Movement Competency Screen: Rethinking the Rating.

Screen Shot 2022-11-20 at 2.27.15 PM

Movement Competency Screen: Rethinking the Rating.

Benoit-Piau J, Morin M, Guptill C, Fortin S, Gaudreault N.



Background: Dancers are at high risk of musculoskeletal disorders. There has been a growing interest in the last few years in pre-season screening using tools to evaluate movement competency, among which is the Movement Competency Screen (MCS). It is currently scored using a categorical 3-level rating system, but this method does not seem to take into account the load level of movements. A 5-level scoring system could potentially alleviate this problem.

Hypothesis/Purpose: For each scoring system, to investigate (1) the internal consistency, and (2) the association with transversus abdominis activation (TrA), hip muscle strength and with Functional Movement screen (FMS) total score.

Study design: Secondary analyses of a prospective cohort study.

Methods: One hundred and eighteen professional and preprofessional dancers evolving in ballet or contemporary dance were recruited. The MCS was performed and was scored according to the 3- and 5-level scoring systems. The key variables for movement competency that were considered for convergent validity were the activation ratio of the TrA evaluated with ultrasound imaging and hip strength assessed with a handheld dynamometer. Movement competency was also measured with the FMS.

Results: Internal consistency was higher for the 5-level scoring of the MCS items (=0.548) compared to the 3-level scoring system (=0.494). Multiple linear regressions showed that TrA activation, hip adductor strength, and FMSTM could significantly explain 24.0% of the variance for the 5-level scoring system of the MCS whereas hip internal rotator strength and FMS could explain only 16.4% of the variance for the 3-level scoring system.

Conclusion: The 5-level scoring system showed better metrologic properties in terms of internal consistency and concurrent validity and therefore, should be preferred over the 3-level scoring system in future research.

Level of Evidence: Level III