Athletic performance in professional sport is widely

Transcription

1 INTEGRATION OF THE FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN INTO THE NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE COMBINE CHIP P. ROWAN, 1 CHRISTIANE KUROPKAT, 2 ROBERT J. GUMIENIAK, 1 NORMAN GLEDHILL, 1 AND VERONICA K. JAMNIK 1 1 Human Performance Laboratory, School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and 2 SportClinic Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland ABSTRACT Rowan, CP, Kuropkat, C, Gumieniak, RJ, Gledhill, N, and Jamnik, VK. Integration of Functional Movement Screen into National Hockey League Combine. J Strength Cond Res 29 (5): , 2015 The sport of ice hockey requires coordination of complex skills involving musculoskeletal and physiological abilities while simultaneously exposing players to a high risk for injury. The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) was developed to assess fundamental movement patterns that underlie both sport performance and injury risk. The top 111 elite junior hockey players from around world took part in 2013 National Hockey League Entry Draft Combine (NHL Combine). The FMS was integrated into comprehensive medical and physiological fitness evaluations at request of strength and conditioning coaches with affiliations to NHL teams. The inclusion of FMS aimed to help develop strategies that could maximize its utility among elite hockey players and to encourage or inform furr research in this field. This study evaluated outcomes of integrating FMS into NHL Combine and identified any links to or medical plus physical and physiological fitness assessment outcomes. These potential associations may provide valuable information to identify elements of future training programs that are individualized to athletes specific needs. The results of FMS (total score and number of asymmetries identified) were significantly correlated to various body composition measures, aerobic and anaerobic fitness, leg power, timing of recent workouts, and presence of lingering injury at time of NHL Combine. Although statistically significant correlations were observed, implications of FMS assessment outcomes remain difficult to quantify until ongoing assessment of FMS patterns, tracking of injuries, and hockey performance are available. KEY WORDS FMS, hockey performance, injury prevention, sports medicine, fitness assessment Address correspondence to Chip P. Rowan, rowanc@yorku.ca. 29(5)/ Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association INTRODUCTION Athletic performance in professional sport is widely followed and highly researched. The majority of research in this area has been focused on optimizing physical and physiological performance capacities of competitive athletes while minimizing adverse events that may lead to missed training and performance/ playing time. The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) was developed as a whole-body assessment of fundamental movement patterns that encompass basis for athletic movements and sport performance (4,5). The FMS was result of a paradigm shift among movement specialists, rapists, qualified exercise professionals, and strength and conditioning professionals toward a more functional approach to identifying deficiencies that could prevent injuries associated with improper exercise execution, physical asymmetries, injury rehabilitation, and physical fitness training (4,5). The FMS consists of 7 different movements that are each scored on a scale of 0 3, and 2 of se movements also include specific pain clearance tests. The FMS protocols were developed to collectively provide a tool to assess dynamic movement using concepts of kinetic chain systems and proprioception (4,5). The FMS is ideally suited to be incorporated into a comprehensive medical and/or physical fitness evaluation for both recreational and highperformance athletes. Functional Movement Screen outcomes can be used to identify deficiencies in fundamental movement patterns and to detect left-right asymmetries that occur during se movements (4,12,16). Although primary goal of FMS is assessment of movement patterns and identification of deficiencies that may increase injury risk, FMS has also been used as a tool to evaluate efficacy of exercise training programs, although research is limited in this area (11,17). Regardless of its intended application, FMS has been shown to demonstrate high levels of interrater and intrarater reliability when conducted by individuals with adequate training using both real-time scoring and videobased analysis (10,19). The majority of research pertaining to FMS and its applicability has been conducted on healthy recreational athletes, professional football players, VOLUME 29 NUMBER 5 MAY

