See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312171809

The Relationship Between The Fms And Modified Beep Test Scores In
Underwater Rugby Players

Article · December 2016

DOI: 10.7813/jhst.2016/7-2/8

CITATIONS READS
0 433

4 authors, including:

Murşit Aksoy
Hakkari University
6 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Murşit Aksoy on 10 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 © Journal of Health, Sport and Tourism ISSN: 2078-0273, Vol. 7. No. 2, 2016

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FMSTM AND MODIFIED

BEEP TEST SCORES IN UNDERWATER RUGBY PLAYERS
1 1 1 2
Bahar Odabas Ozgur , Turgay Ozgur *, Mursit Aksoy , Sahin Ozen
1
Kocaeli University, Faculty of Sport Science, Kocaeli,
2
Marmara University, Faculty of Sport Science, Istanbul (TURKEY)
*Corresponding author: turgayozgur@gmail.com

DOI: 10.7813/jhst.2016/7-2/8

Received: 15 Nov, 2016

Accepted: 20 Dec, 2016

ABSTRACT

There is no research paper in the literature that has investigated the relationships between the Functional
Movement Screen (FMS) and aerobic endurance in underwater rugby players. Hence the purpose of this study
was to determine the correlation between Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and Modified Swimming Beep Test
(MSBT) scores in elite underwater rugby players. FMS is an evaluation tool that attempts to assess the
fundamental movement patterns, creates a functional baseline to mark progress and provides a means to
measure performance and identifies functional limitations and asymmetries. Some limited data exist concerning
the potential relationship of FMS to athletic performance tests. 23 elite underwater rugby players (age=
18,65±1,11 years, height 181,73 ± 6,03 cm, body mass 84,52 ± 10,37 kg) participated in the study. Functional
Movement Screen test was conducted by an FMS certified expert. Spearman’s Correlation test revealed that
there was no correlation between FMS and MSBT scores (p>0.05). The result of this investigation suggests that
coaches and trainers should not to use the FMS to assess aerobic endurance in underwater rugby players.

Key words: FMS, Beep Test, Underwater Rugby

1. INTRODUCTION

The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) was developed to evaluate human movement in certain patterns
and is composed of the: deep squat, hurdle step; in-line lunge; shoulder mobility; active straight-leg raise; trunk
stability push-up; and rotary stability. The FMS has been used to identifying deficiencies that could lead to an
increased risk of injury (Lockie et al., 2015).
The sport performance could also influenced by the movement deficiencies that increase the risk of injury
(Gamble, 2013).
Functional movement is the ability to produce and maintain a balance between mobility and stability along
the kinetic chain while performing fundamental patterns with accuracy and efficiency (Okada, Huxel, & Nesser,
2011). The effectiveness of the fundamental patterns are also plays essential roles in training, matches and also
in athletic performance tests. This relationship could have great value for athletes, as correction of movement
inefficiencies identified by screens could lead to improvements in sport-specific movements (Lockie et al., 2015).
The current relationship between athletic performance and the FMS have not been identified. There are
limited number of researches regarding this relationship and none of these researches (Okada, Huxel, & Nesser,
2011; Lockie et al., 2015) includes data on aerobic endurance and its relation between FMS. Addition to that
previous research has indicated limitations in the relationships between FMS scores and performance tests
(Parchmann & McBride, 2011). A fundamental consideration for team sport athletes is aerobic endurance. It can
be determined via indirect aerobic endurance tests such as the Beep test which was developed by Leger and
Lambert (Léger & Lambert, 1982). Later in 1985 the original test was modified for swimmers by (Lavoie, Leger,
Leone, & Provencher, 1985).
There is a clear tendency in the use of FMS in many sports however there has not been any published
papers investigating the relationships between aerobic endurance and functional movement screen in underwater
rugby players
Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between aerobic
endurance and functional movement screen in underwater rugby players.

