Tions), and total HLLMS score (maximum 40 movement faults) have been utilised [5]. The HLLMS total score would be the summed positive answers to all concerns (Table 1).Table 1. The Hip and Reduced Limb Movement screen scoring–more details in Booysen et al.’s study [5]. Test SKB Standing hip flexion Hip abduction lateral rotation SKB with trunk rotation Deep squat Total Score Quantity of Criteria 5 five five 4 two Total Probable Score 1 Suitable 5 5 5 4 2 40 Left 5 5 5SKB–A modest knee bend; 1 The total probable score of movement faults.The HLLMS has been shown to possess a great intra-rater reliability (percentage agreement (PA) 96 and first-order coefficient (AC1) 0.93), as well as a robust inter-rater reliability (PA 88 ; AC1 0.82) in youth male footballers [5]. A detailed protocol, tasks descriptions, and benchmark assessment criteria (questions) are provided elsewhere [5]. In the present study, the HLLMS information were TTNPB site collected by an skilled (ten years) and certified physiotherapist (who also attended the FMS course and had 20 h of familiarization with all the HLLMS) who was not informed of this study aim. The physiotherapist performed two trials (one from the front and one from the side) to observe and collect each of the movement faults. two.five. Statistical Evaluation Given the nature with the scoring systems, good movement quality is indicated by a higher total value around the FMS and a reduced total value on the HLLMS. Due to the dichotomous scale of tasks integrated in the HLLMS and the FMS, a non-parametric Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was applied and interpreted as negligible (0.00.ten), weak (0.10.39), moderate (0.40.69), strong (0.70.89), and pretty robust (0.90.00), based on Schober et al. [27]. A monotonic association amongst the HLLMS plus the FMS was evaluated. All statistical analyses were performed on 41 participants together with the Statistica 13.1PL software and p-values 0.05 have been thought of substantial. 3. Results 3.1. Total Score The FMS total score as well as the FMSMOVE had been moderately (R = -0.54; -0.53, respectively) correlated together with the HLLMS total score. In both circumstances, footballers using a reduced FMS score received a larger number of good answers inside the HLLMS. There have been no important correlations (p 0.06) between the HLLMS total score and the FMSFLEX as well as the FMSSTABIL (Figure 1).Appl. Sci. 2021, 11,five ofFigure 1. Total score from the Hip and Reduced Limb Movement Score (HLLMS) in relation to total score of your Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and sub-scores of stability, flexibility, and movement (information on 41 footballers–some participants obtained precisely the same pair of HLLMS and FMS scores; consequently, their points are superimposed).3.2. Asymmetrical Tasks Concerning tasks performed separately for the best and left sides from the body, the composite score of every D-Sedoheptulose 7-phosphate MedChemExpress process from the FMS was correlated with the composite score of every job in the HLLMS. The results showed that the rotatory stability test (FMS) was moderately correlated (R = -0.50) together with the SKB in the trunk rotation process (HLLMS; Table 1). A weak correlation was identified in between the hurdle step (FMS) and two in the HLLMS tasks: standing hip flexion (R = -0.37) and hip abduction with external rotation (R = -0.34). There have been no correlations (p 0.05) in between the FMS in-line lunge test, shoulder mobility test, as well as the HLLMS SKB test (Table two and Figure S1).Table two. Spearman correlation for combined score of asymmetrical tasks.Standing Hip Flexion R = -0.19 p = 0.24 R = -0.13 p = 0.42 R = -0.37 p = 0.02 R = -0.17 p = 0.29 R = -0.