(57) ARE MOVEMENT SCREENINGS ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL? AN EVALUATION OF GENERIC AND SPECIFIC MOVEMENT SCREENINGS FOR BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL ATHLETES.

Thursday, July 11, 2024

2:00 PM – 3:30 PM East Coast USA Time

Location: Exhibit Hall

Poster Presenter(s)

SS

Shelby Shepherd

Student
Barton College
Wilson, North Carolina, United States

Author(s)

JS

Jordan Smith

Student
Barton College
Wilson, North Carolina, United States
CO

Charlie Ottinger

Assistant Professor
Barton College
Wilson, North Carolina, United States
LB

Lauren Biscardi

Assistant Professor
Barton College
Wilson, North Carolina, United States

Abstract Details: Background: Movement screening is used to evaluate movement patterns and efficiency. In sport and rehabilitation settings, practitioners can choose from a variety of generic and sport-specific movement screens. For example, the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and joint range of motion (ROM) goniometry are generic movement screens while the OnBaseU (OBU) Hitting Screen is a sport-specific screen for baseball and softball. Currently, practitioners use myriad movement screens to assess and predict player performance. Employing the optimal movement screen for a desired activity is critical for uncovering applicable data, and identifying similar tests would potentially save time and effort as a practitioner could avoid redundancy between assessments. However, the relationship between movement screening results is not currently clear. PURPOSE: To assess the associations between the FMS and OBU screening results, along with the active joint ROM of the thoracic spine, hip, and shoulder in baseball and softball athletes. METHODS: 16 NCAA Division ll athletes (9 baseball, 7 softball) were assessed preseason using FMS, OBU Hitting screen, and goniometry for active joint ROM. Participants attended two sessions, the first for OBU and the second included FMS and joint ROM. FMS scoring was completed by a certified FMS professional using standardized procedures. OBU Hitting Screen scoring was completed by a certified OBU professional using the accompanying mobile application and was then converted to point values (1,2,3) based on qualitative data established by the manufacturer. Active ROM was assessed in the following motions of the shoulder and hip: flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, internal rotation, and external rotation. Active ROM of thoracic spine rotation was also assessed. Pearson’s r correlation was used to assess relationships between variables. Statistical significance was defined as p < .05. RESULTS: FMS and OBU scores showed no statistically significant correlation (r = .26; p = .34). Moreover, there were no statistically significant relationships between any joint ROM value and FMS and OBU scores (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: According to these data, each movement screen may measure independent qualities since there is no relationship between assessments. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: The FMS, OBU, and active ROM assessments detect distinct movement qualities. It is possible that conducting both a generic and sport-specific screening may provide more comprehensive analysis. A recommendation would be to use both generic and specific movement screenings for baseball and softball athletes because each assessment can provide practitioners with unique data for movement evaluation.

Acknowledgements: None