Functional Movement Analysis, Posture and Examination of Dynamic Balance of Team and Individual Athletes

Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. Uluslararası Sağlık, Egzersiz ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, (2025) International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences (IJOSS) ISSN: 3023-8382 RESEARCH ARTICLE / Araştırma Makalesi Open Access/Açık Erişim IJOSS © The Author(s), 2024. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows for unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided proper credit is given to the original author(s) and the source. A link to the Creative Commons license must be included, and any changes made to the original work must be clearly indicated. Unless otherwise specified in a credit line, all images or third-party materials included in this article fall under the article’s Creative Commons license. If any material is not covered by the Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by law or exceeds the permissible scope, you must obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Functional Movement Analysis, Posture and Examination of Dynamic Balance of Team and Individual Athletes Takım ve Bireysel Sporcuların Fonksiyonel Hareket Analizi, Postürleri ve Dinamik Denge İncelemesi Barışcan Öztürk1*, Cenab Türkeri2 Abstract The research aims to examine the functional movement analysis, posture and dynamic balances of team and individual athletes in different branches in Adana. 112 athletes (team sports = 59; individual sports = 53) participated in the study. The age of the athletes participating in the survey is 19.02±1.36 years, body weight is 71.92±8.98 kg, average height is 1.79±0.07 m, sports age is 6.50±2.48 years, and the number of weekly training sessions is 5. .27±0.97 days and weekly training hours were found to be 12.01±2.61 hours. Independent t-test and one-way ANOVA test were applied to compare the differences between the means. No significant difference was found between the functional movement analysis, lower extremity Y dynamic balance, anterior posture analysis, angle values in upright posture and trunk flexion-extension angle results of team and individual athletes (p>0.05). A significant difference was found in favour of team sports (Basketball) in the medial direction of the upper extremity (p<0.05). A significant difference was found in lateral postural asymmetry in favour of team sports in the acromion (Volleyball) (p=0.04) and trochanter major (Handball) (p=0.01). It is thought that the difference in upper extremity balance and postural asymmetry is due to the fact that branches in team sports are generally branches in which the upper extremity plays an active role. In addition, it can be said that the actions in the game (changing places, cheating, double combat) create a change in the centre of gravity and, accordingly, postural asymmetry. Keywords Functional Movement Analysis, Posture, Dynamic Balance, Spine Angle, Postural Asymmetry. Öz Bu araştırma, Adana’daki farklı branşlardaki takım ve bireysel sporcuların fonksiyonel hareket analizi, postürleri ve dinamik dengelerinin incelenmesini amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmaya 112 sporcu katılmıştır (takım sporları = 59; bireysel sporlar = 53). Ankete katılan sporcuların yaş ortalaması 19,02±1,36 yıl, vücut ağırlıkları 71,92±8,98 kg, boy ortalaması 1,79±0,07 m, spor yaşları 6,50±2,48 yıl, haftalık antrenman gün sayısı 5,27±0,97 gün ve haftalık antrenman süreleri 12,01±2,61 saat olarak bulunmuştur. Ortalama değerler arasındaki farkları karşılaştırmak için bağımsız t-testi ve tek yönlü ANOVA testi uygulanmıştır. Takım ve bireysel sporcuların fonksiyonel hareket analizi, alt ekstremite Y dinamik dengesi, anterior postür analizi, dik postürde açı değerleri ve gövde fleksiyon-ekstansiyon açısı sonuçları arasında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmamıştır (p>0,05). Üst ekstremitenin medial yönünde takım sporları (Basketbol) lehine anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmuştur (p<0,05). Lateral postüral asimetride, akromion bölgesinde takım sporları (Voleybol) lehine (p=0,04) ve trokanter major bölgesinde takım sporları (Hentbol) lehine (p=0,01) anlamlı farklılıklar saptanmıştır. Üst ekstremite dengesi ve postüral asimetrideki farklılığın, takım sporlarında branşların genellikle üst ekstremitenin aktif rol oynadığı branşlar olmasından kaynaklandığı düşünülmektedir. Ayrıca, oyundaki hareketlerin (yer değiştirme, aldatma, ikili mücadele) ağırlık merkezinde değişime ve buna bağlı olarak postüral asimetriye neden olduğu söylenebilir. Anahtar Kelimeler Fonksiyonel Hareket Analizi, Postür, Dinamik Denge, Omurga Açısı, Postüral Asimetri. Not: 2020 yılında Dr.öğretim üyesi Cenab TÜRKERİ’nin danışmanlığında 662990 no’lu ‘‘Takım ve bireysel sporcuların fonksiyonel hareket analizi, postür ve dinamik dengelerinin incelenmesi ‘‘Investigation of functional movement screen, posture and dynamic balance in team and individual athletes’’ isimli yüksek lisans tezinden üretilmiştir. https://www.ijoss.org/Archive/issue2-volume3/ijoss-Volume2-issue3-06.pdf *Correspondence: Barışcan Öztürk bariscan.oztu[email protected]om Trabzon University, Trabzon, Türkiye Orcid: 0000-0001-7001-3032 1Çukurova University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Adana, TÜRKİYE, bariscan.oztu[email protected]om 0000-0001-7001-3032 2Çukurova University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Adana, TÜRKİYE, 0000-0003-4850-9810 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17426024 Received / Gönderim: 29.06.2025 Accepted / Kabul: 16.09.2025 Published / Yayın: 24.10.2025 Volume 2, Issue 3, October, 2025 Cilt 2, Sayı 3, Ekim, 2025 Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, Issue 3, October 2025 Page 63 of 78 Introductıon In recent years, increasing sports competition all over the world has also caused some