PTJ: Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Journal | Physical Therapy, 2021;101:1–8

https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab154
Advance access publication date June 21, 2021
Perspective

A Framework for Movement Analysis of Tasks:

Recommendations From the Academy of Neurologic
Physical Therapy’s Movement System Task Force
Lori Quinn , PT, EdD, FAPTA1* , Nora Riley, PT, PhD, NCS2 , Christine M. Tyrell, PT, DPT, PhD, NCS3 ,
Dana L. Judd, PT, DPT, PhD4 , Kathleen M. Gill-Body, DPT, MS, NCS, FAPTA5 ,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/101/9/pzab154/6307338 by guest on 30 January 2023

Lois D. Hedman, PT, DScPT, MS6 , Andrew Packel , PT, NCS7 , David A. Brown, PT, PhD, FAPTA8 ,
Nikita Nabar, PT, DPT, MSPT, GCS9 , Patricia Scheets, PT, MHS, DPT, NCS10
1 Dept of Biobehavioral Sciences, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
2 Physical Therapy Department, St. Ambrose University, Davenport, Iowa, USA
3 Department of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
4 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
5 Rehabilitation Services, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, Massachusetts, USA
6 Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
7 MossRehab, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, USA
8 School of Health Professions, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA
9 Baylor Scott and White Inpatient Rehabilitation, Lakeway, Texas, USA
10 Infinity Rehab, Quality & Clinical Outcomes, Wilsonville, Oregon, USA

*Address all correspondence to Dr Quinn at: lq2165@tc.columbia.edu

The American Physical Therapy Association’s Vision Statement of 2013 asserts that physical therapists optimize movement in
order to improve the human experience. In accordance with this vision, physical therapists strive to be recognized as experts
in movement analysis. However, there continues to be no accepted method to conduct movement analysis, nor an agreement
of key terminology to describe movement observations. As a result, the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy organized
a task force that was charged with advancing the state of practice with respect to these issues, including the development
of a proposed method for movement analysis of tasks. This paper presents the work of the Task Force, which includes (1)
development of a method for conducting movement analysis within the context of the movement continuum during 6 core
tasks (sitting, sit to stand, standing, walking, step up/down, and reach/grasp/manipulate); (2) glossary of movement constructs
that can provide a common language for movement analysis across a range of tasks: symmetry, speed, amplitude, alignment,
verticality, stability, smoothness, sequencing, timing, accuracy, and symptom provocation; and (3) recommendations for task
and environmental variations that can be systematically applied. The expectation is that this systematic framework and
accompanying terminology will be easily adapted to additional patient or client-specific tasks, contribute to development of
movement system diagnostic labels, and ultimately improve consistency across patient/client examination, evaluation, and
intervention for the physical therapy profession. Next steps should include validation of this framework across patient/client
groups and settings.
Keywords: Movement Analysis, Movement System, Task Analysis

