COMPENSATION–IRRITATION MATRIX (CIM): RECONSTRUCTION AND MATHEMATICAL AND ALGORITHMIC VALIDATION OF THE FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN (FMS) SCORING SYSTEM
Keywords:
Functional Movement Screen, Compensation-irritation matrix, Injury risk prediction, Scoring algorithm, MeasurementAbstract
The Functional Movement Screening (FMS) composite score (0-21 points) is achieved merely by adding up the scores of seven tests, and by implication, it assumes that all deductions (pain, severe restriction, compensation) are equal in numerical terms. Nevertheless, pain is an indicator of local tissue irritation, and compensation is a sign of movement control impairment, which is a significantly different state when it comes to the direction of clinical intervention. Putting them together as one score reduces interpretability, and can also reduce predictive validity. The proposed study introduces the Compensation-Irritation Matrix (CIM) that divides the raw FMS data into two independent dimensions: the Compensation Index (C, the level at which the rest of the movements are preserved) and the Irritation Index (I, the number and location-weighted load of pain). We confirm the theoretical benefits of CIM over the conventional total-score approach by mathematically counting the full 16,384 possible theoretical score combinations. It is found that given the traditional total-score approach, two random people with the same total score have a 71.4% likelihood of having various numbers of painful items (i.e., same score, but varying quality). Contrastingly, the CIM four-quadrant classification (green-yellow-orange-red) makes perfect sense in every combination with no classification issues. Two case examples indicate that two people with the same total score of 14 are identified as yellow (C = 2.00, I = 0, extensive compensation) and orange (C = 2.80, I = 2.0, localized irritation with high movement quality) on CIM, which implies totally opposite intervention orientation. CIM addresses the dimensional confusion brought about by combining the concepts of compensation and irritation in the traditional total-score method providing a logically consistent alternative model of clinical application of the FMS.References
[1] Li F. Research on the prevention and rehabilitation of sports injuries in adolescent sports training. Learning Weekly-Teaching and Research, 2025(15).
[2] Bonazza N A, Smuin D, Onks C A, et al. Reliability, validity, and injury predictive value of the functional movement screen: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2017, 45(3): 725-732.
[3] Bushman T T, Grier T L, Canham-Chervak M, et al. The functional movement screen and injury risk: Association and predictive value in active men. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2016, 44(2): 297-304.
[4] Moran R W, Schneiders A G, Mason J, et al. Do Functional Movement Screen (FMS) composite scores predict subsequent injury? A systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2017, 51(23): 1661-1669.
[5] Trinidad-Fernandez M, Gonzalez-Sanchez M, Cuesta-Vargas A I. Is a low Functional Movement Screen score (≤ 14/21) associated with injuries in sport? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 2019, 5(1): e000501.
[6] Dorrel B S, Long T, Shaffer S, et al. Evaluation of the functional movement screen as an injury prediction tool among active adult populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Health, 2015, 7(6): 532-537.
[7] Li F, Huang Y, Zhou M, et al. Ritual, commodity, and incubator of pseudoscience: A sociological critique on the proliferation of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS). Frontiers in Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences, 2026, 1(3).
[8] Alemany J A, Bushman T T, Grier T, et al. Functional Movement Screen: Pain versus composite score and injury risk. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2017, 20: S40-S44.
[9] Fuller J T, Lynagh M, Tarca B, et al. Functional movement screen pain location and impact on scoring have limited value for injury risk estimation in junior Australian football players. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 2020, 50(2): 75-82.
[10] Kazman J B, Galecki J M, Lisman P, et al. Factor structure of the functional movement screen in marine officer candidates. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2014, 28(3): 672-678.
[11] Koehle M S, Saffer B Y, Sinnen N M, et al. Factor structure and internal validity of the functional movement screen in adults. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2016, 30(2): 540-546.
[12] Li F. Comparison of the effects of the different forms of the weight bearing training on the explosive power migration: A case study of Judo. СОВРЕМЕННАЯ АЗИЯ: ПОЛИТИКА, ЭКОНОМИКА, ОБЩЕСТВО, 2026, 1(10): 47.
[13] Li F, Zeng Z. Personalized optimization of aerobic exercise for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients based on improved Q-learning and dynamic physiological modeling. Fifth International Conference on Information Technology and Contemporary Sports (TCS 2025), SPIE, 2026, 14115: 156-165.
[14] Li F, Li Z, Wang L, et al. Redefining lifelong fitness: A practical framework combining exercise snacks and neuromuscular fall prevention strategies. Frontiers in Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences, 2026, 1(3).
[15] Liu P, Liu N, Li F. Diagnosis and management of splenic tuberculosis: A case report and literature review. Frontiers in Medicine, 2025, 12: 1622794.