deficiencies in terms of health and athletic performance. The results obtained in the studies conducted show that the health of the athlete is of critical importance in achieving success in sports fields (Smith et al., 2017). The fact that long-term sports injuries and disabilities negatively affect the sports performance of athletes or teams has created awareness among athletes, coaches and sports experts working in this field about preventing sports injuries and developing protective methods. Therefore, the tendency towards tests showing neuromuscular control during basic motor movements has increased recently (Yel et al., 2023). Functional Movement Screen Analysis (FMS), which is actively used in major European clubs such as Bayern Munich, Liverpool, Ajax and Milan, is an assessment system that observes the basic movements of the individual. This system, which is usually evaluated in the athlete population, consists of seven fundamental movement patterns that require mobility, balance and stability (deep squat, high step, single-line squat, shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise, trunk stability push-up, rotation stability). These movement patterns allow the performance of basic locomotor, manipulative and stabilizing movements to be observed. These movements include the entire functional movement of the body and also evaluate all body segments included in the test separately. As a result of the evaluation, the mobility of the athletes and the weaknesses of the movement, if any, and the existing muscle strength imbalances are determined (Cook, 2001; Cook et al., 1999). In line with the results obtained, the athlete or coaches are informed and corrective exercise programs are applied for the athlete's development, and the injury risk levels are tried to be reduced. However, the FMS test alone may not be sufficient to ensure neuromuscular control of athletes. Evaluating athletes' performance as a component will increase the validity and reliability of performance follow-ups. Therefore, it is thought that evaluating athletes' dynamic balance and posture together with the FMS test will provide more support in predicting athletes' injury susceptibility rates. Keeping the body's centre of gravity between the support surfaces under dynamic conditions is one of the main components in performing appropriate physical activities. Therefore, when we consider that it may affect the quality of functional movement patterns used by athletes during daily or sports activities, balance skills also form the basis of athletic success (Ishizuka et al., 2011). In addition, the body needs a healthy spine to function flawlessly. The spine has a complex structure. However, when its basic functions are considered, it transfers the head, upper body, and any external loads carried and the bending moments associated with them to the pelvis, stabilising the body (Türkeri, 2019). In addition, the spine works as a whole with other segments of the body to provide stability with the support of connective tissue during muscle activation or to achieve a proper posture with the synchronised operation of many muscles in order to perform a movement in a proper form. Any disorder that may occur in the spine prevents the athlete from performing the movement at a correct angle with the correct range of motion. This will cause the athlete's posture to deteriorate and, accordingly, problems that disrupt the symmetry of the body such as muscle imbalance, muscle weakness or muscle shortness will pave the way for injury to the athlete (Üzer, 2020). Considering these factors, it is important to evaluate dynamic balance, FMS, spinal angles and postures to follow the development of athletes and determine injury risk rates. When the literature is examined, many studies have been conducted to determine neuromuscular control. However, the studies conducted were generally conducted to measure a single parameter such as FMS, dynamic balance, spine angles and posture Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, issue 3, October 2025 Page 64 of 78 parameters (Aktuğ et al., 2019; Şahin, Doğanay and Bayraktar, 2018; Cengizhan and Eyüpoğlu, 2017; Bulğay et al., 2019). There are very few studies examining neuromuscular control using more than one test (Koçak and Ünver, 2019; Cemil and Günel, 2014; Vatansever, 2018; Başar, 2018). Today, it is aimed to improve the performance of athletes and to ensure that the athlete participates in competitions with the same performance for a long time without injury. In this context, our study was conducted to examine the functional movement analysis, balance, spine angles and postures of team and individual athletes. Materials and Methods Research Model This research is structured within the framework of the causal comparative research model, which is one of the quantitative research designs. The aim of the study is to examine the differences between the functional movement patterns, postural alignment and dynamic balance performances of individual and team athletes who have active licenses in different sports branches. Participants In order to investigate the functional movement analysis, posture and dynamic balance of team and individual athletes, the required sample size was calculated as α = 0.05, Power = 0.80 (1-ß) in the G*Power program (ver 3.1.9.2) and n=102 for the betweengroup factor design in the measurements in the independent two group comparisons (Faul et al., 2007). However, in order to prevent data loss, the study was carried out with a total of 112 athletes. One hundred twelve male athletes (individual athletes=53, team athletes=59) who actively participate in competitions in the province of Adana participated in our study voluntarily. Athletes from the branches of Athletics (Short Distance Runners) (n=17), Kick Boxing (n=19) and Taekwondo (n=17) participated in the study as representatives of individual branches. Representing team sports, athletes from Football (n=16), Basketball (n=13), Handball (n=14) and Volleyball (n=16) participated. Consent forms were obtained from their participants. Data Collection Anthropometric Measurements Arm Length While the athletes were waiting in anatomical position with their minimum clothing, the distance between the acromion and the longest fingertip of the hand was measured using an anthropometer and the athlete's total arm length was read and recorded. Leg Length While the athletes were waiting in anatomical position with their minimum clothing, the distance between the trochanter major and the ground was measured using an anthropometer and the athlete's leg length was read and recorded. Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, issue 3, October 2025 Page 65 of 78 Upper Extremity Y (Upper Quarter) Dynamic Balance Test The test was applied to both arms of the subjects (dominant and non-dominant). While the subjects were standing in a push-up position (front position) on the Y balance test platform with their hands fixed at the center point, wearing sports clothing that would not restrict their movements, the feet were shoulder-width apart. The legs and hip center were fixed together (Türkeri, Büyüktaş, & Öztürk, 2020). The athlete then reached out with only the upper extremity, maintaining a fixed stance with one hand, without support from the lower extremity and hip center, and pushed the blocks with the fingertips in the medial (0°), inferolateral (from the inside of the other hand) (45°) and superolateral (45°) directions with his hand. The athlete performed the application by bringing the hand back to the fixed stance point without touching the ground each time. The test was repeated three times in each of the three directions (medial, inferolateral, superolateral), and the measurement averages were taken and the normalization formula was used. Lower Extremity Y (Lower Quarter) Dynamic Balance Test The Lower Extremity Y dynamic balance test was applied at Çukurova University BESYO Performance Measurement Laboratory on the same day and at the same hours, two weeks apart. The test was applied separately with both feet of the subjects (dominant and non-dominant). The subjects stood in balance on the Y balance test platform with their hands fixed in the waist area and their feet fixed at the center point, wearing sportswear that would not restrict their movements. Then, maintaining a fixed stance with one foot, he pushed the blocks with his toe (each time bringing the foot back to the fixed stance point without touching the ground) with his other foot in the anterior (0°), posteroedial (45°) and posterolateral (45°) directions. The test was repeated three times in each of the three directions (anterior, posteroedial, posterolateral) and then the normalization formula was used. Posture Analysis The photographing method was used in posture analysis. A GoPRO Hero 7 brand camera was used in taking photographs. A symmetrygraph poster consisting of squares with 5 cm length on each side was used for posture analysis. The distance between the subject and the symmetrygraph was 30 cm, the distance between the tripod on which the camera was placed and the symmetrygraph was 2.5 m, the height of the camera from the ground was 85 cm, and the test setup was prepared in such a way that the point where the subject would stand in front of the symmetrygraph was marked on the ground. Posture measurement was made in the frontal and sagittal planes. Postural reference points were selected according to the available information about body reference points in relation to the frontal and sagittal gravity line (Pausic and Dizdar, 2017). Anteriorly, body reference points were determined as right and left ear helices, right and left acromion, right and left spina iliaca anterior, right and left epicondylus medialis and right and left malleolus medialis. Laterally, the measurement was made from the right side. Laterally, body reference points were determined as ear tragus, acromion, trochanter major, epicondylus lateralis and lateral malleolus. Postural analysis of the subjects was performed using a two-dimensional motion analysis program called “Kinovea”. The Kinovea program is an open access free software used for motion analysis, comparison and evaluation (Puig et al., 2018). It is generally used to determine the technical skills of an athlete and to follow and evaluate the athlete's development in Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, issue 3, October 2025 Page 66 of 78 training (Guzman et al., 2013). Puig-Diví et al., (2017) examined the validity and reliability of the program called “Kinovea” in determining angular deviations and found that the program was valid and reliable (Puig et al., 2018). The height of the athletes participating in the study was measured in cm with a steel stadiometer with a sensitivity of 0,1 cm, while barefoot, and their body mass was measured in kg with a digital scale with a sensitivity of 0,1 kg. The participants were measured barefoot, wearing shorts and a t-shirt. The athletes' BMI measurements were calculated using the formula of the ratio of their body weight to the square of their height (kg/ m2). Functional Movement Screen Analysis (FMS) Seven basic movement patterns were evaluated with Functional Movement Analysis and simultaneous scoring was performed by 2 researchers (trained in the same field) according to the quality of the movement. The total score that can be obtained as a result of the seven subtests performed in the Functional Movement Analysis (FMS) test is 21. The lower score of the subtests applied bilaterally was taken in obtaining the total score. In addition, a “Clearing test” was applied in 3 of the subtests. These tests were performed after the shoulder mobility, trunk stability, push-up and rotation stability tests were applied. If