What does a movement screen actually tell you about the client in front of you?

The short answer

A movement screen tells you how someone performed a set of test movements on the day. What it does not do reliably is predict who gets injured. A 2024 study of professional basketball players found the Functional Movement Screen total score failed to reach significance as a predictor of any injury measure (Medicina, Hoover et al., 2020). In university basketball, a composite score at or below 14 gave an AUC of 0.52, which is essentially a coin toss (International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, Kikumoto et al., 2026). Screening for prediction is oversold. Screening for understanding is not. Telling the two apart is what a Motor Skill Application Specialist learns. MSAS is £1,800, or £300 deposit and 12 monthly payments of £150, plan total £2,100.

Key Takeaways

• The FMS composite score predicts injury about as well as guessing, in several strong studies.
• A bad movement is not an ugly one. It is one that fails, or one where the harm outweighs the benefit.
• Comparing a client's movement to their own movement, fresh against fatigued, is where the useful information lives.

Start with the why

Should you use a movement screen? The real question is the why sitting underneath it.

A Motor Skill Application Specialist is trained to sniff out the bad whys. And the biggest bad why is "I screen because it makes me feel like I am saving someone".

First, define a bad movement, because most people cannot. A bad movement is not one that looks awkward. I made a bad move once, going to an ice bar without a coat. How cold is it really. That was a bad decision, not a bad squat.

A bad movement is one that does not succeed, or one where the damage done outweighs the benefit gained. That definition does more work than any 0 to 3 score.

Does the Functional Movement Screen predict injury?

The tool is everywhere. Its predictive record is not what its popularity implies.

A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis asked whether a low FMS score, 14 or under out of 21, is associated with injury. Its stated conclusion was that the link is unclear, with an odds ratio of 1.86 and substantial heterogeneity (BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, Trinidad-Fernandez et al., 2019).

Then it gets sharper by population. In elite female softball, the screen showed some predictive value (Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, Zhao et al., 2024). In professional basketball, a group where movement quality supposedly matters most, it totally failed to predict injury (Medicina, Hoover et al., 2020).

For ballet and contemporary dancers, a 2024 critically appraised topic reported the FMS did not demonstrate predictive capability for injuries (Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, Callahan and Mangum, 2024). A tool sold as general failing on the people who move for a living.

Why the number is so weak

Part of it is the composite. Rolling a whole body into one figure out of 21 throws away the detail that mattered.

In 2026, a study of university basketball players found individual tasks, the deep squat and hurdle step in particular, predicted injury better than the total score, which sat at an AUC of 0.52 (International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, Kikumoto et al., 2026). The parts held signal. The sum held almost none.

This is the trap the conveyor belt walks into. A tidy number feels like knowledge and like power, the nice feeling that you spotted the problem and saved someone. The client does not care how the score felt to produce.

So would we skip the assessment? Not a chance

None of this means look at nothing. It means look with detail and nuance instead of reaching for a composite.

The gold is comparison within one person. A client's movement measured against their own movement, on a good day and a tired day.

If someone struggles with performance or with pain a doctor has put down to fatigue, the gap between their fresh movement and their fatigued movement tells you more than any normative table. That knowledge is what lets you programme for a result rather than a score.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Functional Movement Screen worth doing?

As an injury predictor, the composite score performs close to chance in several strong studies, including an AUC of 0.52 in university basketball (IJSPT, Kikumoto et al., 2026). As a way to observe how someone moves and open a conversation, it can be useful, provided you do not treat the number as a diagnosis.

Can a movement screen predict who will get injured?

Not reliably. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded the association between a low FMS score and injury is unclear (BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, Trinidad-Fernandez et al., 2019), and results swing by sport and population.

What is a bad movement, then?

One that does not succeed at its goal, or one where the damage outweighs the benefit. Ugliness is not the test. A movement that achieves what the client needs without disproportionate cost is a good movement, however it looks.

What does MSAS cost?

MSAS is £1,800 paid in full, or £300 deposit and 12 monthly payments of £150, plan total £2,100. Movement Trainer at £375 is the first rung if you want to start smaller.

Start here

MSAS is £1,800, or £300 deposit and 12 monthly payments of £150, plan total £2,100. If you want to start with the first rung, Movement Trainer is £375, and it opens the programme builder in your PT Manager.

Not sure which fits? Ask. John will tell you honestly, including if the answer is not yet. The founder answers the WhatsApp.

Sources

• Medicina, "Predictive validity of a functional movement screen in professional basketball players," Hoover et al., 2020, retrieved 2026-07-26, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56120724
• International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, "Association between individual functional movement screen tasks and sports injury occurrence in university basketball players," Kikumoto et al., 2026, retrieved 2026-07-26, https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.162342
• BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, "Is a low functional movement screen score associated with injuries in sport? A systematic review and meta-analysis," Trinidad-Fernandez et al., 2019, retrieved 2026-07-26, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000501
• Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, "Preseason functional movement screen but not y-balance test scores predict musculoskeletal injury in elite female fast-pitch softball athletes," Zhao et al., 2024, retrieved 2026-07-26, https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0010
• Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, "The movement competency screen shows improved injury predictive ability compared with the functional movement screen in ballet and contemporary dance populations," Callahan and Mangum, 2024, retrieved 2026-07-26, https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0194