Received: February 10, 2021. Revised: April 11, 2021. Accepted: May 30, 2021
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Physical Therapy Association. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
2 Framework for Movement Analysis of Tasks
Introduction
In 2013, the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA)
set forth a vision statement for the physical therapy pro-
fession,1 identifying the movement system as central to the
identity of physical therapy practice.2 In accordance with this
vision statement, physical therapists are movement system
experts,3 and central to this is the proposed development of
movement system diagnoses.4 Rather than being classified by
traditional health conditions or diseases, movement system
diagnoses categorize patients/clients by impairments and limi-
tations related to their movement abilities. As such, movement
analysis, wherein therapists use observation to examine move-
ment during tasks and activities, is a key component of the
evaluation process and development of diagnoses. However,
at present, our profession does not have a unifying framework
to conduct movement analysis across a range of tasks and
activities, with consideration of the concepts of motor control
that are essential to identification of movement dysfunction.5
In 2015, the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy
(ANPT) developed a Movement System Task Force, which
was charged with developing an evidence-based framework
for conducting movement analysis as well as developing
movement system diagnoses, for individuals with neurological
disorders. The Task Force published a white paper6 outlining
essential elements necessary to develop a systematic approach
to movement analysis to aid in the diagnostic process. In
2017, 2 new task forces were created: a Movement Analysis
Task Force and a Balance Diagnosis Task Force. The ANPT
Board of Directors invited physical therapists to apply for a
position on the Movement Analysis Task Force in October
2017; the authors of this paper were subsequently chosen
to serve. The 7 members have a mean of 24.4 years of
clinical experience, most in neurological rehabilitation but
also including musculoskeletal and general rehabilitation
(range = 15–37 years). They represent different geographic
regions of the United States (3 Midwest, 1 Mid-Atlantic, 1
Northeast, 2 Southwest) and varied primary roles (4 aca-
demician/researchers, 1 academician/clinician, 2 clinicians).
This paper represents the combined effort of the task force
members, who met for 2 face-to-face weekend meetings and
conducted monthly conference calls over an 18-month period.
The group presented their preliminary work in an educational
session at the 2019 Combined Sections Meeting of the APTA
and its final recommendations in an educational session at
the 2020 Combined Sections Meeting of the APTA.
This paper presents a framework for physical therapists
to systematically conduct movement analysis during task
performance. In doing so, we hope to strengthen the emphasis
on movement analysis in everyday practice, lead to more
consistency in examination procedures, and ultimately to
improve the ability of physical therapists to use movement
analyses as 1 component of developing movement system
diagnoses. Although this framework was initially designed
for application to clients with neurologic impairments, we
see this framework as applying more broadly to movement
system dysfunctions originating from different systems (eg,
musculoskeletal, cardiopulmonary, etc) or combinations
thereof.
Movement Constructs
The observation, analysis, and ultimately the fostering of
human movement is the foundation of our practice as physical
therapists.7–9 Analysis of movement during performance of
tasks is a key tenet of physical therapy practice, and keen
observation skills have been central to physical therapy since
the beginning of the profession. Contemporary theories of
motor control10,11 emphasize that movement emerges from a
complex interaction between the task, the performer, and their
environment. Individuals choose optimal movement strate-
gies that meet the demands of the task given their current
limitations and abilities. With this in mind, we propose a
framework for the systematic analysis of movement during
tasks, with some initial task and environmental constraints to
allow for consistent observation of an individual’s movement
patterns or strategies. Systematic observation of movement
allows for theorization of underlying reasons for particular
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/101/9/pzab154/6307338 by guest on 30 January 2023
movement patterns and may ultimately lead to a method for
making movement system diagnoses that can drive evidence-
based treatment decisions. Although this task force has cho-
sen a series of core tasks for initial movement observation,
including static (sitting and standing) and dynamic tasks (sit
to stand, walking, step up/down and reach/grasp/manipulate),
this framework may be applied to any goal-directed task
of interest (eg, lying to sit; throwing a ball) or indeed any
functional movement (eg, reaching, squatting).
To ensure consistency in our approach to movement analy-
sis, we must first agree on terminology to describe movement.
Furthermore, there is extensive motor control literature in a
range of tasks that have elucidated our understanding of the
complex nature of how the nervous system interacts with the
musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, pulmonary, integumentary,
and endocrine systems in order for movement to emerge.12,13
We have created a glossary of movement constructs (Tab. 1)
that were chosen by expert consensus through a multi-year
iterative process and are grounded in contemporary motor
control literature. The task force members triangulated pri-
mary, secondary, and tertiary sources to arrive at this list.
Although we believe this list represents unique observations
that are applicable to a large range of tasks, we recognize
that continued evaluation and refinement of these terms is
warranted.
Motor control is defined as the ability to regulate or direct
the mechanisms essential to movement.12 Our constructs
consist of observable aspects of motor control; in other words,
those that can be seen or reported during movement. The
constructs are symmetry, speed, amplitude, alignment, ver-
ticality, stability, smoothness, sequencing, timing, accuracy,
and symptom provocation (Tab. 1). We have grouped 6 of
these constructs within 2 broader motor control concepts of
postural control and coordination. Verticality and stability
are components of postural control, which is defined as the
ability to control the body’s position in space with respect
to gravity, the environment (eg, visual surroundings), and
internal references for the dual purposes of stability and
orientation.14 Smoothness, sequencing, timing, and accuracy
are components of coordination, which can be defined as
smooth, efficient, and accurate movement of body segments
associated with orderly sequencing, timing, and grading of
muscle activity.11
The Movement Continuum
Hedman et al7 has described a movement continuum that
serves as a useful framework for movement observations
across a range of tasks. The stages of the movement
Quinn et al 3

Table 1. Glossary of Terms for Movement Analysis

Observable Constructs Definition Measurement Examples

Symmetry Agreement of the external kinetics and kinematics of
movement (eg, left vs right)52
Speed Rate of change or velocity of segment or body
displacement from start to finish of a task
Amplitude The extent or range of movement used to complete a
task
Alignment Biomechanical relationship of body segments to one
another as well as to the base of support, and
environment, in order to achieve the task12
Postural control
Verticality Ability to orient the body in relation to the line of
gravity53
Symmetry index or ratios
Speed or movement time
Range of motion, step length, stride length, distance
Orientation of body segments (eg, anterior/
posterior/lateral) with respect to other limb
segments or body
Body segment anterior/ posterior/lateral with respect
to plumb line

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/101/9/pzab154/6307338 by guest on 30 January 2023

