Are we measuring what matters? A contemporary critique of movement quality assessment in sport and exercise

Movement quality assessment has become embedded in sport, rehabilitation, and performance settings over the past three decades, driven by the appeal of identifying and correcting presumed movement deficiencies before injury occurs. Tools such as the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) propose that deviations from ‘optimal’ movement increase injury risk and limit performance. However, on critical appraisal, the supporting evidence is weak and inconsistent. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses report only small associations between movement-screening scores and injury risk, with wide confidence intervals, heterogeneous injury definitions, and inadequate control for prior injury and training exposure. Associations with physical performance are similarly weak and largely cross-sectional. While corrective interventions can improve screening scores, these improvements do not appear to translate into reductions in injury or performance benefits beyond those of general training methods. The concept of a single ‘optimal’ movement is also questionable. Athletes display considerable inter-individual variability, and tissue adapts to load across a range of movement strategies. Deficit-focused language may, hypothetically, carry some potential for harm. Considering its limited predictive utility, its opportunity cost relative to interventions such as strength and plyometric training, and the availability of in-session coaching, this commentary argues that the role of movement screening should be judged case by case rather than applied broadly across populations.