2 Integration of Functional Movement Screen military recruits, and workers in physically demanding occupations (firefighting) (6,8,9,11,16,18). To date, re have been no published studies involving use of FMS with elite hockey players. The most recent survey conducted with NHL strength and conditioning coaches was undertaken in 2004, and at that time, only 1 respondent was using a system analogous to FMS (7), and it is unclear how this FMS information was being used. Furr investigation is certainly warranted to evaluate utility of FMS for future and present NHL players with respect to injury risk prevention, strength and conditioning practices, and performance optimization. The annual NHL Combine is a multiday event that hosts top 100 junior age prospects from around Figure 1. Scoring sheet for FMS administration during Combine. 1164

3 world. The players undergo comprehensive medical evaluations that include medical history, physical examination, orthopedic examination, electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, and motor coordination toger with a battery of physical and physiological fitness tests that assess muscular strength, muscular endurance, muscular power, anthropometry, body composition, agility, anaerobic, and aerobic power. To date, published research on this cohort has focussed on outcomes of NHL Combine assessments as y relate to a player s hockey potential and draft status (1,2,21). Before 2013, re has been no assessment of basic functional movement patterns in test battery conducted at NHL Combine, but a growing interest among NHL strength and conditioning coaches ledtoinclusionoffmsintestbatteryat 2013 NHL Combine. From a practical standpoint, content of this investigation is of great interest to strength and conditioning specialists both at professional and amateur level. Detection of potential imbalances or deficiencies in functional movement patterns may help tailor individualized training programs for ice hockey players with goal of injury risk reduction/prevention and enhanced hockey performance. Within scope of NHL Combine assessments, it was hyposized that re would be a number of interesting correlations that link outcomes of FMS to or medical, physical, and physiological measures that will provide valuable insight to scouts, strength and conditioning specialists, and sports medicine practitioners. The 2 primary objectives of this investigation were to describe outcomes from NHL Combine FMS assessments and to determine wher y correlate with results from associated medical, physical, and physiological assessments. A third objective was to create strategies, based on expert opinion, that may enhance efficacy of FMS testing at future NHL Combines and for use among strength and conditioning professionals in or sport settings. METHODS Figure 2. Description of participant involvement in Combine fitness, medical, and FMS testing. Experimental Approach to Problem This study evaluated outcomes of integrating FMS into NHL Combine and identified any links to or medical and fitness assessment outcomes using a nonrandomized cross-sectional design. The top 111 elite junior hockey players from around world took part in 2013 NHL Combine. The medical, physical, and physiological status of players was evaluated through a series of comprehensive assessments pertinent to hockey performance. Of particular interest to strength and conditioning specialists is recent integration of FMS into NHL Combine test battery. The comprehensive medical, physical, and physiological assessment customarily performed at NHL Combine allows for comparison with FMS outcomes, with goal of establishing relationships to injury risk and limitations to performance that may assist various health and qualified exercise practitioners when developing training programs. Subjects In 2013, top-ranked 101 junior hockey prospects from around world with a mean age of 17.8 (SD 6 0.4; years old) years took part in NHL Combine. The study population included players at each position: forward (n = 59), defense (n = 34), and goaltender (n = 8). Players with current musculoskeletal injuries that precluded m from performing FMS in its entirety were excluded from this data analysis. All players provided signed informed consent before ir involvement in NHL Combine. If player was younger than 18 years, parental or guardian consent was obtained. Permission to report se data in aggregate form was received from players involved and from NHL. The methods used in this investigation have been approved by York University Human Participants Review Subcommittee. Procedures Functional Movement Screen. The FMS was performed 1 3 days before all or medical, physical, and physiological fitness assessments. This range in timing of FMS testing was due to scheduling limitations, arrivals of international players, and fact that remainder of medical/fitness testing was held over a 2-day period. Despite se scheduling constraints, FMS assessments were all performed during evening over specified 2- day period. It should also be noted that participants were not instructed to adhere to any particular nutritional VOLUME 29 NUMBER 5 MAY

