Cook, Burton and Hoogenboom (2006) wrote a two-part series on the significance of fundamental movement patterns as indicators of functionality among athletes. Fundamental movements comprise those movements that are common to many sports activities. The authors argued that optimal fundamental movement patterns ensure competence and efficiency because the body does not need to compensate during the performance of athletic activities (Cook, Burton & Hoogenboom, 2006). For this reason, the risk of injury, repeat injury, and diminished performance in the long-term are reduced. The authors proposed pre-participation screening for fundamental movements, instead of just evaluating the ability to perform the skills or activities that utilize these movements on the one hand or just assessing the functioning of the joints and muscles involved in specific movements or directly affected by an injury (Cook, Burton & Hoogenboom, 2006).
The rationale behind pre-participation screening for fundamental movement is that sports rehabilitation clinicians are better able to identify weak links in basic movements or those movements wherein the athlete is compensating (Cook, Burton & Hoogenboom, 2006). In so doing, fitness programs can be tailored to address these weak links thereby improving performance and preventing possible injury. The perspective then changes to not only enhancing performance but sustaining it. After an injury, screening for fundamental movement also makes it possible to identify the risk for a repeat injury so that corrective exercises can be taken for prevention (Cook, Burton & Hoogenboom, 2006).
Because the tool screens for all fundamental movements, it permits a holistic evaluation of an athlete’s functionality and more so in an athlete undergoing rehabilitation given that injury in one site of the body can impact other sites including distal ones (Cook, Burton & Hoogenboom, 2006). The results are also useful in identifying athletes at risk for injury and in planning individualized fitness programs to correct or improve performance. Furthermore, scores are useful in monitoring progress in functionality and predicting an athlete’s level of performance (Cook, Burton & Hoogenboom, 2006).
There were many important points made in the articles. First, a focus on fundamental movements when assessing for athlete’s functionality safeguards patient safety and quality of life (QOL). While it is in the athlete’s interest to improve his endurance, strength or flexibility and to participate in his or her chosen sport, related screening guarantees that training is planned and implemented with injury prevention and QOL also in mind. Injuries can have a long-lasting impact on the athlete’s quality of life (McLeod et al., 2009; Moreira et al., 2014).
Second, pre-participation screening of fundamental movements facilitates individualized planning. As such, screening must aim for the maintenance of optimal performance or the enhancement of sub-optimal performance by detecting and correcting compensatory movements. An individualized approach, as in medicine, is likely to achieve the outcomes desired by the client because plans consider the athlete’s baseline condition, status or level of risk when establishing goals (Avram et al., 2011).
Lastly, screening for fundamental movements is in line with the present thrust toward injury and disease prevention. The screening results can be used as a starting point to discuss injury prevention with the athlete and the importance of screening to determine fitness (Voskanian, 2013). Moreover, educating the athlete on how fundamental movements more accurately represent functionality and performance will help change his or her perspective about performance and the goals of rehabilitation and fitness programs.
References
Avram, C., Oravitan, M., Hoble, L.D., & Almajan-Guta, B. (2011). Cardiopulmonary exercise testing – effective method for evaluation and recommendation of individualized exercise training in patients with metabolic syndrome. Physical Education and Rehabilitation Journal, 4(7), 23-28.
Cook, G., Burton, L., & Hoogenboom, B. (2006). Pre-Participation screening: The use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function – Part 1. North American Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 1(2), 62–72. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2953313/pdf/najspt-01-062.pdf
Cook, G., Burton, L., & Hoogenboom, B. (2006). Pre-Participation screening: The use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function – Part 2. North American Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 1(3), 132–139. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2953359/
McLeod, V. T. C., Bay, R. C., Parsons, J. T., Sauers, E. L., & Snyder, A. R. (2009). Recent injury and health-related quality of life in adolescent athletes. Journal of Athletic Training, 44(6), 603–610. http://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-44.6.603
Moreira, N.B., Vagetti, G.C., de Oliveira, V., & de Campos, W. (2014). Association between injury and quality of life in athletes: A systematic review, 1980-2013. Apunts Medicina de L’Esport, 49(184), 123-138. Retrieved from http://www.apunts.org/en/association-between-injury-and-quality/articulo/90362097/
Voskanian, N. (2013). ACL Injury prevention in female athletes: Review of the literature and practical considerations in implementing an ACL prevention program. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 6(2), 158–163. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12178- 013-9158-y
