東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Prediction of Athletic Injury with a...

Hall, Tyler R.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Prediction of Athletic Injury with a Functional Movement Screen(TM)

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Prediction of Athletic Injury with a Functional Movement Screen(TM)/
作者:	Hall, Tyler R.
面頁冊數:	76 p.
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 53-02.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International53-02(E).
標題:	Kinesiology. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1558813
ISBN:	9781303991592

Prediction of Athletic Injury with a Functional Movement Screen(TM)
Hall, Tyler R.

Prediction of Athletic Injury with a Functional Movement Screen(TM) - 76 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 53-02.

Thesis (M.S.)--East Carolina University, 2014.

This item is not available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

The Functional Movement ScreenTM (FMS) is a screening tool designed to quantify movement quality. The ability of the FMS to identify individuals likely to be injured has been examined in athletic and military settings. However, the predictive ability of the FMS has not been examined in a cohort of intercollegiate football players. PURPOSE : The purpose of this study was to determine if the FMS, body mass index (BMI), or two bilateral body mass asymmetry measures accurately predict injury in intercollegiate football players over the course of one season. METHODS: Participants (N = 81) were tested using the FMS protocol. Seven tests were scored on a 0 to 3 scale resulting in a possible composite score of 21. Participants were categorized as having positive or negative tests based on 14--point and 15--point cutoff scores. BMI was calculated from measured height and weight. Participants were categorized as having positive or negative tests based on a BMI ≥ 30 kg·m -2. Bilateral body mass asymmetry was assessed twice by weighing participants on two identical scales with one foot on each scale. Feet were placed a standardized distance (one--third of height) apart for one measure and shoulder width apart for the second measure. Participants were categorized as having positive or negative tests based on a difference between the two scales of ≥ 5% of body mass. Injury reports were obtained from the athletic training staff. Musculoskeletal injuries were classified via NCAA Injury Surveillance System criteria. Participants were categorized as injured or not injured based on injury reports. Intrarater reliability was estimated for the FMS on all participants by viewing videotaped procedures. Interrater reliability was estimated on 18 participants viewed in real time by two raters. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated to examine the accuracy of the different screening measures to identify participants who were injured or not injured. RESULTS: Participants had a mean composite FMS score of 15.4 (+/- 1.7) and a mean BMI of 30.1 (+/- 5.3) kg·m-2. Bilateral body mass asymmetry measures averaged 4 (+/- 3) percent of body mass for the standardized difference and 5 (+/- 5) percent of body mass for the shoulder width difference. Intraclass correlation coefficients for intrarater reliability (.94) and interrater reliability (.92) for the composite FMS score were high. Forty-three injuries (17 direct contact, 12 indirect contact, 11 non--contact, 2 overuse, and 1 unknown mechanism) to 31 players were reported. No significant relationship was found between the FMS, BMI, or the bilateral body mass asymmetry measures and injury (p > .05). Sensitivity values were: FMS 14--point cutoff = .26, FMS 15--point cutoff = .42, BMI cutoff = .42, bilateral body mass asymmetry standardized difference cutoff = .31, bilateral body mass asymmetry shoulder width difference cutoff = .52. Specificity values were: FMS 14--point cutoff = .70, FMS 15--point cutoff = .51, BMI cutoff = .64, bilateral body mass asymmetry standardized difference cutoff = .74, bilateral body mass asymmetry shoulder width difference cutoff = .68. CONCLUSIONS: The FMS can be used reliably with intercollegiate football players, but the validity of the FMS to predict athletic injury is questionable. The FMS did not predict injury more accurately than anthropometrically derived measurements. Although as accurate as the FMS, BMI and the two bilateral body mass asymmetry measures did not accurately predict injury.