4 Integration of Functional Movement Screen TABLE 1. Participants demographic and anthropometric data (n = 81). Category Mean 6 SD Age (y) Height (m) Weight (kg) Wing span (cm) Body fat (%) guidelines. The testing venue consisted of 4 stations, with testing at each station conducted by same qualified examiners for all athletes. The players performed each of 7 FMS movements in a randomly assigned order. Station 1 was deep squat. Station 2 included both hurdle step and in-line lunge. Station 3 included both shoulder TABLE 2. Summary of participants results for each FMS component. FMS component Mean 6 SD Score Frequency Percent Total score Number of asymmetries Total restrictions Deep squat score Hurdle step In-line lunge Shoulder mobility Active leg raise Push-up Rotary stability mobility and active leg raise along with active impingement pain clearance. Station 4 included both trunk stability push-up and rotary stability tasks along with pain clearance for both lumbar extension and flexion. The randomly assigned order and use of 4 stations allowed multiple players to be assessed simultaneously. Scoring adhered to FMS guidelines and all testers who conducted scoring underwent approximately 20 hours of specific training using FMS-endorsed teaching materials (video and manual) before testing. All participants were provided with identical verbal instructions and photographs of start and end positions for each movement. In addition, because of language limitations among this diverse population, a demonstration of proper technique was provided for each task. The demonstration was provided by same testers for each of 7 tasks. Three attempts for each test were provided to players in event that a score of 3 was not attained on initial or second trial. A customized scoring sheet was developed to gar additional information regarding why a score of 3 was not achieved and to furr document any asymmetries between left and right side of body. These documented infractions are based on descriptions of FMS protocols and scoring system, and y include limited range of motion, loss of balance, and several taskspecific items, which are all outlined clearly in Figure 1. The selection of a slight vs. a significant infraction was subjectively determined by testers at each station. For purpose of data analysis, slight and significant infractions were subsequently merged into a single category of infractions because of potential limitations associated with subjective scoring. Each task was individually scored out of 3, and a total score out of 21 was recorded for each participant toger with total number of asymmetries identified and pain clearance results. Asymmetries were noted when a participant attained a different score on one side of body compared with or. Asymmetries could not be added to score sheet for deep squat

5 and trunk stability push-up because neir movement is performed unilaterally. Medical Evaluation. All players underwent medical history, and physical examination and orthopedic examination were performed by same 3 physicians before undergoing any furr testing. These physician assessments were followed by an electrocardiogram (Mortara ELI 100, Milwaukee, WI, USA) and an echocardiogram (Philips ie33 xmatrix, Andover, MA, USA), which were all evaluated by same cardiologist for detection of potential arrhythmias or cardiomyopathies. During medical evaluation, following information was recorded: level of body development, assessment of neuromuscular function and joint range of motion, current and previous injury (including treatments and/or surgeries), and current use of medications/supplements. Information was also gared TABLE 3. Summary of participants medical evaluation findings. Component Mean 6 SD Frequency Percent Days since last game Days since last off-ice workout Years playing hockey Upper-body development Below average Average Above average Lower-body development Below average Average Above average Physician comments Healthy Healthy with a condition Or Current treatment for injury No treatment Rehabilitation Or treatment Current medication use None Supplements Or Allergies (yes) Unhealed injury (yes) Current injury still causing problem (yes) Training program Participate in aerobic + resistance Only resistance Only aerobic Training program intensity Moderate Vigorous Moderate + vigorous about number of years playing hockey, days since last game, days since last off-ice workout, plus type and intensity of exercise training routinely performed. Physical and Physiological Fitness Evaluations. The physical and physiological fitness evaluation encompassed 4 primary components. The first component was anthropometry and body composition: height, body mass, wing span, standing reach height, and percent body fat from skinfold calipers (West Sussex, United Kingdom) using Yuhasz sum of 6 skinfolds formula (3). The second component was assessment of selected musculoskeletal components: a hand grip dynamometer (Takei T.K.K. 5401, Niigata, Japan), Gledhill Force Meter for upper-body push and pull strength, maximum number of push-ups performed to a metronome (50 b$min 21 ), maximum number of 150 lb bench press repetitions to a metronome (50 b$min 21 ), upper-body power using a 2-handed seated 4 kg medical ball put, standing long jump and lower-body power using both vertical jump (both squat jump and countermovement jump (2)) on Vertec (JumpUSA, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), and