Purpose
The FMS classifies the functional mobility of children 4-18 years of age with cerebral palsy, taking into account the assistive devices a child might use.
We're hiring! Browse jobs and apply today.
The FMS classifies the functional mobility of children 4-18 years of age with cerebral palsy, taking into account the assistive devices a child might use.
3 distances
5-10 minutes
Lynette Reina, PT, DPT; reviewed by Ada Terman March, 2019.
Inter-rater Reliability:
Cerebral Palsy: (Graham et al., 2004; n=310, n (spastic hemiplegia) = 114, n (spastic diplegia) = 124, n (spastic quadriplegia) = 72; mean age = 11 (3.7), mean age (spastic hemiplegia) = 12 (3.6), mean age (spastic diplegia) = 12 (4.0), mean age (spastic quadriplegia) = 10 (3.7))
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Cronbach’s α, and Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) (95% confidence intervals) Between Attending Surgeon and Research Fellow
ICC
Chronbach’s α
CCC
FMS-5
0.95* (0.88-0.98)
0.95* (0.86-0.98)
0.97* (0.94-0.99)
FMS-50
0.94* (0.88-0.97)
0.94* (0.87-0.99)
0.96* (0.93-0.99)
FMS-500
0.95* (0.89-0.99)
0.96* (0.89-0.99)
0.98* (0.93-0.99)
*indicates “Excellent”
Cerebral Palsy: (Harvey et al., 2010; n (total) = 118, n (2-6 year) = 16, n (6-12 years) = 66, n (12-18 years) = 36, n (GMFCS I) = 13, n(GMFCS II) = 49, n(GMFCS III) = 44, n(GMFCS IV) = 12; mean age (SD) = 10.3 (3.6); raters = hospital physiotherapist, community physiotherapist, and surgeon)
Kappa Coefficients and 95% Confidence Intervals for Independent Ratings of Mobility for the Three Distances by Age Group
Age
Distance
Kappa (CI)
Agreement (%)
2-6 years (n=16)
5m
0.87* (0.47, 1.00)
93*
50m
0.95* (0.47, 1.00)
99*
500m
0.64** (0.20, 1.00)
92*
6-12 years (n=66)
5m
0.86* (0.68, 1.00)
96*
50m
0.90* (0.66, 1.00)
98*
500m
0.89* (0.65, 1.00)
96*
12-18 years (n=36)
5m
0.83* (0.58, 1.00)
96*
50m
0.94* (0.61, 1.00)
99*
500m
0.86* (0.54, 1.00)
96*
*Indicates “Excellent”
**Indicates “Adequate”
Intra-rater Reliability:
Cerebral Palsy: (Himuro et al., 2017; n (all participants) = 24, mean age 13 (2 y 4 mo); n=18 (spastic unilateral), n=3 (spastic bilateral), n=2 (dyskinetic), n=1 (ataxic); n (GMFCS level I) = 11, n (GMFCS level II) = 8, n (GMFCS level III) = 5; Japanese version rated twice with a 1-2 week interval between assessments)
Cerebral Palsy: (Graham et al., 2004)
Concurrent validity:
Cerebral Palsy: (Graham et al., 2004)
Spearman Correlation Coefficient Matrix Between FMS-5, FMS-50, and FMS 500 and PODCI, CHQ, and Uptime (UT)
FMS – 5
FMS – 50
FMS – 500
PODCI
CHQ
E
RS
UT
FMS – 5
1.00
0.89*†
0.78*†
0.51***††
0.78*†
0.87*†
FMS – 50
1.00
0.84*†
0.82*†
0.52***††
0.72*†
0.83*†
FMS – 500
1.00
0.82*†
0.81*†
0.55***††
0.71*†
0.84*†
PODCI
1.00
0.75**†
0.53††
0.80***†
0.79*†
CHQ
1.00
0.54††
0.74***†
0.81*†
E
1.00
0.54***††
0.61†
RS
1.00
0.78**†
UT
1.00
*p<0.001
**p<0.01
*** p<0.05
† Indicates “Excellent”
†† Indicates “Adequate”
Cerebral Palsy: (Himuro et al., 2017; n (all participants) = 111, n (GMFCS level I) = 64, n (GMFCS level II) = 29, n (GMFCS level III) = 18; mean age (all participants) = 12 y 1 mo (± 3 y 7 mo), mean age (GMFCS level I) = 12 y 3 mo (3 y 8 mo), mean age (GMFCS level II) = 11 y 4 mo (3 y 7 mo), mean age (GMFCS level III) = 12 y 8 mo (3 y 2 mo); Japanese sample)
Predictive validity:
Cerebral Palsy: (Wilson et al, 2014; n (all participants) = 143, n (GMFCS level I) = 44, n (GMFCS level II) = 75, n (GMFCS level III) = 24; mean age = 10.6 (3.2)
Multiple Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis
FMS 5
FMS 50
FMS 500
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
R2
0.27
0.32
Not add-itional
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.22
0.26
0.28
6MWT
P<.001
P<.001
P<.0001
P<.0001
P<.001
P<.0001
P<.0001
P<.0001
WS
P<.001
P=.01
P=.006
P<.0001
P=.008
Unilateral vs bilateral