Stability The ability to control the body’s center of mass in Sway; center of pressure
relation to the base of support under quasi-static
and dynamic conditions12,54
Coordination
Smoothness A movement is perceived to be smooth when it Measures derived from kinematic analysis such as
happens in a continual fashion without any acceleration and jerk
interruptions in velocity or trajectory.55
Sequencing Specific order of motor output required to achieve the Joint coordination (kinematic and kinetic analyses)
intended goal of the action56
Timing The overall temporal structure of movement that Reaction time, relative timing measures
includes the relative percentage of time devoted to
movement segments, including initiation, execution
and termination
Accuracy The closeness of a measured value to a standard or Spatial or variable errors
known value; freedom from error57
Symptom provocation An observation or patient report of symptoms; Change in oxygen saturation, heart rate;
movement that evokes a particular response patient-reported measures pain, dizziness, fear

continuum consider movement from its initial conditions to
outcome of the task goal and environment.
As seen in the Figure, movement analysis begins with eval-
uation of the initial conditions, which includes evaluation of
the environment and observing starting posture. As discussed
above, we believe it is important to apply some constraints
on both the environment (eg, initial condition for walking
would be a smooth surface in a quiet location) and initial
posture (eg, initial condition for sit to stand would be sitting
upright with feet flat on floor) and then to systematically
alter the environmental conditions to observe changes in
movement strategies. Movement preparation, although an
important component of motor planning and execution, is
generally not observable; however, assessment of whether an
individual understands the instructions or the requirements of
a task can reflect the construct of movement preparation. In
addition, various observations at subsequent stages can also
provide a window into the preparation stage. For dynamic
tasks (eg, sit to stand, walking, stepping up and down, and
reach/grasp/manipulate), we focus on observable stages of the
movement continuum (initiation, execution, and termination).
Initiation of movement is the instant when the displacement of
the segments begins, execution is the period of actual segment
movement, and termination is the instant when motion stops.
Thus, within a given task, we recommend consideration of
each of these 3 phases of movement, which can provide dif-
ferent information pertaining to the key constructs discussed
above. The final component of the movement continuum
defined by Hedman et al7 is outcome, referring to whether
the goal of the movement was reached successfully. Similar to
the initial conditions, the outcome of the task is pre-defined
by the instructions given to the individual performing the task
(eg, stand for 30 seconds) and can be systematically altered to
make the task goal easier or harder to achieve.
Core Tasks
We chose 6 core tasks—sitting, sit to stand, standing, walk-
ing, step up/down, and reach/grasp/manipulate—following a
consensus procedure among the original task force group (see
Hedman et al6 ) (Tab. 2). Examining movement constructs
across these tasks allows consideration of a range of task
requirements: the ability to maintain positions (siting, stand-
ing), moving within a position (reach, grasp and manipulate),
moving between positions (sit to stand), and moving through
the environment (step up/down, walk and turn). We recognize
that core tasks may differ based on patient/client groups and
settings, and the tasks presented here may be limited for
individuals who are non-ambulatory and also for individuals
at high performance levels such as athletes. However, we
believe that these core tasks can be a starting point in a wide
range of clinical situations, and additional tasks can be added
to this framework as needed using the same structure and
format.
Principles for Movement Analysis
Movement analysis should be conducted in a structured and
environmentally controlled manner to facilitate consistent
observation of an individual’s movement patterns and strate-
gies. Although we recognize the importance of ecologically
valid assessments, it is also important to have consistency in
assessment procedures and to take into account the impact of
the environment and the task requirements. We also suggest
4 Framework for Movement Analysis of Tasks

Table 2. Description of 6 Core Tasks for Movement Analysis With Standardized Task Instructions

Task Task Description Task Instructions

Sitting The person will sit unsupported on firm surface (at “Please sit upright with your feet flat on the
approximate height of fibular head) with a floor for 30 seconds”
self-selected base of support with hands resting on
lap.
Sit to Stand The person will stand from a level, firm surface at “Please stand up. Try not to use your hands.”
height of fibular head with a self-selected base of
support.

Standing The person will stand on a level, firm surface with a “Please stand comfortably for 30 seconds”
self-selected base of support.
Walking The person will walk at least 20 m. Route should “Please walk at your comfortable speed to
include 180-degree turn. The spot on the floor (mark indicated 10 m away), turn around

