FMS Level 2 common mistakes
FMS Level 2 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Scoring an active straight-leg raise or shoulder mobility screen by the joint angle reached rather than by the FMS criteria of limb-to-limb relationship and the presence of the test's specific landmarks (e.g., ankle-to-midline, fist-to-opposite-shoulder).
Candidates carry over goniometric habits from clinical training and default to degrees instead of applying the screen's own 0–3 ordinal criteria, so they assign 2s and 3s inconsistently.
What to do instead
Before each screen, state aloud the three scoring anchors for that specific test (3, 2, 1/0), then score only against those anchors. Practice on 10 clients and have a partner re-score blind; reconcile every disagreement against the written criteria rather than against your own eye.
Awarding a 2 when pain is reported during the clearing test or during the movement, instead of recording the score as 0 for the whole pattern.
Candidates treat pain as a separate annotation and score the movement quality they observed, forgetting the rule that any pain during the screen or clearing test overrides the movement score.
What to do instead
Build a fixed habit: run the clearing test immediately after the pattern, and before writing any number ask yourself 'pain yes/no?' If yes, the pattern score is 0 and the client is referred. Write the pain location in the notes but keep the score at 0.
Scoring the deep squat from a frontal view only, or scoring the inline lunge and rotary stability without confirming the correct starting position (heel-to-toe stance, dowel contact points, and the correct hand/knee position).
Setup errors are less salient than movement errors, so candidates rush the setup and then score a movement that was never actually in the test position.
What to do instead
Use a scripted setup checklist per screen (dowel contact points: head, thoracic spine, sacrum; foot position; hand position) and verbalize it. For the deep squat, score the lateral view for the primary criteria and use the frontal view only to confirm knee tracking. Rehearse setups until they are automatic.
Explaining a low score as 'tight hamstrings' or 'weak core' and stopping there, without tracing the score to the specific mobility or stability restriction and its downstream compensation.
Candidates memorize muscle-attachment trivia but lack a decision tree that separates a mobility problem from a motor-control problem, so they jump to a diagnosis that fits the symptom.
What to do instead
For every score below 3, write one sentence in the form 'restriction at [joint/segment] producing [observed compensation]'. Then test the hypothesis with a quick re-check (e.g., does a heel lift change the squat score? does a half-kneeling position change the shoulder score?). Only prescribe after the hypothesis survives the re-check.
Treating the asymmetry rule loosely - averaging left and right scores, or clearing a client to train hard despite a 1-point side-to-side difference on a bilateral pattern.
Candidates want to summarize a client in one number and feel that averaging is 'fair', but the screen's purpose is to flag asymmetry, not to produce a mean.
What to do instead
Score left and right separately and record the lower score; flag any difference of one point or more as an asymmetry requiring attention before load progression. Keep the raw bilateral scores visible in the record so the asymmetry is not lost in a summary score.
Designing a corrective program that is really just a workout: several unrelated exercises stacked together, with no clear target pattern, no position specificity, and no progression criterion.
Candidates equate 'corrective' with 'good exercises' and lack a template that forces them to name the target, the position, the cue, and the exit criterion.
What to do instead
Use a four-part template for every corrective: (1) target pattern and the restriction being addressed, (2) mobility or motor-control category, (3) one exercise in a position that reduces the compensation, (4) an explicit progression criterion (e.g., score 2 on re-screen or symptom-free full range). If a piece of the program cannot be mapped to the template, cut it.
Progressing corrective work by adding load or complexity before the client can demonstrate the pattern with a 2 or better, or progressing on a fixed calendar schedule rather than on a criterion.
Candidates confuse effort and soreness with improvement, and program cycles are easier to follow than re-testing.
What to do instead
Set the progression trigger before starting: a re-screen score, a pain-free end range, or a clean rep count under a stated cue. Re-screen at defined intervals and only advance when the criterion is met; otherwise regress the position (e.g., from standing to half-kneeling to supine) rather than adding load.
Cueing a client with a long verbal explanation of anatomy and then assuming the movement changes because the client nodded, instead of using a brief external cue and checking the result.
Candidates overvalue explanation and undervalue attentional focus; they also have not practiced cueing under time pressure.
What to do instead
Limit each cue to a few words and make it external or outcome-based ('push the floor away', 'reach long'). Cue once, observe, and re-cue only if the movement did not change. If two cues fail, change the position rather than adding words.
Running the full screen on every client regardless of goal, history, or time available, and then failing to connect screen results to the training program.
Candidates treat the screen as a ritual checklist and have no decision rule for which patterns matter for a given client's sport or complaint.
What to do instead
Before screening, state the client's goal and the two or three patterns most relevant to it; screen those with full rigor and treat the rest as baseline data. After screening, write one sentence per pattern linking score to program emphasis, and place the corrective work at the start of the session before loading.
Telling a client they 'failed' a screen or that a low score means they are injured or dysfunctional, and giving no explanation of what the score is for.
Candidates use clinical shorthand with laypeople and have not prepared plain-language framing for a low score or a pain finding.
What to do instead
Use prepared phrasing: a low score means the pattern is a priority for training, not a diagnosis; a pain finding means we stop and refer. Explain the purpose of the screen before starting, state results in terms of what you will do next, and document the referral conversation.