a 4-jump protocol using Probotics Just Jump vertical jump mat (Probotics, Inc., Huntsville, AL, USA). The third component was assessment of anaerobic power and % fatigue index using a 30-second Wingate cycle ergometer (Monark 894E, Vansbro, Sweden) protocol against a resistance equal to 0.09% of player s body mass. The fourth and final component was direct assessment of aerobic power on a cycle ergometer (Monark 874E) for determination of maximal oxygen consumption (V_ O2 max) using a customized loading sequence and direct gas analysis with expired air collected by a Tissot gasometer. The attainment of V_ O2 max was confirmed when V_ O2 value leveled off with increasing work rates or when athlete was no longer able to consistently maintain a pedaling rate greater than 70 rpm. The athletes were allowed a minimum of 30-minute rest between Wingate and V_ O2 max test protocols. VOLUME 29 NUMBER 5 MAY

6 Integration of Functional Movement Screen Statistical Analyses The players medical, physical, and physiological fitness data were summarized using descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD)and frequencies (n, %). Pearson s correlations were performed to test hyposis that FMS outcomes would be linked to components of or health, physical, and physiological outcomes assessed during NHL Combine. The analysis was performed on FMS total scores and number of leftright asymmetries and total number of documented FMS infractions compared with various quantifiable components of medical, physical, and physiological fitness evaluations. It should be noted that use of documented FMS infractions in analysis has not been performed previously in literature. The accepted alpha level of significance was set a priori at p # 0.05 for all correlations. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS Of 101 players who attended NHL Combine, 88 completed FMS testing. The 13 players who did not participate in FMS had acute musculoskeletal injuries that precluded ir involvement. Complete physical and physiological fitness data were obtained for 81 of NHL Combine participants. Twenty of players did not TABLE 4. Summary of participants physical/physiological fitness data. Component perform select components of physical and physiological fitness assessment because of current musculoskeletal injuries identified during medical evaluation. Figure 2 summarizes involvement of athletes. Player demographic and anthropometric data are presented in Table 1. Functional Movement Screen Table 2 provides a summary of FMS results. The mean FMS total score out of 21 from all players was , and mean number of left-right asymmetries identified was The FMS movement for which athletes most frequently received highest score of 3 was trunk stability push-up (68.2%), whereas movement that was performed most poorly was rotary stability task, with 98% of athletes receiving a 2 or lower. Medical Evaluation Results from medical evaluation are summarized in Table 3. Based on physicians evaluation of players overall health status, 62.6% of players were identified as being healthy, 16.5% were healthy with a slight injury, and 20.9% were deemed not healthy, primarily due to an acute injury. The latter percentage corresponds to percentage of athletes (21.1%) who self-reported having some form of unhealed injury. Table 3 also shows mean elapsed time since players last game and information Mean 6 SD Combined hand grip (kg) Push-ups (max no) Bench press (repetitions of 150 lb) Push strength (kg) Pull strength (kg) Standing long jump (cm) Jump mat average 4-jump height (cm) kg medicine ball throw (m) Vertek vertical jump squat jump Jump height (cm) Lewis average leg power (W) 1, Sayers peak leg power (W) 5, Vertek vertical jump countermovement jump Jump height (cm) Lewis average leg power (W) 1, Sayers peak leg power (W) 5, Wingate test Peak power (W) 1, Average power (W) Average rpm Peak heart rate (b$min 21 ) Heart rate after 1 min (b$min 21 ) Fatigue (%) V_ O2 max test V_ O2 max (ml$kg 21 $min 21 ) Peak heart rate (b$min 21 ) Test duration (s) regarding ir regular training regimen. Furrmore, re were no cardiomyopathies or arrhythmias identified during medical evaluation. Physical and Physiological Fitness Evaluations The physical and physiological data of athletes are summarized in Tables 1 and 4. Upper- and lower-body musculoskeletal fitness measures, Wingate test, and V_ O2 max results are presented in Table 4. Correlation of Functional Movement Screen to Medical, Physical, and Physiological Fitness Data. The total FMS score and medical evaluation were significantly correlated with several outcomes from medical, physical, and physiological fitness assessments. The statistically significant (p # 0.05) correlations between FMS score, number of asymmetries identified by FMS,