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/101/9/pzab154/6307338 by guest on 30 January 2023

should be marked with a durable piece of tape that
is visible to the person from a distance.
Step Up/down Standing facing a 7 inch step, the person will step up
onto step and then step down backward with the
same leg. Use a stand-alone step or step stool. Stairs
may be used if these are unavailable. Repeat with
other leg.
Reach/grasp/manipulate The person starts sitting in chair with back support
and is asked to reach, with 1 arm only, for a cup of
plastic foam pieces (located 6 inches beyond arm
length), grasp the cup, lift the cup off the table, and
pour its contents into a receptacle located next to
the cup, and return the cup to the table surface
without dropping. Repeat with the other arm.
and come back.”
“Please step up onto this step with both feet,
leading with your right leg. Try not to use
your hands (if rail is present.) Now step
down backwards, leading with the right
leg.” (Repeat task instructions leading with
the left leg.)
“Sit with eyes focused on the cup in front of
you, with your arms resting on your lap
below the table. Lift your arm off your lab
and please reach for the cup with your left
(or right) arm, grasp the cup, lift the cup,
and pour its contents into the receptacle
without spilling any onto the table, and
return the cup to the table surface.”

that movement analysis be conducted early in the examination
process to help inform appropriate tests and measures within
various systems (eg, musculoskeletal, neuromotor, integumen-
tary, etc). As a therapist observes movement, they should
be generating hypotheses about the contributing factors to
any movement dysfunction. This may include specific impair-
ments (eg, impaired sensation), which would warrant further
testing. (The worksheets provided in the Suppl. Appendix,
include examples of suggested systems evaluations.)
Here we propose recommendations for testing efficiency,
instructions and environmental set up, repetitions, use of
physical support, and systematic modifications to the task
and environment to change the challenge of the task and
adapt to an individual’s performance. Importantly, we make
recommendations for ways to systematically alter tasks and
the environment to more comprehensively evaluate movement
constructs.
Testing Efficiency
A structured movement analysis of tasks should be conducted
in a set order, followed as closely as possible between indi-
viduals and for subsequent testing if feasible within clinical
settings. This standardization helps to ensure consistency
between testing and maximize efficiency. We recommend eval-
uating performance on all 6 tasks in the suggested order when
possible, which allows the therapist to observe consistent
issues that may be common across tasks.
Instructions and Environmental Setup
(Standardizing Initial Conditions)
The environmental setup and instructions are designed to
minimize constraints on the task and observe the individual’s
chosen strategy for performing the task. The focus of
movement analysis is on observing the movement patterns
and strategies used to perform the task. It is not about judging
level of assistance, and as such, the therapist should provide
the least amount of assistance to enable the individual to
attempt the task safely. It is essential, therefore, to observe the
individual performing the movement as they would naturally
perform it.
Repetitions
For all tasks except sitting and standing, individuals should
be asked to perform the task at least twice. During the first
repetition, the therapist determines if they understood the
task instructions and can perform the task without assistance
or support (Fig.). Additional repetitions can then be used
to further evaluate movement constructs, to observe how
movement patterns may change with practice, and to draw
out potential factors affecting performance (eg, endurance,
strength).
Task and Environmental Variations
In addition to multiple task repetitions, task and environmen-
tal variations can be used to evaluate movement capabilities
and observe changes in strategies or performance with differ-
ent constraints, supports, or verbal instructions. If an individ-
ual is unable to complete a task as instructed, we suggest first
altering the task or environmental conditions to promote suc-
cess. We advocate for a systematic framework to alter environ-
mental and task constraints15,16 (Tab. 3) and further classified
these changes into either regressions or progressions.17
Task and environmental regressions are variations that
are generally designed to simplify or make the task less
Quinn et al 5

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/101/9/pzab154/6307338 by guest on 30 January 2023

Figure. The movement continuum framework of Hedman et al7 provides the foundation for movement analysis of tasks proposed in this paper. The
initial conditions are defined as the state of the individual’s system and the prevailing environmental conditions. The environmental conditions are
pre-determined for the first performance of a task but can be systematically varied in subsequent repetitions. Movement preparation, defined as the
period of time when the movement is being organized within the CNS, is difficult to observe but can be inferred by evaluating an individual’s ability to
comprehend the instructions and requirements of the task. Movement patterns and strategies can then be observed during task performance. The
expected outcome can be defined by their ability to accomplish the task and their performance reflected by observable movement constructs (see also
Suppl. Appendix for task-specific worksheets). For dynamic tasks such as sit to stand, walking, step up/down, and reach/grasp/manipulate, these tasks
can be observed along the continuum of initiation, execution, and termination.