2. METHODS

23 males (age = 18.65 ±1.11, height = 181.73±6.03, weight = 84.52±10.37) Turkey national underwater
rugby team athletes volunteered for this study. Subjects were included if they had not sustained an injury that
prohibited full participation in regular training and competition, or had not had a recent medical surgery that limited
sports participation. This study was approved by the University Research Ethics Committee and conformed to the
policy statement with respect to the Declaration of Helsinki. All subjects received an explanation of the research,
including the risks and benefits of participation, and written informed consent was obtained prior to testing.

| 45
 © Journal of Health, Sport and Tourism ISSN: 2078-0273, Vol. 7. No. 2, 2016

This study analyzed relations between scores obtained from FMS (DS, PU, HS, ILL, SM, ASLR, RS and
FMS total) and those obtained from MSBT that is commonly used to assess aerobic endurance of athletes in
Turkey national underwater rugby team.
The FMS consists of seven movement tests, described by Cook (Cook, 2010), that include: deep squat
(DS), trunk-stability push-up (PU), hurdle steps (HS), in-line lunges (ILL), shoulder mobility (SM), active straight-
leg raises (ASLR), and rotary stabilities (RS) and the tests were completed in this order. All players passed
appropriate clearing screens of the FMS. To maintain consistency all FMS tests demonstrated before being
tested. Individuals were given a score of 0–3 for each test and then a total score between 0 and 21; the sum of all
seven tests (FMStotal). The scoring system of each test is described in Table 1. Where a test was completed on
left and right side the lesser of the two scores for that test was assigned to contribute to FMS total.
The most common field test of aerobic fitness is the Beep Test which was developed by Léger and
Lambert (Léger & Lambert, 1982). The team of Lavoie et al. (Lavoie, Leger, Leone, & Provencher, 1985), which
included Léger, later published a variation of this test - a swimming beep test - conducted in a 25m pool, starting
at a speed of 1 m/sec and increasing by 0.05 m/sec every two minutes until exhaustion (“Swimming Endurance
Fitness Tests,” 2016). The test modified to adapt the nature of underwater rugby. 25 m circuits divided in to two
12.5 m part by a lane separator. First 12,5 m of circuit performed on the surface and the second part performed
underwater. Figure 1. displays the MSBT circuit example.

Fig. 1. The MSBT circuit

All statistical analyses were computed using the Statistics Package for Social Sciences (Version 20.0; IBM
Corporation). Spearman’s correlation analysis (p  0.05) was used to compare relationships between the
screening scores and the MSBT.
In this study, an r value between 0 to 0.30, and 0 to -0.30, was considered small; 0.31 to 0.49 and -0.31 to
-0.49, moderate; 0.50 to 0.69 or -0.50 to -0.69, large; 0.70 to 0.89 or -0.70 to -0.89, very large; and 0.90 to 1 or -
0.90 to -1, near perfect for predicting relationships.
Table 1. Scoring system for functional movement screen (Okada, Huxel, & Nesser, 2011)
Tests 3 points 2 points 1 point 0 point
Deep squat Upper torso is parallel with tibia or Meet criteria of 3 points with 2x6 Tibia and upper torso are not If pain is associated with
toward vertical. board under heels. parallel. any portion of this test.
Femur is below horizontal. Knees are not aligned over feet.
Knees are aligned over feet. Femur is not below horizontal.
Dowel is aligned over feet. Knees are not aligned over
feet.
Lumbar flexion is noted.

Hurdle step Hips, knees, and ankles remain
aligned in sagittal plane.
Minimal to no movement is noted in
lumbar spine.
Dowel and hurdle remain parallel.
In-line lunge Minimal to no torso movement is
noted.
Feet remain in sagittal plane on 2x6
board.
Knee touches 2x6 board behind heel
of front foot.
Shoulder mobility Fists are within 1 hand
length.
Active straight-leg-raise Dowel resides between mid-thigh
and anterior superior iliac spine.
Trunk-stability push-up Males perform 1 repetition
with thumbs aligned with
top of head.
Females perform 1 repetition
with thumbs aligned with
chin.
Rotary stability Subjects perform 1
correct repetition while
keeping torso parallel to
board and elbow and
knee in line with board.
Alignment lost between hips,
knees, and ankles.
Dowel and hurdle do not remain
parallel.
Movement is noted in lumbar
spine.
Movement is noted in torso.
Feet do not remain in sagittal
plane.
Knee does not touch behind heel
of front foot.
Fists are within 1.5 hand
length.
Dowel resides between mid-thigh
and jointline of knee.
Subjects perform 1
repetition in modified
position.
Male-thumbs aligned
with chin.
If pain is noted during lumbar
extension.
Female-thumbs aligned
with chest.
Subjects perform 1
correct diagonal flexion
and extension lift while
maintaining torso parallel
to board and floor.
Contact between foot and
hurdle occurs.
Loss of balance is noted.
Loss of balance is noted.
Fists are not within 1.5 hand
lengths.
Dowel resides below jointline.
Subjects are unable to
perform 1
repetition in modified position.
Subjects are unable to
perform diagonal repetition.
If pain is associated with
any portion of this test.
If pain is associated with
any portion of this test.
If pain is associated with
any portion of this test
and/or during shoulder
stability screen.
If pain is associated with
any
portion of this test.
If pain is associated with
any
portion of this test.
If pain is noted during
lumbar
extension.
If pain is associated with
any
portion of this test.
If pain is noted during
lumbar flexion.

