Purpose: To compare the effect of a personalized corrective exercise warm-up protocol based on an individual’s Functional Movement Screen (FMS) score and the effect of a general corrective exercise warm-up protocol that addresses overall movement deficits, on scores of the FMS and the Y Balance Test (YBT) in college athletes and dancers. Introduction: The FMS and the YBT are used as instruments to manage and identify injury risk in the physically active. Both have been previously reported to be a predictive tool for injury risk. Exercise strategies to target risk factors that the FMS and YBT identify have been reported to improve the scores of the FMS. These exercise strategies are closely related to the protocols reported to also improvement YBT scores, in that they involve neuromuscular control, flexibility, and core stability. It is important to determine if these exercise strategies can improve both FMS and YBT scores as compared to a control. Methods: Athletes and dancers from an NCAA Division III institution participated in an exercise intervention program. FMS scores and YBT scores were collected before and after a 6 week exercise intervention protocol. The FMS consists of seven movements to be evaluated: deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise, trunk stability push-up and rotary stability. The YBT consists of two tests with three reach patterns for the upper quarter and three reach patterns for the lower quarter.The YBT-UQ consists of reach patterns with the upper extremity in medial, inferolateral, and superolateral reach directions and the YBT-LQ consist of reach patterns with the lower extremity in anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral reach directions. The experimental and control groups received a corrective exercise protocol that lasted approximately 15 minutes and was incorporated into their regular exercise schedules. The experimental group underwent a personalized corrective exercise warm-up of 3 to 4 exercises, based on their lowest score of the seven movement patterns and/or asymmetry on the FMS. The control group received a general corrective exercise warm-up protocol prescribed to improve overall movement deficits from the seven patterns of the FMS. Results: Pre-test and post-test measurement did significantly differ for the FMS 21 point scores, FMS 100 point scores, and YBT-LQ composite, but did not differ for the YBT-UQ composite and YBT-UQ, as well as the interaction of group and time for the FMS on the 21 point scores, FMS 100 point scores, YBT-LQ composite and YBT-UQ. Scores did not differ significantly between sport categories in the FMS on the 21 point scale, FMS on the 100 point scale, YBT-LQ and YBT-UQ. Conclusion: A personalized 3 to 4 corrective exercise warm-up protocol did not significantly improve scores of the FMS and YBT among athletes and dancers as compared to a general corrective exercise warm-up protocol. However, it did support the hypothesis that there will be no signficant difference in improvement in scores of the FMS and YBT among various athletes and dancers. It was also determined that the results of this study were inconclusive due to the study being underpowered. Future studies should be conducted to examine if adding individualized manual techniques and specific exercises targeting mobility and stability to a personalized corrective exercise protocol improves FMS and YBT scores compared to a general movement oriented warm-up protocol.