challenging to perform. Simplifying a task allows the therapist
to observe independent movement in someone who could not
otherwise perform a task. Examples of task regressions may
include increasing the base of support or changing the task
speed (either faster or slower). Examples of environmental
regressions include altering the surface type or height; provid-
ing cueing, physical assistance, or external support; or altering
environmental inputs. The choice of assistance or cueing
depends on many factors, including the individual’s physical
and cognitive abilities; however, we generally recommend
providing assistance in the following order: (1) verbal cue, (2)
tactile cue, and (3) physical assistance. Of course, therapists
will need to make a judgement for the safety of the individual
performing the task or themselves about whether to attempt
tasks without assistance or cueing.
Conversely, if the task is not sufficiently challenging for
an individual, we recommend adding task progressions. Task
progressions are task variations that are generally designed
to increase complexity or make the task more challenging to
perform. Adding complexity to the task may enable the ther-
apist to better understand capacity of the movement system
that is not elucidated by the baseline task. Examples of task
progressions include narrowing base of support, changing
task speed, adding internal perturbations (eg, head turns), and
adding dual tasks. Examples of environmental progressions
include altering surface height or type, or altering environmen-
tal inputs (eg, adding motion to the environment or adding
external perturbations). We recommend the addition of at
least 1 task regression for individuals who are unable or have
difficulty to perform a task, and 1 task progression to provide
challenges when there is no identifiable problem during task
performance.
Movement Analysis Worksheets
We have developed accompanying worksheets to illustrate the
application of this framework for movement analysis of tasks
in clinical practice (see Suppl. Appendix). We recognize that
the worksheets are detailed and there may be challenges to
their use in practice settings. However, these may have utility
as a teaching tool or to provide novice clinicians with a struc-
tured format for conducting movement analysis. Importantly,
although these worksheets have undergone extensive review
and revisions by expert clinicians, they have not undergone
reliability and validity testing. We recommend that they be
used as a guide to direct the novice clinician to conduct
movement analysis in a systematic manner as well as for
experienced clinicians who can use them to assess and re-
assess their own skills in movement analysis.
The worksheets include questions designed to prompt
therapists to key observations for each task. These questions
were developed based on review of the corresponding
literature in each of the tasks: sitting,18–25 sit to stand,26–32
standing,14,33–37 walking,38–40 step up/down,41–46 and
reach/grasp/manipulate.47,48 Importantly, these questions do
not focus on detailed biomechanical analysis but rather on
observations thought to be key to task success. In addition,
the worksheets provide suggestions for additional tests
and measures within various systems (eg, musculoskeletal,
neuromotor, integumentary, etc).
Quantifying Movement Analysis
Movement analysis in clinical practice is typically based on
visual observations, and the worksheets (Suppl. Appendix)
can be used as a guide to facilitate systematic observation.
6 Framework for Movement Analysis of Tasks
Table 3. Task Regressions and Progressions Based on Task and Environmental Changesa
Regression
Task changes
Base of support Increase base of support to improve stability
• Example: widen feet (sitting or standing)
Speed Allow slower completion of task
Perturbation N/A
Cognitive demand N/A
Environmental changes
Surface type or Alter surface height
height • Example: lower step height (step up/down); raise seat
height (sit to stand)
Cueing Verbal cueing or physical prompts
Physical Assistance Provide physical assistance (therapist or other person) to
enable completion of the task
External support Provide external support
• Example: orthotics or assistive device (standing,
walking); upper extremity support (sitting, sit to stand,
step up/down)
Environmental Alter auditory and visual environment
inputs • Example: quiet environment (all tasks); brighten lights
(all tasks)
a
This table provides a list of different types of regressions and progressions at the level of the task and the environment. Although not all types are appropriate
for all tasks, some illustrative examples are provided.
Based on these observations, therapists may then choose to
quantify movement constructs, either to better understand the
nature of the movement dysfunction or for use as an outcome
measure (see measurement examples in Tab. 1). As technology
becomes ubiquitous in clinical settings, with apps used to
evaluate gait speed,49 mobility,50 and spatiotemporal gait
analysis,49,51 we encourage therapists to incorporate these
into their clinical practice. Although use of technology may
not always be feasible or warranted, it can provide a method
for movement analysis to evaluate movement constructs more
reliably and accurately than the naked eye. Wearable and