ISBN: 9781303991592Subjects--Topical Terms:

517627
Kinesiology.

Prediction of Athletic Injury with a Functional Movement Screen(TM)
LDR:04542nmm a2200313 4500 001 2061889
005 20151021122218.5
008 170521s2014 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781303991592
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI1558813
035 $a AAI1558813
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Hall, Tyler R. $3 3176207
245 1 0 $a Prediction of Athletic Injury with a Functional Movement Screen(TM)
300 $a 76 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 53-02.
500 $a Adviser: Matthew T. Mahar.
502 $a Thesis (M.S.)--East Carolina University, 2014.
506 $a This item is not available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a The Functional Movement ScreenTM (FMS) is a screening tool designed to quantify movement quality. The ability of the FMS to identify individuals likely to be injured has been examined in athletic and military settings. However, the predictive ability of the FMS has not been examined in a cohort of intercollegiate football players. PURPOSE : The purpose of this study was to determine if the FMS, body mass index (BMI), or two bilateral body mass asymmetry measures accurately predict injury in intercollegiate football players over the course of one season. METHODS: Participants (N = 81) were tested using the FMS protocol. Seven tests were scored on a 0 to 3 scale resulting in a possible composite score of 21. Participants were categorized as having positive or negative tests based on 14--point and 15--point cutoff scores. BMI was calculated from measured height and weight. Participants were categorized as having positive or negative tests based on a BMI ≥ 30 kg·m -2. Bilateral body mass asymmetry was assessed twice by weighing participants on two identical scales with one foot on each scale. Feet were placed a standardized distance (one--third of height) apart for one measure and shoulder width apart for the second measure. Participants were categorized as having positive or negative tests based on a difference between the two scales of ≥ 5% of body mass. Injury reports were obtained from the athletic training staff. Musculoskeletal injuries were classified via NCAA Injury Surveillance System criteria. Participants were categorized as injured or not injured based on injury reports. Intrarater reliability was estimated for the FMS on all participants by viewing videotaped procedures. Interrater reliability was estimated on 18 participants viewed in real time by two raters. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated to examine the accuracy of the different screening measures to identify participants who were injured or not injured. RESULTS: Participants had a mean composite FMS score of 15.4 (+/- 1.7) and a mean BMI of 30.1 (+/- 5.3) kg·m-2. Bilateral body mass asymmetry measures averaged 4 (+/- 3) percent of body mass for the standardized difference and 5 (+/- 5) percent of body mass for the shoulder width difference. Intraclass correlation coefficients for intrarater reliability (.94) and interrater reliability (.92) for the composite FMS score were high. Forty-three injuries (17 direct contact, 12 indirect contact, 11 non--contact, 2 overuse, and 1 unknown mechanism) to 31 players were reported. No significant relationship was found between the FMS, BMI, or the bilateral body mass asymmetry measures and injury (p > .05). Sensitivity values were: FMS 14--point cutoff = .26, FMS 15--point cutoff = .42, BMI cutoff = .42, bilateral body mass asymmetry standardized difference cutoff = .31, bilateral body mass asymmetry shoulder width difference cutoff = .52. Specificity values were: FMS 14--point cutoff = .70, FMS 15--point cutoff = .51, BMI cutoff = .64, bilateral body mass asymmetry standardized difference cutoff = .74, bilateral body mass asymmetry shoulder width difference cutoff = .68. CONCLUSIONS: The FMS can be used reliably with intercollegiate football players, but the validity of the FMS to predict athletic injury is questionable. The FMS did not predict injury more accurately than anthropometrically derived measurements. Although as accurate as the FMS, BMI and the two bilateral body mass asymmetry measures did not accurately predict injury.
590 $a School code: 0600.
650 4 $a Kinesiology. $3 517627
650 4 $a Physical education. $3 635343
650 4 $a Health sciences. $3 3168359
690 $a 0575
690 $a 0523
690 $a 0566
710 2 $a East Carolina University. $b Exercise and Sports Science. $3 2100503
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 53-02(E).
790 $a 0600
791 $a M.S.
792 $a 2014
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1558813