7 TABLE 5. Statistically significant correlations between findings from medical and fitness evaluations and outcomes from FMS. Component and number of infractions to measures collected during NHL Combine are summarized in Table 5. DISCUSSION FMS total score The 2 primary objectives of this investigation were to describe outcomes from NHL Combine FMS assessments and to determine wher y correlate with results from associated medical, physical, and physiological assessments. The third objective was to create strategies, based on expert opinion, that may enhance efficacy of FMS testing at future NHL Combines and for use among strength and conditioning professionals in or sport settings. The FMS Number of asymmetries Total number of infractions Sum of 6 skinfolds (mm) PCC Sig 0.010* Body fat (%) PCC Sig 0.013* Currently receiving injury treatment PCC Sig 0.039* Days since last off-ice workout PCC Sig 0.032* Wingate average power (W) PCC Sig 0.048* Wingate average rpm PCC Sig 0.017* Wingate (W$kg 21 ) PCC Sig 0.018* V_ O2 max (ml$kg 21 $min 21 ) PCC Sig 0.005* Vertek peak leg power (squat jump) PCC Sig 0.027* Vertek peak leg power (countermovement jump) PCC Sig 0.013* Standing long jump (cm) PCC Sig 0.030* Jump mat average jump height (cm) PCC Sig 0.027* *Significance (sig) (p # 0.05). mean total score of 15.2 is lower than that reported for a different professional athlete population (football players) (12), but re have been no or published studies involving administration of FMS to recreational or elite hockey players and refore it is difficult to determine if sport of hockey may be predisposing players to lower scores on FMS based on sport-specific movement patterns that have been used and developed during player development. The number of asymmetries identified (mean = 0.93) appears to be quite low, but re is no relevant population described in literature with which a comparison can be made. The movements performed with highest (trunk stability push-up) and lowest (rotary stability task) success rates are in line with those observed in or studies (16,18), which may simply be a reflection of difficulty or complexity of movements mselves, as opposed to a result of sport-specific functional movement pattern alterations. The scoring system used in this study was unique in that a quantifiable system of FMS performance infractions was implemented with a mean of 24 infractions noted. Although not previously used or reported in literature, this system of tracking infractions may be useful to inform design of functional exercise training prescriptions by strength and conditioning coaches and warrants furr investigation. Tracking additional infractions will allow strength and conditioning professionals to furr detect individual differences in an apparently homogeneous population of athletes based on FMS total score alone. These individualized programs may be more successful in correcting or minimizing deficiencies identified by FMS by adopting training techniques that focus on improving specific infractions, which contributed to lower overall FMS scores. The goal of such programs should be to ultimately reduce injury risk and potentially improve hockey performance. VOLUME 29 NUMBER 5 MAY

8 Integration of Functional Movement Screen The investigation into correlating FMS results with medical, physical, and physiological fitness evaluations results only revealed a small number of relationships. The total FMS score, number of asymmetries identified, and total number of infractions identified on FMS exhibited statistically significant correlations that were seemingly slight, coincidental, or even counterintuitive in ir directionality when linked with outcomes from medical, physical, and physiological fitness test results. This may simply be a result of homogeneity of participant population or due to a lack of concordance between FMS scores and performance outcomes, which is consistent with existing literature on subject (15,17). For example, link between peak leg power and FMS total score (Pearson Correlation Coefficient [PCC] = ) implies that with increases in FMS total score, re is a corresponding low peak leg power. Of particular note was correlation between FMS total score and days since last off-ice workout (PCC = ). This correlation, although it is not particularly strong, makes sense from perspective that those who were participating in regular conditioning programs in days immediately preceding Combine would perform better on FMS. Unfortunately, what authors did not determine, and what would be very informative, is number of athletes who are currently under regular supervision of a strength and conditioning coach, number of athletes who have undergone FMS before Combine, and number of athletes who incorporate functional movement corrective training into ir regular conditioning regimes. Although previous studies have demonstrated good test-retest reliability (14,20) when using FMS, re is potential for learning effects associated with familiarization with test itself. Furrmore, if re were athletes who had previously completed FMS, allowance of 3 attempts would mitigate any potential advantages that those with experience may possess. Also, studies have shown that, with corrective exercises and focused training, athletes can improve ir FMS scores (11). Information about previous FMS experience would be valuable for scouts and strength and conditioning professionals with regard to amount of