mobile technologies are advancing rapidly, and as a profession
we should be open to incorporating more accurate ways
of conducting movement analyses and evaluating outcomes.
Importantly, this should not diminish the value of our visual
observations and the skill involved in conducting accurate
movement analysis. As with many technologies, clinical judge-
ment is required to determine which technology to use and
how to use it, and therapists’ initial observations may be
important screens for technology selection.
Discussion and Summary
The 2013 APTA vision statement established the movement
system as the cornerstone of physical therapist practice, thus
identifying physical therapists as movement system experts.
As such, physical therapists work to improve the human
experience by optimizing movement. To do this, physical
Progression
Narrow base of support:
• Example: place feet closer together (standing); tandem
walk (walking)
Encourage faster completion of task
Add internal perturbation
• Example: head turns (walking), marching (sitting,
standing)
Add dual tasks
• Example: addition/subtraction problems; reciting every
other letter of alphabet (cognitive-motor); additional motor
task such as walking and carrying water
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/101/9/pzab154/6307338 by guest on 30 January 2023
(motor-motor)
Alter surface height
• Example: raise step height (step up/down); lower seat
height (sit to stand)
Alter surface type
• Example: standing on foam (standing); walking on grass
(walking)
N/A
N/A
Alter auditory and visual environment
• Example: louder environment (all tasks); motion in
environment such as walking in crowds (walking; step
up/down)
Add external perturbations
• Example: nudge/push (sit, stand, walking)
therapists must make sound decisions regarding treatment
based on movement system diagnoses that should stem from
a systematic assessment of movement as part of a physi-
cal therapy examination. This paper proposes a framework
for observation of movement constructs during tasks that
represent common daily activities. The systematic approach to
movement observation and environmental control promotes
consistency in movement analysis of tasks.
Previous papers have identified similar movement con-
structs and “observational targets,” including a recent paper
by McClure et al.9 McClure’s model focuses on fewer
dimensions of movement than the framework presented here,
although there is considerable overlap with our constructs.
Both models include symmetry, amount (amplitude), speed,
and symptoms. Additionally, McClure et al9 include “con-
trol” to refer to smoothness, coordination, and timing of
movement. Rather than combining together these features
into 1 construct, our model delineates these into 2 important
features of motor control: postural control (verticality
and stability) and coordination (smoothness, sequencing,
timing, and accuracy). We further include the construct of
alignment, which is distinct from symmetry. We believe that
particularly for individuals with more complex movement
dysfunctions, the distinction between these constructs is
necessary to accurately identify contributing factors to
movement dysfunction.
This paper is a first step in providing a structured method
for conducting movement analysis of tasks and placing it at
Quinn et al
the center of the physical therapy examination. We believe
this framework aligns well with the work of APTA and other
groups to define movement diagnoses, and we ultimately hope
as a profession we can align ourselves across areas of practice.
Our next steps will be to validate this framework and
accompanying terminology across patient/client groups and
settings. It is our ultimate goal that the adoption of this
framework into clinical practice will improve awareness of the
movement system and further strengthen physical therapists’
identity as movement system experts.
Author Contributions
Writing: L. Quinn, N. Riley, C.M. Tyrell, D. Judd, K.M. Gill-Body,
A. Packel, D.A. Brown, N. Nabar, P. Scheets
Data collection: L. Quinn, N. Riley, C.M. Tyrell, D. Judd,
K.M. Gill-Body, D.A. Brown
Data analysis: C.M. Tyrell
Project management: L. Quinn
Clerical/secretarial support: P. Scheets
Consultation (including review of manuscript before submitting):
N. Riley, C.M. Tyrell, K.M. Gill-Body, L.D. Hedman, A. Packel,
P. Scheets
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the following ANPT Movement System Task
Force members who participated in the development of this work:
Myla Quiben, PT, PhD, DPT, MS, GCS, NCS; Laura Plummer, PT,
DPT, MS, NCS; Leslie Wolf, PT, DPT, NCS; Timothy Hanke, PT,
PhD; Akanshka Verma, PT, MA, NC; and Regina Kaufman, PT, EdD,
MS, NCS. We also acknowledge the APTA members who attended
the ANPT sponsored Movement System Focus Group meeting at the
Combined Sections Meeting in February 2020. Your willingness to
provide feedback and discuss earlier versions of this paper and the
worksheets were instrumental in the development of this work. We also
wish to thank the following individuals who provided contributions and
reviewed this document and the accompanying worksheets in whole or
part: Chelsea Macpherson, PT, DPT, NCS; Margaret Schenkman, PT,
PhD, FAPTA; and Miriam Rafferty, PT, DPT, PhD.
Funding
