{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04485727231536022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022655188038060717, 'mean_word_length': 5.219718309859155, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Self-Perceptions of Proximal Stability as Measured by the Functional Movement Screen

Abstract Palmer, TG, Howell, DM, Mattacola, CG, and Viele, K. Self-perceptions of proximal stability as measured by the functional movement screen. J Strength Cond Res 27(8): 2157–2164, 2013—This mixed method study was designed to investigate self-perceptions before and after experiencing an activity that dynamically and statically challenges proximal stability of the pelvis, spine, and trunk. Twenty-eight, healthy Division II female soccer and volleyball collegiate players (17 soccer, 11 volleyball) completed a self-reported Tegner activity scale, pretest questionnaire and posttest interview. A self-perceived numeric rating of the athletes’ proximal stability and performance on a functional movement screen (FMS) were recorded. A guided interview was used to examine the self-perceptions of proximal stability after the FMS testing session. Differences and correlations between the pretest and posttest ratings of proximal stability and FMS scores were analyzed using a 1-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Spearman’s rank order correlation test, respectively. Residual standard error from a 1-way analysis of variance was used to explore the association between variables. Qualitative data were recorded and transcribed. There were significant differences between the pretest (3.4 ± 0.63) and posttest ratings (3.1 ± 0.49) of proximal stability (p = 0.01). The relationship between the pretest proximal stability ratings and the FMS scores was low (r = 0.19, p = 0.33), whereas posttest rating and FMS scores had a moderately high (r = 0.68, p = 0.00) correlation. There was a smaller residual standard error for the posttest ratings (1.7) when compared with the pretest ratings (3.2) with the FMS. Four qualitative themes emerged: (a) wanting to do well, (b) expectations of performance, (c) focused mental mindset, and (d) body control. Self-perceptions of proximal stability in female athletes were influenced by undergoing a test that stressed the proximal stabilizers. Combining assessments of self-perceptions and proximal stability may assist clinicians and athletes in targeting components of training.