weighting y place on FMS scores established during NHL Combine. These questions should be incorporated into future medical evaluations at NHL Combine so that more detailed information regarding training habits can be examined and if re are correlations between previous experience performing FMS and FMS score at NHL Combine. The apparent lack of concordance between FMS and results from medical evaluation is of particular interest and warrants furr investigation regarding any potential links between longterm injury outcomes and FMS performance. Potential limitations of this investigation include use of tester demonstrations for each of FMS movements. This has not been performed in previous studies, and little is known about how inclusion of a demonstration may alter FMS scores. The rationale for this inclusion was (in addition to language barriers) an attempt to evaluate players based on ir ability to fully perform movements as y were designed rar than how y interpret instructions and choose to execute movement. However, authors believe that inclusion of tester demonstrations is an improvement in FMS protocol. Anor potential limitation was randomized order used for FMS movement evaluations. Although it has been implied that FMS movements should be evaluated in same specific order that y are outlined in original FMS publications (4,5), 1 recent study has demonstrated good reliability when randomly assigning order of movements (20). The choice for randomized movement order was made to optimize use of time during NHL Combine and 4 stations were setup with same testers scoring each task for all athletes, thus allowing 4 athletes to be tested within same scheduled time frame. In future, NHL Combine should ideally include video analysis for all athletes performing FMS, which would allow for assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability for FMS scores and use of documented infractions as an auxiliary measurement within this sport-specific population. The videos would also provide baseline assessment that may be used by strength and conditioning professionals with team that player is drafted by during subsequent pre-season, mid-season, or off-season training. Furrmore, se videos with accompanying scores can be integrated into an NHL database that will be bolstered with new participants annually so that it will be possible to compare a larger pool of hockey players to potentially reveal stronger or more meaningful relationships to medical, physical, and physiological fitness results. It should be noted that NHL has committed to using video analysis for all athletes during 2014 Combine, allowing for subsequent investigation into scoring system, long-term monitoring of athletes, and its utility among strength and conditioning professionals. Considering apparent lack of correlation between FMS scores and performance-related physical and physiological outcomes at NHL Combine, main focus for utility of FMS should be on injury risk and prevention through proper strength and conditioning programming. To improve efficacy of continued inclusion of FMS at future NHL Combines, investigators highly recommend implementation of a year-round injury surveillance system that would allow follow-up assessment and comparison with FMS scores measured during NHL Combine. This would enable an evaluation of value of FMS scores to assess injury risk among elite hockey players through retrospective analyses of FMS data collected during NHL Combine along with data from our proposed injury surveillance system. With regard to injury prediction, previous literature has shown that FMS scores below 14 have been significantly associated with increased injury risk both among elite football players and military recruits (11,13,16). The observation that injury risk was associated with FMS outcomes in elite football players is interesting in that both 1170

9 football and hockey are high impact sports with a very high risk for injury. Any information that may help identify those players at risk so that corrections can be made to potentially dysfunctional movement patterns, by strength and conditioning regimen, should be considered important. Among present group of athletes, 18.2% scored 13 or lower, which may mean that given evidence provided above, y are at risk for future injury. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Despite increasing use of FMS by qualified exercise professionals, coaches, and strength and conditioning specialists who work with both recreational and elite athletes for evaluating deficiencies in functional movement patterns, identifying injury risk and informing strength and conditioning regimens, very little is known about its effectiveness as it relates to sport of ice hockey. Although this study observed some correlations between select components of medical, physical, and physiological fitness data and results of FMS, furr investigation into se relationships is necessary and is encouraged. Enhanced understanding of practical implications for FMS outcomes, as it pertains to ice hockey, may translate into significant improvements in athletes functional