 to 0.59. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) revealed that the FMS showed 2 main factors, a basic movement factor (shoulder mobility and active straight leg raise) and a complex movement factor (squat, hurdle step, inline lunge, and the trunk stability push-up). Rotary stability loaded onto both factors in the CFA, and its exclusion from the model had little effect. The findings of this study broadly replicated the intended factor structure of the FMS, as the individual movements aligned well with the intended factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".