the athlete experienced pain during the “Clearing test, “0 points were given for these subtests regardless of the score they received (Rowan et al., 2015; Cook et al., 2014). Each movement pattern is scored between 0-3. Here, 3 points are given when the movement is performed completely and correctly in the desired pattern. In addition, 2 points are given in cases where the movement is partially or completely completed but correction (compensation) mechanisms are activated. One point is given in cases where the movement cannot be achieved despite this. 0 points indicate pain that occurs during the movement. All tests were applied in the order specified in the FMS guidelines and the athletes were shown a video containing correct movement patterns before proceeding to the test phase. The athletes were given the right to try each test 2 times so that they could fully learn the test. After the trials, the measurements were applied in 3 repetitions to evaluate the athletes' actual performance. A 5-second rest period was given for the repetitions within the applied tests and a 1-minute rest period was given between the tests. Movements Evaluated: 1. Deep Squat 2. Hurdle Step 3. In-Line Lunge 4. Shoulder Mobility 5. Active Straight Leg Raise 6. Trunk Stability Push Up 7. Rotary Stability Vertebral Angles, Flexibility Vertebral flexibility measurements; In the upright stance, the midpoint of the sacrum (A), the thoracolumbar junction (B) and the cervicothoracic junction (C) were made at three levels in the flexion and extension of the trunk. These measurements were made with a Saunders brand Digital Inclinometer and using the Curve – Angle method. Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, issue 3, October 2025 Page 67 of 78 Vertebra Angle Measurements in the Upright Stance While the athlete was standing, the reference points A (midpoint of the sacrum-sacral midpoint), B (thoracolumbar joint between T12-L1) and C (cervicothoracic joint between C7-T1) were marked. The inclinometer was fixed at 0 ° (Calibration) in the longitudinal horizontal plane. The inclinometer was placed at point ‘A’ and the value was recorded and the calibration process was repeated and placed at point B, then the value at point B was recorded and the calibration was repeated and the measurement at point C was taken. Trunk Flexion and Extension ROM (Curve Angle Method) While the athlete was standing, the A (Sacrum midpoint-sacral midpoint), B (T12L1thoracolumbar joint) and C (C7-T1cervicothoracic joint) reference points were marked. First, the athlete's trunk flexion measurements were made. The athlete was asked to perform maximal flexion. The inclinometer was calibrated at point A and placed at point B and measured. After the measurement at point B was completed, the inclinometer was recalibrated and measurements were taken at point C and the trunk flexion values were recorded. Then, the athlete's trunk extension measurements were made. The athlete was asked to perform maximal extension. The inclinometer was calibrated at point A and placed at point B and measured. After the measurement at point B was completed, the inclinometer was recalibrated and measurements were taken at point C and the trunk extension values were recorded. Statistical Analyses The data obtained in the study are given as arithmetic mean (±) standard deviation (SS). Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied to determine whether the data showed normal distribution. It was found that the data showed normal distribution and therefore parametric tests were applied. Independent t test was used to compare the differences between the means. One-way ANOVA test and Tukey test were applied in more than two group comparisons to determine which branch the difference between the groups originated from. The confidence interval was selected as 95% and p≤0.05 values were considered statistically significant. FINDINGS Demographic information of participants Table 1: Demographic information of participants Variable Individual Team Total X ± SS X ± SS X ± SS Age (years) 19,05 ±1,47 19,00 ±1,27 19,02 ±1,36 Height (m) 1,76 ±0,06 1,81 ±0,07 1,79 ±0,07 Body mass (kg) 71,11 ±9,12 72,65 ±8,88 71,92 ±8,98 BMI 22,90 ±2,37 21,98 ±2,15 22,42 ±2,29 Sport Age (years) 6,79 ±2,51 6,25 ±2,46 6,50 ±2,48 Weekly Training Day 5,39 ±1,00 5,16 ±0,94 5,27 ±0,97 Weekly Training Hours 12,07 ±3,01 11,94 ±2,20 12,01 ±2,61 The average age of the athletes participating in the study was 19.02±1.36 years, height 1.79±0.07 m, body mass 71.92±8.98, sports age 6.50±2.48 years, weekly training days 5.27±0.97 days and weekly training hours 12.01±2.61 hours. When the BMI values of the athletes were examined, it was found to be 22.42±2.29 kg/m2 [Table 1]. Findings on FMS scores of individual and team athletes Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, issue 3, October 2025 Page 68 of 78 Table 2. Lower-upper y dynamic balance asymmetry values of individual team Athletes Individual Team Total X ± SS X ± SS X ± SS Lower Extremity Anterior (cm) 7,53±5,91 6,63±5,54 7,07±5,71 Posteromedial (cm) 13,03±9,02 10,05±7,08 11,44±8,15 Posterolateral (cm) 12,00±13,64 11,24±9,40 11,59±11,51 Composite (cm) 8,80±7,57 7,63±5,94 8,19±6,76 Upper Extremity Medial (cm) 6,37±5,05 7,57±5,11 7,00±5,09 İnferolateral (cm) 6,71±6,11 9,25±8,32 8,05±7,43 Superolateral (cm) 9,11±11,92 6,38±6,03 7,67±9,35 Composite (cm) 5,88±5,26 6,85±4,67 6,39±4,96 When the lower extremity Y dynamic balance asymmetries of the athletes participating in the study were examined, it was found that anterior 7.07±5.71, posteromedial 11.44±8.15, posterolateral 11.59±11.51 and composite 8.19±6.76 cm. When the upper extremity Y dynamic balance scores of the athletes were examined, it was found that medial 7.00±5.09, inferolateral 8.05±7.43, superolateral 7.67±9.35 and composite 6.39±4.96 cm. [Table 2]. Table 3. Comparison of FMS scores of individual and team athletes