movement patterns, injury prevention, plus strength and conditioning strategies focused on correcting individual infractions detected by FMS that could lead to consistent and enhanced sport performance. In addition to examining current strength and conditioning regimen and use of FMS among NHL prospects before Combine, adoption of more comprehensive evaluation protocols that include use of video analysis for FMS components and implementation of a year-round injury surveillance program for future and present NHL players are highly recommended. This will permit furr examination into relationship between FMS outcomes (total score and documented infractions) and injury risk and for development and evaluation of injury prevention programs that are implemented as a result of findings from surveillance system. Ultimately, any tool, such as FMS, that could potentially benefit health, assessment, training, or performance of elite athletes should be thoroughly explored so that its application can be maximized. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge Mr. Dan Marr and National Hockey League Department of Central Scouting for use of data from Combine. The authors would also like to acknowledge Dr. Scott Gledhill, Dr. Robert Brock, Dr. Peter Rowan, Dr. Chi-Ming Chow, and Dr. Quan Chan for ir involvement in medical evaluation process. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose, and this work was funded through internal York University research funding. The results from this study do not constitute endorsement of any products mentioned by authors or National Strength and Conditioning Association. REFERENCES 1. Burr, J, Jamnik, R, Baker, J, Macpherson, A, Gledhill, N, and McGuire, E. Relationship of physical fitness test results and hockey playing potential in elite-level ice hockey players. J Strength Cond Res 22: , Burr, J, Jamnik, V, Dogra, S, and Gledhill, N. Evaluation of jump protocols to assess leg power and predict hockey playing potential. J Strength Cond Res 21: , Carter, J and Yuhasz, M. Skinfolds and body composition of Olympic athletes. In: Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes. Part II: Kinanthropometry of Olympic Athletes. Basel, Switzerland: Karger, pp Cook, G, Burton, L, and Hoogenboom, B. Pre-participation screening: The use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function Part 1. North Am J Sports Phys Ther 1: , Cook, G, Burton, L, and Hoogenboom, B. Pre-participation screening: The use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function Part 2. North Am J Sports Phys Ther 1: , Cowen, VS. Functional fitness improvements after a worksite-based yoga initiative. J Bodyw Mov Ther 14: 50 54, Ebben, W, Carroll, R, and Simenz, C. Strength and conditioning practices of National Hockey League strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 18: , Frost, D, Beach, T, Callaghan, J, and McGill, S. Using Functional Movement Screen to evaluate effectiveness of training. J Strength Cond Res 26: , Goss, D, Christopher, G, Faulk, R, and Moore, J. Functional training program bridges rehabilitation and return to duty. J Spec Oper Med 9: 29 48, Gribble, P, Brigle, J, Pietrosimone, B, Pfile, K, and Webster, K. Intrarater reliability of Functional Movement Screen. J Strength Cond Res 27: , Kiesel, K, Plisky, P, and Butler, R. Functional movement test scores improve following a standardized off-season intervention program in professional football players. Scand J Med Sci Sports 21: , Kiesel, K, Plisky, P, and Voight, M. Can serious injury in professional football be predicted by a preseason Functional Movement Screen? North Am J Sports Phys Ther 2: , Lisman, P, O Connor, FG, Deuster, PA, and Knapik, JJ. Functional Movement Screen and aerobic fitness predict injuries in military training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 45: , Minick, K, Kiesel, K, and Burton, L. Interrater reliability of Functional Movement Screen. J Strength Cond Res 24: , Okada, T, Huxel, K, and Nesser, T. Relationship between core stability, functional movement, and performance. J Strength Cond Res 25: , O Connor, FG, Deuster, PA, Davis, J, Pappas, CG, and Knapik, JJ. Functional movement screening: Predicting injuries in officer candidates. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: , Parchmann, C and McBride, J. Relationship between Functional Movement Screen and athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res 25: , Schneiders, A and Davidsson, Å. Functional Movement Screen normative values in a young, active population. Int J Sports Phys Ther 6: 75 82, Smith, C, Chimera, N, Wright, N, and Warren, M. Interrater and Intrarater reliability of Functional Movement Screen. J Strength Cond Res 27: , Teyhen, DS, Shaffer, SW, Lorenson, CL, Halfpap, JP, Donofry, DF, Walker, MJ, Dugan, JL, and Childs, JD. The Functional Movement Screen: A reliability study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 42: , Vescovi, JD, Murray,, Fiala, KA, and VanHeest, JL. Off-ice performance and draft status of elite ice hockey players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 1: , VOLUME 29 NUMBER 5 MAY