This project was funded by the Academy of Neurologic Physical
Therapy.
Role of the Funding Source
The funder appointed the Movement System Task Force and supported
the work of the Task Force. The funder received a report summarizing
the work of the Task Force but had no role in reviewing the manuscript
prior to submission. The funder played no role in the design, conduct,
or reporting of this study.
Disclosures
K. Gill-Body and L. Quinn are members of PTJ’s Editorial Board. Lori
Quinn, PT, EdD, FAPTA, receives royalties from Elsevier Publishing.
The authors completed the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential
Conflicts of Interest and reported no other conflicts of interest.
References
1. APTA vision statement. Accessed June 16, 2021. https://www.a
pta.org/apta-and-you/leadership-and-governance/vision-missio
n-and-strategic-plan.
2. Sahrmann SA. The human movement system: our professional
identity. Phys Ther. 2014;94:1034–1042.
7
3. Saladin L, Voight M. Introduction to the movement system as the
foundation for physical therapist practice education and research.
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017;12:858–861.
4. Sahrmann S. Defining our diagnostic labels will help define our
movement expertise and guide our next 100 years. Phys Ther.
2021;101.
5. Rose SJ. Description and classification - the cornerstones of
pathokinesiological research. Phys Ther. 1986;66:379–381.
6. Hedman LD, Quinn L, Gill-Body K, et al. White paper: movement
system diagnoses in neurologic physical therapy. J Phys Ther:
JNPT. 2018;42:110–117.
7. Hedman L, Rogers M, Hanke T. Neurologic professional educa-
tion: linking the foundation science of motor control with physical
therapy interventions for movement dysfunction. Neurol Rep.
1996;20:9–13.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/101/9/pzab154/6307338 by guest on 30 January 2023
8. Allen DD. Proposing 6 dimensions within the construct of move-
ment in the movement continuum theory. Phys Ther. 2007;87:
888–898.
9. McClure P, Tevald M, Zarzycki R, et al. The 4-element movement
system model to guide physical therapist education, practice, and
movement-related research. Phys Ther. 2021;101:pzab024.
10. Latash ML. Biomechanics as a window into the neural control of
movement. J Hum Kinet. 2016;52:7–20.
11. Latash ML, Levin MF, Scholz JP, Schöner G. Motor control theo-
ries and their applications. Medicina (Kaunas). 2010;46:382–392.
12. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott M. Motor Control: Translating
Research into Clinical Practice. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters
Kluwer; 2017.
13. Latash M. Fundamentals of Motor Control. Cambridge: Academic
Press; 2012.
14. Horak FB. Postural orientation and equilibrium: what do we need
to know about neural control of balance to prevent falls? Age
Ageing. 2006;35:ii7–ii11.
15. Gentile A. Skill acquisition: action, movement, and neuromo-
tor processes. In: Carr J and Shepherd R, eds. Movement Sci-
ence: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation. 2nd ed.
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen; 2000.
16. Newell K. Constraints on the development of coordination. In:
Wade M, Whiting H, eds., Motor Development in Children:
Aspects of Coordination and Control. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff;
1986: 341–360.
17. Blanchard S, Glasgow P. A theoretical model to describe progres-
sions and regressions for exercise rehabilitation. Phys Ther Sport.
2014;15:131–135.
18. Chen C-L, Yeung K-T, Bih L-I, Wang C-H, Chen M-I, Chien J-
C. The relationship between sitting stability and functional per-
formance in patients with paraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2003;84:1276–1281.
19. Genthon N, Vuillerme N, Monnet JP, Petit C, Rougier P. Biome-
chanical assessment of the sitting posture maintenance in patients
with stroke. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007;22:1024–1029.
20. Harrison DD, Harrison SO, Croft AC, Harrison DE, Troyanovich
SJ. Sitting biomechanics part I: review of the literature. J Manip
Physiol Ther. 1999;22:594–609.
21. Huxham FE, Goldie PA, Patla AE. Theoretical considerations in
balance assessment. Aust J Physiother. 2001;47:89–100.
22. Lambrecht JM, Audu ML, Triolo RJ, Kirsch RF. Musculoskeletal
model of trunk and hips for development of seated-posture-control
neuroprosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:515–528.
23. Larson CA, Tezak WD, Malley MS, Thornton W. Assessment of
postural muscle strength in sitting: reliability of measures obtained
with hand-held dynamometry in individuals with spinal cord
injury. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2010;34:24–31.
24. Preuss RA, Grenier SG, McGill SM. Postural control of the lum-
bar spine in unstable sitting. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:
2309–2315.
25. Verheyden G, Ruesen C, Gorissen M, et al. Postural alignment is
altered in people with chronic stroke and related to motor and
functional performance. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2014;38:239–245.
8 Framework for Movement Analysis of Tasks
26. Baer GD, Ashburn AM. Trunk movements in older subjects during
sit-to-stand. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:844–849.
27. Boukadida A, Piotte F, Dehail P, Nadeau S. Determinants of sit-to-