P=.04
P<.001
Step 1 = 6MWT
Step 2 = 6MWT and WS
Step 3 = 6MWT, WS, and Unilateral vs bilateral spasticity
Convergent validity:
Cerebral Palsy (spastic diplegia): (Graham et al., 2004; n= 35 (subsample of original study population who underwent surgical intervention); mean age = 10.3 (2.3))
Spearman Correlation Coefficient for Change in Ratings Between FMS-5, FMS-50, and FMS 500 and Other Outcome Tools at 6 and 12 Months Postoperatively (n=35, spastic diplegia)
PODCI
CHQ
E
UT
6 months
FMS – 5
0.78*†
0.77**†
0.53*††
0.86**†
FMS – 50
0.82*†
0.80*†
0.59*††
0.84**†
FMS – 500
0.81**†
0.80**†
0.52*††
0.85**†
PODCI
1.00
0.78***†
0.51*††
0.81**†
CHQ
1.00
0.53*††
0.82**†
UT
1.00
1.00
12 months
FMS – 5
0.79*†
0.75**†
0.54*††
0.78**†
FMS – 50
0.81**†
0.82*†
0.55*††
0.85**†
FMS – 500
0.80**†
0.83**†
0.53*††
0.89**†
PODCI
1.00
0.81***†
0.55*††
0.84**†
CHQ
1.00
0.56*††
0.81**†
UT
1.00
1.00
*p<0.05
**p<0.01
***p<0.01
† Indicates “Excellent”
†† Indicates “Adequate”
Cerebral Palsy (spastic): (Harvey et al, 2009; n (all participants) = 18, n (GMFCS level II) = 5, n (GMFCS level III) = 4, n (GMFCS level IV) = 9; mean age = 12 y 8 mo (±2y 8 mo); n (spastic quadriplegia) = 9, n (spastic diplegia) = 7, n (spastic hemiplegia) = 2)
Cerebral Palsy: (Graham et al., 2004)
Cerebral Palsy: (Harvey et al., 2007; n (all participants) = 66, n (GMFCS level I) = 18, n (GMFCS level II) = 24, n (GMFCS level III) = 24; mean age = 10 (2y 6mo); average procedures per child = 8 (range of 4-12 procedures)
Odds ratios (OR) for FMS distances for post-operative time period compared with baseline (preoperatively)
Time post-op
5m
50m
500m
OR
CI
p value
OR
CI
p value
OR
CI
p value
3 mo
0.13*
0.07-0.24
<0.001
0.09*
0.04-0.17
<0.001
0.24**
0.14-0.43
<0.001
6 mo
0.36**
0.23-0.58
<0.001
0.32**
0.19-0.55
<0.001
0.50**
0.32-0.80
0.004
9 mo
0.69**
0.45-1.04
0.08
0.77**
0.49-1.19
0.24
0.90***
0.57-1.41
0.628
12 mo
1.12***
0.77-1.64
0.55
1.22***
0.82-1.81
0.33
1.47***
0.97-2.22
0.071
24 mo
2.08***
1.33-3.24
0.002
2.16***
1.37-3.41
0.001
2.23***
1.44-3.45
<0.001
CI – Confidence Interval
*Indicates “Small change”
**Indicates “Moderate change”
***Indicates “Large change”
Graham, H.K., Harvey, A., et al. (2004). “The Functional Mobility Scale (FMS).” Journal of Orthopaedics 24(5): 514-520.
Harvey, A., Baker, R., et al. (2009). “Does parent report measure performance? A study of the construct validity of the Functional Mobility Scale.” Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 52: 181-185.
Harvey, A., Graham, H.K., et al. (2007). “The Functional Mobility Scale: ability to detect change following single event multilevel surgery.” Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 49: 603-603.
Harvey, A.R., Morris, M.E., et al. (2010). “Reliability of the Functional Mobility Scale for children with cerebral palsy.” Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics 30(2): 139-149.
Himuro, N., Nishibu, H., et al. (2017). “The criterion validity and inter-rater reliability of the Japanese version of the Functional Mobility Scale in children with cerebral palsy.” Research in Developmental Disabilities 68: 20-26.
Stahlhut, M., Downs, J., et al. (2016). “Building the repertoire of measures of walking in Rett syndrome.” Disability and Rehabilitation 39(19): 1926-1931.
The Royal Children’s Hospital. (2014). FMS: The Functional Mobility Scale (version 2) – For children with cerebral palsy ages 4-18 years. Retrieved from https://www.schn.health.nsw.gov.au/files/attachments/the_functional_mobility_scale_version_2.pdf
Wilson, N.C., Mackey, A.H., et al. (2014). “How does the Functional Mobility Scale relate to capacity-based measures of walking ability in children and youth with cerebral palsy?” Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics 34(2): 185-196.
We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.