Parameters Group n X ± SS t p Deep Squat Individual 53 2,28 0,45 -0,04 0,96 Team 59 2,28 0,67 Hurdle Step Individual 53 2,69 0,50 1,03 0,30 Team 59 2,59 0,56 In-line Lunge Individual 53 2,33 0,61 0,14 0,88 Team 59 2,32 0,65 Shoulder Mobility Individual 53 2,07 0,70 -0,89 0,37 Team 59 2,20 0,80 Active Straight Leg Raise Individual 53 2,39 0,63 -0,91 0,92 Team 59 2,40 0,59 Trunk Stability Push Up Individual 53 2,35 0,59 0,58 0,55 Team 59 2,28 0,67 Rotary Stability Individual 53 2,00 0,62 0,83 0,40 Team 59 1,89 0,66 FMS Total Individual 53 15,66 1,41 -0,36 0,71 Team 59 15,77 1,94 According to the results of the independent t-test conducted to determine the functional movement analysis of the individual and team athletes participating in the study, no significant difference was found between the functional movement analysis sub-scores and total scores of the individual and team athletes (p>0.05) [Table 3]. Table 4. Comparison of FMS scores of individual and team athletes According to the independent t test results conducted to determine the lower extremity Y dynamic balance results of individual and team athletes participating in the Parameters Group n X SS t p Right Anterior (cm) Individual 53 67,35 14,58 -0,56 0,57 Team 59 68,79 12,20 Posteromedial (cm) Individual 53 96,62 17,01 -1,47 0,14 Team 59 101,25 16,20 Posterolateral (cm) Individual 53 93,09 21,88 -0,63 0,52 Team 59 95,71 21,82 Composite Individual 53 94,65 17,27 -0,95 0,33 Team 59 97,79 17,31 Left Anterior (cm) Individual 53 67,66 13,18 -0,43 0,66 Team 59 68,84 15,70 Posteromedial (cm) Individual 53 96,45 17,39 -1,40 0,16 Team 59 101,11 17,74 Posterolateral (cm) Individual 53 96,45 18,80 -0,82 0,41 Team 59 99,30 17,75 Composite (cm) Individual 53 95,88 16,66 - 0,98 0,32 Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, issue 3, October 2025 Page 69 of 78 study, no significant difference was found between the dynamic balance results of the right and left lower extremities of individual and team athletes (p>0.05). [Table 4]. Table 5. Comparison of upper extremity Y dynamic balance results of individual and team athletes Parameters Group n X SS t p Right Medial (cm) Individual 53 66,28 10,70 -3,32 0,00* Team 59 72,40 8,51 Inferolateral (cm) Individual 53 70,26 9,13 0,27 0,96 Team 59 70,22 10,34 Superolateral (cm) Individual 53 62,30 11,96 0,75 0,36 Team 59 59,71 10,09 Composite (cm) Individual 53 87,98 9,88 0,62 0,89 Team 59 87,61 10,72 Left Medial (cm) Individual 53 65,56 10,81 -2,94 0,00* Team 59 71,18 9,19 Inferolateral (cm) Individual 53 71,96 9,10 0,19 0,67 Team 59 69,67 10,48 Superolateral (cm) Individual 53 61,52 12,18 0,15 0,33 Team 59 59,49 10,25 Composite (cm) Individual 53 88,09 8,71 0,68 0,68 Team 59 86,10 8,60 *p<0,05 According to the independent t-test results conducted to determine the upper extremity Y dynamic balance results of individual and team athletes participating in the study, no significant difference was found between the inferolateral, superolateral and composite results of the right and left upper extremities of individual and team athletes (p>0.05). However, a significant difference was found in the medial direction in the right and left extremities (p<0.05). [Table 5]. Table 6. Investigation of differences in medial direction of upper extremity Y dynamic balance of team athletes Parameters Branch n X SS f p Right Medial (cm) Football 16 70,46 7,85 3,22 0,00* Basketball 13 76,37 5,59 Handball 14 68,00 10,00 Volleyball 16 73,87 8,50 Left Medial (cm) Football 16 70,23 11,13 2,65 0,01* Basketball 13 74,62 5,12 Handball 14 67,14 10,93 Volleyball 16 72,06 8,25 p<0,05* When the One-Way ANOVA results applied to determine the source of the difference in the right and left medial directions in Table 5 were examined, it was found that the difference in the right and left medial directions was due to the athletes in the basketball branch (p<0.05). [Table 6]. Table 7. Comparison of anterior posture asymmetry results of individual and team athletes Parameters Group n X SS t p Heliso Individual 53 1,65 1,41 0,28 0,77 Team 59 1,58 1,27 Acromiono Individual 53 1,69 1,25 -0,15 0,87 Team 59 1,73 1,32 Spina Iliaca Anterioro Individual 53 1,15 0,85 0,21 0,98 Team 59 1,15 0,86 Epicondylus Medialiso Individual 53 1,85 3,05 0,19 0,84 Team 59 1,76 1,58 Malleolus Medialiso Individual 53 1,41 1,37 0,26 0,79 Team 59 1,36 0,96 According to the independent t-test results conducted to determine the anterior posture asymmetries of the individual and team athletes participating in the study, no Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, issue 3, October 2025 Page 70 of 78 significant difference was found between the anterior posture results of the individual and team athletes (p>0.05). [Table 7]. Table 8. Comparison of lateral posture asymmetry results of individual and team athletes Parameters Group n X SS t p Traguso Individual 53 1,68 1,27 -1,50 0,13 Team 59 2,12 1,74 Acromioo Individual 53 1,03 0,90 -1,99 0,04* Team 59 1,37 0,93 Trochanter Majöro Individual 53 1,88 1,38 -2,41 0,01* Team 59 2,53 1,47 Epicondylus Lateraliso Individual 53 2,71 1,98 -0,51 0,61 Team 59 2,90 1,92 p<0,05* According to the results of the independent t-test conducted to determine the lateral posture asymmetries of the individual and team athletes participating in the study, no significant difference was found between the results obtained from the tragus and epicondylus lateralis reference points of the individual and team athletes (p>0.05). However, a significant difference was found between the results obtained from the acromion and trochanter major reference points (p<0.05). [Table 8]. Table 9. Investigation of differences in lateral posture asymmetry, trochanter major and acromion reference points of team athletes Parameters Branch n X SS f p Trochanter Majöro Football 16 1,67 1,29 4,41 0,00* Basketball 13 2,41 1,23 Handball 14 3,77 1,48 Volleyball 16 2,25 1,18 Acromioo Football 