stand tasks in individuals with hemiparesis post stroke: a review.
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;58:167–172.
28. Bowser B, O’Rourke S, Brown CN, White L, Simpson KJ. Sit-
to-stand biomechanics of individuals with multiple sclerosis. Clin
Biomech. 2015;30:788–794.
29. Chorin F, Cornu C, Beaune B, Frère J, Rahmani A. Sit to stand in
elderly fallers vs non-fallers: new insights from force platform and
electromyography data. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2016;28:871–879.
30. Janssen WGM, Bussmann HBJ, Stam HJ. Determinants of the sit-
to-stand movement: a review. Phys Ther. 2002;82:866–879.
31. Scarborough DM, McGibbon CA, Krebs DE. Chair rise strategies
in older adults with functional limitations. J Rehab Res Dev.
2007;44:33.
32. Schenkman M, Berger RA, Riley PO, Mann RW, Hodge WA.
Whole-body movements during rising to standing from sitting.
Phys Ther. 1990;70:638–648 Discussion 648–651.
33. Claeys K, Brumagne S, Deklerck J, Vanderhaeghen J, Dankaerts
W. Sagittal evaluation of usual standing and sitting spinal posture.
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2016;20:326–333.
34. Park E, Schöner G, Scholz JP. Functional synergies underlying
control of upright posture during changes in head orientation.
PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e41583.
35. Peterka RJ. Sensorimotor integration in human postural control. J
Neurophysiol. 2002;88:1097–1118.
36. Sibley KM, Howe T, Lamb SE, et al. Recommendations for a core
outcome set for measuring standing balance in adult populations:
a consensus-based approach. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:1–20.
37. Winter DA. Human balance and postural control during standing
and walking. Gait Posture. 1995;3:193–214.
38. Hedman LD, Morris DM, Graham CL, et al. Locomotor require-
ments for bipedal locomotion: a Delphi survey. Phys Ther.
2014;94:52–67.
39. Nonnekes J, Goselink RJM, Růžička E, Fasano A, Nutt JG, Bloem
BR. Neurological disorders of gait, balance and posture: a sign-
based approach. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14:183–189.
40. Perry J, Burnfield J. Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Func-
tion. Thorofare, NJ: Slack; 1992.
41. Hammond CA, Hatfield GL, Gilbart MK, Garland SJ, Hunt MA.
Trunk and lower limb biomechanics during stair climbing in people
with and without symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement.
Clin Biomech. 2017;42:108–114.
42. Kita K, Fukumoto Y, Nishimura Y, Kasuya A, Asai T. Associations
of the step-up test and lower limb dysfunction: a post-hoc analysis
of a prospective cohort study. J Orthop Sci. 2018;23:180–184.
43. Lin YC, Fok LA, Schache AG, Pandy MG. Muscle coordination
of support, progression and balance during stair ambulation. J
Biomech. 2015;48:340–347.
44. Murray AM, Gaffney BM, Davidson BS, Christiansen CL. Biome-
chanical compensations of the trunk and lower extremities
during stepping tasks after unilateral transtibial amputation. Clin
Biomech. 2017;49:64–71.
45. Nadeau S, McFadyen BJ, Malouin F. Frontal and sagittal plane
analyses of the stair climbing task in healthy adults aged over 40
years: what are the challenges compared to level walking? Clin
Biomech. 2003;18:950–959.
46. Timmis MA, Scarfe AC, Tabrett DR, Pardhan S. Kinematic analysis
of step ascent among patients with central visual field loss. Gait
Posture. 2014;39:252–257.
47. Georgopoulos AP. On reaching. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1986;9:
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/101/9/pzab154/6307338 by guest on 30 January 2023
147–170.
48. Johansson RS, Edin BB. Predictive feed-forward sensory control
during grasping and manipulation in man. Biomedical Research -
Tokyo. 1993;14:95–95.
49. Clavijo-Buendía S, Molina-Rueda F, Martín-Casas P, et al. Con-
struct validity and test-retest reliability of a free mobile application
for spatio-temporal gait analysis in Parkinson’s disease patients.
Gait Posture. 2020;79:86–91.
50. Lein DH, Willig JH, Smith CR, Curtis JR, Westfall AO, Hurt CP.
Assessing a novel way to measure three common rehabilitation
outcome measures using a custom mobile phone application. Gait
Posture. 2019;73:246–250.
51. Kluge F, Gaßner H, Hannink J, Pasluosta C, Klucken J, Eskofier
BM. Towards mobile gait analysis: concurrent validity and test-
retest reliability of an inertial measurement system for the assess-
ment of spatio-temporal gait parameters. Sensors (Switzerland).
2017;17:1522.
52. Herzog W, Nigg BM, Read LJ, Olsson E. Asymmetries in ground
reaction force patterns in normal human gait. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 1989;21:110–114.
53. Barra J, Marquer A, Joassin R, et al. Humans use internal models to
construct and update sense of verticality. Brain. 2010;3552–3563.
54. American Physical Therapy Association. Guide to Physical Thera-
pist Practice. Alexandria, VA; 2016.
55. Balasubramanian S, Melendez-Calderon A, Roby-Brami A, Burdet
E. On the analysis of movement smoothness. J Neuro Eng Rehab.
2015;12:112.
56. Bortoletto M, Cunnington R. Motor timing and motor sequencing
contribute differently to the preparation for voluntary movement.
Neuro Image. 2010;49:3338–3348.
57. Merriam Webster Dictionary. Accessed June 16, 2021. https://
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/.