46 |
 © Journal of Health, Sport and Tourism ISSN: 2078-0273, Vol. 7. No. 2, 2016

3. RESULTS

A total of 23 athletes were screened and were included in the analysis. Mean values of The FMS test are
shown in the Table 2.

Table 2. Test scores’ mean and standard deviations

Tests Subject Mean Sd

MSBT 20,34 3,49
DS 2,13 0,75
PU 2,60 0,58
HS 1,82 0,65
ILL 1,95 0,76
SM 2,39 0,65
ASLR 2,13 0,75
RS 1,65 0,57
FMS total 14,52 2,60

Regarding the screening scores, the mean overall score was 14,52±2,60 and MSBT test mean score was
20,34±3,49. Table 3. displays the correlations between the individual screens and overall score and the MSBT.
There were no significant correlations between FMS total score and the MSBT scores. The PU was positively
correlated with MSBT as shown in the Table 3.

Table 3. Correlations between acquired data from tests

FMS Tests MSBT

r p

DS 0,364 0,087
**
PU 0,526 0,01*

HS 0,145 0,508

ILL 0,116 0,599

SM 0,095 0,666

ASLR 0,198 0,366

RS 0,368 0,084

FMS total 0,385 0,070

(p  0.05)
4. DISCUSSION

Although the relationship between the FMS and athletic performance has been discussed in recent
literature (Lockie et al., 2015; Lloyd et al., 2015; Lockie et al., 2015; Okada, Huxel, & Nesser, 2011) this is the first
study to analyze the relationship between FMS scores and aerobic endurance in underwater rugby players.
The results from this study supported the researches that showed minimal relationships between FMS
scores and athletic performance. The only significant relationships that was found appears to be moderate.
The results from this study supported the researches that showed minimal relationships between FMS
scores and athletic performance. The only significant relationships that was found appears to be moderate
(Lockie et al., 2015).
The mean overall FMS score from this study was 14,52±2,60. Several studies have indicated that a mean
FMS score of 14 is related to increased injury (Lockie et al., 2015; Sprague, Mokha, & Gatens, 2014; Li, Wang,
Chen, & Dai, 2015; Bardenett et al., 2015; Lisman, O’Connor, Deuster, & Knapik, 2013) FMS cut score of 14 had
a specificity of.91 and a sensitivity of.51 for predicting injury incidence over the course of a season in pro athletes.
So the overall FMS cut score in this study suggest that current subjects are under risk of potential injuries over the
course of their season.
In regard with different athletic performance parameters; Lockie (Lockie et al., 2015) have found limited
capacity in FMS to identify the deficiencies that could affect multidirectional sprinting or jumping. It was also
stated that it was found minimal relationships between the FMS and athletic performance. In the same study there
were no FMS correlations with the unilateral jump tests and no clear differentiation in unilateral jump performance
between subjects who scored higher or lower in the selected screens.
Okada (Okada, Huxel, & Nesser, 2011) have found no significant relationships between any of the core
stability tests and FMS variables. Okada expected that the components of the FMS, such as mobility and
coordination, may have influenced the results hence the lack of significant correlations were commented as odd.

| 47
 © Journal of Health, Sport and Tourism ISSN: 2078-0273, Vol. 7. No. 2, 2016