16 0,72 0,72 2,83 0,01* Basketball 13 1,28 1,00 Handball 14 1,66 0,78 Volleyball 16 1,75 0,91 p<0,05* When the One Way ANOVA results applied to determine the source of the difference in the trochanter major and acromion reference points in Table 9 were examined, it was found that the difference was caused by the handball athletes at the trochanter major reference point and by the volleyball athletes at the acromion reference point (p<0.05). [Table 9]. Table 10. Comparison of angle values of individual and team athletes in upright posture Parameters Group n X SS t p Sacral Midpoint Angleo Individual 27 19,25 1,83 -0,29 0,76 Team 30 19,40 1,73 Thoracolumbaro Angleo Individual 27 32,77 2,15 -1,13 0,26 Team 30 34,00 5,19 Cervicothoracic Angle o Individual 27 41,18 2,18 -1,38 0,17 Team 30 42,06 2,57 According to the results of the independent t-test conducted to determine the angle values of the individual and team athletes participating in the study in upright posture, Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, issue 3, October 2025 Page 77 of 78 doğabilecek her türlü ihlallerde sorumluluk yazara aittir. Çalışma, Çukurova Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Klinik Dışı Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır (Tarih: 14.06.2019, Toplantı Sayısı: 89/53). During the preparation and writing process of this study, scientific, ethical and citation rules were followed within the scope of the "Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive"; no falsification was made on the collected data, and this study was not sent for evaluation to any other academic publication environment. The responsibility for any violations that may arise regarding the article belongs to the author. The study was approved by the Çukurova University Faculty of Medicine Non-Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Date: 14.06.2019 Number of meetings: 89/53).. Veri Ve Materyal Erişilebilirliği / Availability of data and material Bu çalışmanın bulgularını destekleyen veriler, makul talepler üzerine sorumlu yazardan temin edilebilir. Veri seti yalnızca akademik amaçlar için erişilebilir olacak ve verilerin herhangi bir kullanımı, orijinal çalışmayı referans gösterecek ve katılımcıların gizliliğini koruyacaktır. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The dataset will be accessible only for academic purposes, and any use of the data will recognize the original study and maintain the confdentiality of the participants. Çıkar Çatışması / Competing interests Yazarlar, bu makalede sunulan çalışmayı etkileyebilecek herhangi bir çıkar çatışması veya kişisel ilişkiye sahip olmadıklarını beyan etmektedirler. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Yazar Katkıları / Authors’ Contribution Statement Bu çalışmada birinci yazarın katkısı %50, ikinci yazarın katkısı %50 dir.r. The contribution of the first author in this study is 50%, the contribution of the second author is 50%. Fon Desteği / Funding This Bu çalışma, kamu, özel veya kar amacı gütmeyen sektörlerdeki fon sağlayıcı kurumlardan herhangi bir özel destek almamıştır. This research received no external funding. Teşekkür / Acknowledgements None. APA 7 Citation Öztürk, B., & Türkeri, C. (2025). Functional movement analysis, posture and examination of dynamic balance of team and individual athletes. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences (IJOSS), 2(3), 62---78. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17426024 https://www.ijoss.org/Archive/issue2-volume3/ijoss-Volume2-issue3-06.pdf References / Kaynaklar Aka, H., Yilmaz, G., Aktug, Z. B., Akarçesme, C., & Altundag, E. (2019). The Comparison of the Functional Movement Screen Test Results of Volleyball National Team Players in Different Countries. Journal of Education and Learning, 8 (1), 138-142. Aktuğ, Z. B., Aka, H., Akarçeşme, C., Çelebi, M. M., & Altundağ, E. (2019). Elit Kadın Voleybolcularda Düzeltici Egzersizlerin Fonksiyonel Hareket Taraması Test Sonuçlarına Etkileri. Spor Hekimliği Dergisi, 54 (4), 233-241. Alam, S., Pahlavani, H. A., Monazami, M., Vatandoust, M., & Nasirzade, A. (2012). The Effect Of Plyometric Circuit Exercises On The Physical Preparation Indices Of Elite Handball Player. Advances In Environmental Biology, 2135-2141. Başar, A. B. (2018). Fonksiyonel hareket görüntüleme ve yıldız denge test puanlarının atletik performansla ilişkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Kocaeli Universitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Borms, D., & Cools, A. (2018). Upper-extremity functional performance tests: reference values for overhead athletes. International journal of sports medicine, 39 (06), 433-441. Brumitt, J., Patterson, C., Dudley, R., Sorenson, E., Hill, G., & Peterson, C. (2019). Comparison of lower quarter Y-balance test scores for female collegiate volleyball players based on competition level, position, and starter status. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 14 (3), 415. Bulğay, C., Zorlular, A., Nihan, K. A. F. A., Çetin, E., & Cengizhan, P. A. (2019). Uzun Mesafe Koşucuların Fonksiyonel Hareket Analizi Normlarına Göre Değerlerinin Belirlenmesi. Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 24 (4), 189-198. Butler RJ, Lehr ME, Fink ML, Kiesel KB, Plisky PJ. (2013). Dynamic balance performance and noncontact lower extremity injury in college football players: an initial study. Sports Healt, 5 (5):417-422. Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, issue 3, October 2025 Page 78 of 78 Butler, R. J., Southers, C., Gorman, P. P., Kiesel, K. B., &Plisky, P. J. (2012). Differences in soccer players' dynamic balance across levels of competition. Journal of athletic training, 47 (6), 616‐620. Butler, R., Arms, J., Reiman, M., Plisky, P., Kiesel, K., Taylor, D., & Queen, R. (2014). Sex differences in dynamic closed kinetic chain upper quarter function in collegiate swimmers. Journal of athletic training, 49 (4), 442-446. Cemil, Ö., & Günel, M. K. (2014). Spastik serebral palsili çocuklarda gövde kontrolü ile fonksiyonel mobilite ve denge arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation, 1 (1), 01-08. Cengizhan, Ö., & Eyüboğlu, E. (2017). Farklı Branşlardaki Müsabık Sporcuların Fiziksel Özellikleri ile Fonksiyonel Hareket Analizleri Arasındaki İlişki. Uluslararası Kültürel ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi (UKSAD), 3 , 365-371. Cook G, Burton L, Fields K, Van Allen J. (1999). Functional movement screening: Upper and lower quarter applications , Mid-America Athletic Trainer's Annual Symposium, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Athletic Trainer's Annual Symposium, 18. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom BJ, Voigh M. (2014). Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function— part I. Int J Sports Phys Ther, 9 : 396-408. Cook G. (2001). High Performance Sports Conditioning: Modern Training for Ultimate Athletic Development In : Foran B. (eds). Baseline Sports-Fitness Testing, 1 st ed. Champaign IL, Human Kinetics Inc, 19-48. Czaprowski, D., Pawłowska, P., Gębicka, A., Sitarski, D., & Kotwicki, T. (2012). Intra-and interobserver repeatability of the assessment of anteroposterior curvatures of the spine using Saunders digital inclinometer. Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja, 14 (2), 145-153. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG et al. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods,39 : 175-91. Garrison JC, Arnold A, Macko MJ, Conway JE. (2013). Baseball players diagnosed with ulnar collateral ligament tears demonstrate decreased balance compared to healthy controls. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.43 (10):752-758. Gorman PP, Butler RJ, Rauh MJ, Kiesel K, Plisky PJ. (2012). Differences in dynamic balance scores in one sport versus multiple sport high school athletes. Int J Sports Phys Ther.7 (2):148-153. Gorman, P. P., Butler, R. J., Plisky, P. J., & Kiesel, K. B. (2012). Upper Quarter Y Balance Test: reliability and performance comparison between genders in active adults. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26 (11), 3043-3048. Grabara M. (2015). Comparison of posture among adolescent male volleyball players and non-athletes, Biol. Sport, 32 : 79-85. doi: 10.5604/20831862.1127286. Grabara, M. (2016). Sagittal spinal curvatures in adolescent male basketball players and non-training individuals–a two-year study, Science & Sports,31 (5), 147-153. Greenfield B, Catlin PA, Coats PW, Green E, McDonald JJ, North C (1995). Posture in patients with shoulder overuse injuries and healthy individuals , J Orthop Sports Phys Ther,21 (5): 287-95. Guzmán-Valdivia, C., Blanco-Ortega, A., Oliver-Salazar, M., & CarreraEscobedo, J. (2013). Therapeutic Motion Analysis Of Lower Limbs Using Kinovea. Int. J. Soft Comput. Eng, 3 (2), 359-365. Hubbard, T. J., Kramer, L. C., Denegar, C. R., & Hertel, J. (2007). Correlations among multiple measures of functional and mechanical instability in subjects with chronic ankle instability. Journal of athletic training, 42 (3), 361. Hudson, C., Garrison, J. C., & Pollard, K. (2016). Y-balance normative data for female collegiate volleyball players. Physical Therapy in Sport, 22 , 61-65. Ishizuka, T., Hess, R. A., Reuter, B., Federico, M.S. and Yamada, Y. (2011). Recovery of time on limits of stability from functional fatigue in division II collegiate athletes. The journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25 (7), 1905-1910. Jurjiu, N. A., & Pantea, C. (2018). Evaluation of posture in sports performance. Timisoara Physical Education and Rehabilitation Journal, 11 (21), 22-27. Karakuş S, Kılınç F. (1997). Orta öğretimde beden eğitimi ve spor derslerine katılan öğrenciler ile okul takımı veya kulüplerde çalışmalara katılan 120 öğrencinin postür ve biomotor özelliklerinin incelenmesi , Marmara Üniversitesi II. Spor Bilimleri Kongresi, Olimpiyat Evi, İstanbul. Kiesel K, Plisky P, Butler R. (2011). Functional movement test scores improve following a standardized off season intervention program in professional football players. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 21 (2):287-292. Kim BB, Lee JH, Jeong HJ, Cynn HS. (2016). Effects of suboccipital release with craniocervical flexion exercise on craniocervical alignment and extrinsic cervical muscle activity in subjects with forward head posture, Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 30 : 31–37. Koçak, U. Z., & Ünver, B. (2019). Kadın futbolcularda yaralanma riski belirleyicileri olarak fonksiyonel hareket analizi ve y denge testi arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Spor Hekimliği Dergisi, 54 (1), 001-008. Kürklü, G. B., Bayrak, A., Yargıç, M. P., & Yıldırım, N. Ü. A. (2019). Comparison of Functional Movement Abilities of Elite Male Soccer and Handball Players. Spor Hekimliği Dergisi, 54 (3), 169-174. Lee, C. L., Hsu, M. C., Chang, W. D., Wang, S. C., Chen, C. Y., Chou, P. H., & Chang, N. J. (2018). Functional movement screen comparison between the preparative period and competitive period in high school baseball players. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 16 (2), 68-72. Letafatkar A, Hadadnezhad M, Shojaedin S, Mohamadi E. (2014). Relationship between functional movement screening score and history of injury. International journal of sports physical therapy, 9 (1):21. Lloyd, R. S., Oliver, J. L., Radnor, J. M., Rhodes, B. C., Faigenbaum, A. D., & Myer, G. D. (2015). Relationships between functional movement screen scores, maturation and physical performance in young soccer players. Journal of sports sciences, 33 (1), 11-19. MacIntyre, N. J., Bennett, L., Bonnyman, A. M., & Stratford, P. W. (2011). Optimizing reliability of digital inclinometer and flexicurve ruler measures of spine curvatures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis of the spine: an illustration of the use of generalizability theory. International Scholarly Research Notices , 2011 . Öztürk & Türkeri, 2025. International Journal of Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Vol 2, issue 3, October 2025 Page 79 of 78 Mokha M, Sprague PA, Gatens D.R. (2016). Predicting musculoskeletal injury in national collegiate athletic association division ii athletes from asymmetries and individual-test versus composite functional movement screen scores. Journal of Athletic Training, 51 (4): 276-282. Myers, H., Poletti, M., & Butler, R. J. (2017). Difference in functional performance on the upper-quarter y-balance test between high school baseball players and wrestlers. Journal of sport rehabilitation, 26 (3), 253-259. Norris, B., & Trudelle-Jackson, E. (2011). Hip-and thigh-muscle activation during the star excursion balance test. Journal of sport rehabilitation, 20 (4), 428-441. Özyayla Ş. (2019). Amatör Futbolcuların Statik ve Dinamik Denge Düzeylerinin Pas ve Şut Özellikleri Üzerine Etkileri . Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ege Üniversitesi. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. İzmir. Paušić, J., & Dizdar, D. (2011). Types of body posture and their characteristics in boys 10 to 13 years of age. Collegium antropologicum, 35 (3), 747-754. Plisky PJ, Gorman PP, Butler RJ, Kiesel KB, Underwood FB, Elkins B. (2009). The reliability of an instrumented device for easuring components of the Star Excursion Balance Test. N Am J Sports Phys Ther.4 :92-99. Plisky PJ, Rauh MJ, Kaminski TW, Underwood FB. (2006). Star Excursion Balance Test as a predictor of lower extremity injury in high school basketball players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.36 (12):911-919. Portas MD Parkin G Roberts J Batterham AM (2016). Maturational effect on functional movement screen score in adolescent soccer players. J Sci Med Sport.19 (10):854-858. Puig-Diví, A., Padullés-Riu, J. M., Busquets-Faciaben, A., Padullés-Chando, X., Escalona-Marfil, C., & Marcos-Ruiz, D. (2017). Validity and reliability of the kinovea program in obtaining angular and distance dimensions. PLoS One. 5 ;14(6):e0216448. Rowan, C.P., Kuropkat, C., Gumieniak, R. J., Gledhill, N. and Jamnik, V. K. (2015). Integration of the functional movement screen into the National Hockey League Combine. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29 (5), 1163-1171. Salo, T. D., & Chaconas, E. (2017). The Effect of Fatigue on Upper Quarter Y-Balance Test Scores in Recreational Weightlifters: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International journal of sports physical therapy, 12 (2), 199. Slodownik R, Ogonowska-Slodownik A. (2018). Morgulec Adamowicz N. Functional Movement ScreenTM and history of injury in the assessment of potential risk of injury among team handball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 58 (9):1281–6. Smith, C. A., Chimera, N. J., & Warren, M. (2015). Association of y balance test reach asymmetry and injury in division I athletes. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 47 (1), 136-141. Smith, J., DePhillipo, N., Kimura, I., Kocher, M. and Hetzler, R. (2017). Prospective functional performance testing and relationship to lower extremity injury incidence in adolescent sports participants. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy,.12 (2), 206. Şahin, M., Doğanay, O., & Bayraktar, B. (2018). Altyapı Futbolcularında Fonksiyonel Hareket Analizinin Atletik Performansla İlişkisi. International Refereed Academic Journal Of Sports , Health And Medical Sciences,1. Tafuri S, Notarnicola A, Monno A, Ferretti F, Moretti B. (2016). CrossFit athletes exhibit high symmetry of fundamental movement patterns. A cross-sectional study. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 6 (1):157– 60. Turkeri, C., & Ozturk, D. (2020). Comparison of 30 Meter Sprint Running Times with and Without Finish Line in Male Athletes. International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology, 9 (1), 25-30. Türkeri, C. (2019). İki Ayrı Karate Tekniğinin Antropometrik ve Biyomekanik Açıdan İncelenmesi. Akademisyen Kitapevi. Türkeri, C., Büyüktaş, B., & Öztürk, B. (2020). Alt Ekstremite ve Kalça Merkezi Sabit Tutularak Uygulanan Üst Ekstremite Y Dinamik Denge Testi Güvenirlik Çalışması. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 31 (2), 45-53. Türkeri, C., Büyüktaş, B., & Öztürk, B. (2020). Alt Ekstremite Y Dinamik Denge Testi Güvenirlik Çalışması. Electronic Turkish Studies, 15 (2). Üzer, O. (2020). Güreşçilerde Yaralanma Riski ile Postür Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Ankara. Vatansever, Ö. M. (2018). Farklı fiziksel aktivite düzeyindeki sağlıklı bireylerde vücut farkındalığı ile denge ve postür arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi. Ankara. Waś, J., Sitarski, D., Ewertowska, P., Bloda, J., & Czaprowski, D. (2016). Using smartphones in the evaluation of spinal curvatures in a sagittal plane. Postepy Rehabilitacji, 30 (4), 29. Westrick, R. B., Miller, J. M., Carow, S. D., & Gerber, J. P. (2012). Exploration of the y-balance test for assessment of upper quarter closed kinetic chain performance . International journal of sports physical therapy, 7 (2), 139. Yel, K., & Güzel, S., Kurcan, K., Aydemir, U. (2023). Spor Performansı v Denge . Spor Araştırmalarında Farklı Perspektifler 2 , Editör: Prof.Dr. Erdal Zorba, Doç.Dr. Mevlüt Gönen, Dr. Zekai ÇAKIR, Aralık. Bölüm-8, ISBN: 978-625-6643-01-7, Syf:120-137. Duvar Yayınları. İzmir Zagatto, A. M., Beck, W. R., & Gobatto, C. A. (2009). Validity Of The Running Anaerobic Sprint Test For Assessing Anaerobic Power And Predicting Short-Distance Performances. The Journal Of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23 (6), 1820-1827. Publishers’ Note IJOSS remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.