Are Low-Demand Tasks Appropriate for Comprehensive Movement Pattern Evaluation and Injury Risk Prediction?
Received: 08-Oct-2018 / Accepted Date: 09-Oct-2018 / Published Date: 11-Oct-2018 DOI: 10.4172/2165-7025.1000e153
A fundamental movement pattern is a basic movement which simultaneously requires muscle strength, flexibility, range of motion, coordination, balance, and proprioception [1-3]. Movement evaluation screen tests, which involve comprehensive movement pattern identification of injury risk among athletes, have been widely used in sport practice [3,4]. It was reported that dysfunctional movement patterns create tissue stress, and when the applied load exceeds its tolerance, it may lead to acute and chronic injury [5,6].
However, some authors have suggested that deficits in joint mobility and stability may impact an individual’s movement patterns [2,3], but it should be noted that the test scores are also influenced by other factors [4,7]. It was reported that the final score of the movement evaluation test is also affected by athletes’ prior experience, understanding of the task, motivation and awareness of the grading criteria . Therefore, someone’s movement patterns may not be only a direct result of a specific dysfunction or impairment.
Many of the movement screens used only body mass patterns, and athletes are instructed to perform it slowly, with control. It was suggested that if the aim of the test is to predict athletes’ injury risk or make some recommendations for training, it may be more appropriate to test their habitual movements than those recommended in movement screen tests [4,7].
Important issues that should also be considered during the movement pattern evaluation of an athlete are movement variability and movement coordination. Hamill et al.  have reported that healthy individuals who have more combinations of intra-segment coordination have higher coordinative variability and functional systems use all degrees of freedom effectively in order to optimise task performance. However, in an injured individual, the number of combinations may be reduced, decreasing the coordinative variability. It was reported that a lack of movement variability may be indicative of dysfunction, frailty or disease [9-11]. It was suggested that there is a threshold of coordinative variability below which an athlete would be injured, and moreover, they underlined that changes in coordinative variability may be clinically used to track recovery .
Movement strategy may be also altered in response to an increased or decreased task demand [7,12]. Frost et al.  examined the impact of load and speed on individuals’ movement behaviour and reported that the participants changed it in response to the external demands of a task by the adoption of a safer and more effective pattern. It was suggested that movement evaluation based on low-demand tasks used to predict an athlete’s movement competency, may not be appropriate when the demands are elevated . Therefore, it may not be appropriate to assess lifting-related athlete’s risk of injury using an unloaded movement task.
Moreover, Tsang et al.  have reported a limited value of assessing movement patterns at a slow or at self-preferred speed. They suggested that the wider range of speeds may lead to a better understanding of the movement dysfunction .
Based on those observations, it appears that if an athlete is able to perform a low-demand activity with competence, it does not mean that s/he will also be appropriately prepared to perform this activity safely or effectively when a task’s demands are increased.
We concluded that movement pattern evaluations based only on low-demand activities may not adequately reflect an athlete’s risk of injury, and could adversely affect training recommendations resulting from the screening test.
- Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight ML (2007) Can Serious Injury in Professional Football be Predicted by a Preseason Functional Movement Screen? N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2: 147-158.
- Cook G, Burton L, Hogenboom B (2006) The use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - Part 1. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 1: 62-72.
- Cook G, Burton L, Hogenboom B (2006) Pre-participation screening: The use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - Part 2. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 1: 132-139.
- Frost DM, Beach TA, Callaghan JP, McGill SM (2015) FMS Scores Change With Performers' Knowledge of the Grading Criteria-Are General Whole-Body Movement Screens Capturing "Dysfunction"? J Strength Cond Res 29: 3037-3044.
- Plisky PJ, Rauh MJ, Kaminski TW, Underwood FB (2006) Star Excursion Balance Test as a predictor of lower extremity injury in high school basketball players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36: 911-919.
- Hewett, TE, Myer, GD, Ford, KR, Heidt RS Jr, Colosimo, et al. (2005) Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: A prospective study. Am J Sports Med 33: 492-501.
- Frost DM, Beach TA, Callaghan JP, McGill SM (2015) The Influence of Load and Speed on Individuals' Movement Behavior. J Strength Cond Res 29: 2417-2425.
- Hamill J, Palmer C, Van Emmerik RE (2012) Coordinative variability and overuse injury. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol 4: 45
- Krüger M, Straube A, Eggert T (2017) The Propagation of Movement Variability in Time: A Methodological Approach for Discrete Movements with Multiple Degrees of Freedom. Front Comput Neurosci 11: 93.
- Latash ML, Scholz J, Schöner G (2002) Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of motor variability. Exerc Sci Sports Rev 30: 26-31.
- Lipsitz LA (2002) Dynamics of stability: the physiologic basis of functional health and frailty. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 57: B115-B125.
- Tsang SMH, Szeto GPY, Li LMK, Wong DCM, Yip MMP, et al. (2017) The effects of bending speed on the lumbo-pelvic kinematics and movement pattern during forward bending in people with and without low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18: 157.
Citation: Oleksy L, Mika A, Kielnar R, Pruszczynski B (2018) Are Low-Demand Tasks Appropriate for Comprehensive Movement Pattern Evaluation and Injury Risk Prediction?. J Nov Physiother 8: e153. DOI: 10.4172/2165-7025.1000e153
Copyright: © 2018 Oleksy L, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.