In a study of FMS use with elite track and field athletes Chapman et. al. (Chapman, Laymon, & Arnold,
2014) showed that FMS is related to the ability to improve longitudinal competitive performance outcomes. In
another study Lloyd et. al. (Lloyd et al., 2015) found that the relationships between FMS and physical
performance in young athletes were only novel. Lloyd (Lloyd et al., 2015) also showed that physical performance
in youth soccer players could be explained by FMS scores and maturation.
Results from the Spearman’s correlation indicated that there were no significant correlations between FMS
total score and the MSBT scores. This outcome could be resulted because FMS tests were not designed focusing
athletic performance rather focusing movement efficiencies. Individual movement scores showed relationship only
in PU with MSBT test. The trunk stability push-up tests the ability to stabilize the spine in an anterior and posterior
plane during a closed-chain upper body movement. The MSBT in this study to determine aerobic endurance
probably links to trunk stability throughout the test. The PU test assesses trunk stability in the sagittal plane while
a symmetrical upper-extremity motion is performed. Although subjects FMS total score was indicating the risk of
injury no relationships were found with aerobic performances of subjects which obtained using MSBT.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The current study demonstrates that tests within the functional movement screen showed relationship only
in PU with MSBT results of the underwater rugby players. The fast pace nature of the game could be the reason
for the results. Our belief is that these data would help to design further research on FMS and its association with
the various type of athletic performance in different sport branches.

REFERENCES

1. Bardenett, S. M., Micca, J. J., DeNoyelles, J. T., Miller, S. D., Jenk, D. T., & Brooks, G. S. (2015).
TM
Functional Movement Screen normative values and validity in high school athletes: can the FMS be
used as a predictor of injury? International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 10(3), 303.
2. Cook, G. (2010). Movement: Functional movement systems: Screening, assessment, corrective
strategies. On Target Publications.
3. Gamble, P. (2013). Strength and conditioning for team sports: sport-specific physical preparation for
high performance. Routledge.
4. Lavoie, J. M., Leger, L. A., Leone, M., & Provencher, P. J. (1985). A maximal multistage swim test to
determine the functional and maximal aerobic power of competitive swimmers. J Swim Res, 1, 17–22.
5. Léger, L. A., & Lambert, J. (1982). A maximal multistage 20-m shuttle run test to predict VO2 max.
European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 49(1), 1–12.
6. Li, Y., Wang, X., Chen, X., & Dai, B. (2015). Exploratory factor analysis of the functional movement
screen in elite athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(11), 1166–72.
7. Lisman, P., O’Connor, F. G., Deuster, P. A., & Knapik, J. J. (2013). Functional movement screen and
aerobic fitness predict injuries in military training. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 45(4), 636–43.
8. Lockie, R. G., Callaghan, S. J., Jordan, C. A., Luczo, T. M., Jeffriess, M. D., Jalilvand, F., & Schultz,
A. B. (2015). Certain Actions from the Functional Movement Screen Do Not Provide an Indication of
Dynamic Stability. Journal of Human Kinetics, 47(1), 19–29.
9. Lockie, R., Schultz, A., Callaghan, S., Jordan, C., Luczo, T., & Jeffriess, M. (2015). A preliminary
investigation into the relationship between functional movement screen scores and athletic physical
performance in female team sport athletes. Biology of Sport, 32(1), 41–51.
https://doi.org/10.5604/20831862.1127281
10. Lockie, R., Schultz, A., Jordan, C., Callaghan, S., Jeffriess, M., & Luczo, T. (2015). Can Selected
Functional Movement Screen Assessments Be Used to Identify Movement Deficiencies That Could
Affect Multidirectional Speed and Jump Performance? Journal Of Strength And Conditioning
Research, 29(1), 195–205.
11. Okada, T., Huxel, K., & Nesser, T. (2011). Relationship between core stability, functional movement,
and performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(1), 252–261.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b22b3e
12. Parchmann, C. J., & McBride, J. M. (2011). Relationship between functional movement screen and
athletic performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(12), 3378–84.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318238e916
13. Sprague, P. A., Mokha, G. M., & Gatens, D.R. (2014). Changes in functional movement screen
scores over a season in collegiate soccer and volleyball athletes. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 28(11), 3155–63.
14. Swimming Endurance Fitness Tests. (2016). Retrieved December 27, 2016, from
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/aerobic-swimming.htm

48 |

View publication stats