While many organizations have adopted various forms of movement screens, designers of these assessment tools fail to understand the difference between skill and mobility. Numerous studies within the motor control and learning literature demonstrate how proper verbal instructions and demonstration enhance skill acquisition. The cumulative result of these studies reinforces the importance for movement screens to include instructional descriptions of test-items in a manner in which the results isolate skill from mobility. PURPOSE: To compare performance on a common movement screen with limited instructions and with instructions including verbal instruction, demonstration, and practice. METHODS: 22 individuals (14 males, 8 females; 22 ± 1.4 years) participated. Each participant performed three overhead squats under three different conditions: baseline with no instruction, instructions taken from the Functional Movement Screen (FMS), and instructions including demonstration, and practice (IDP). Whole body kinematics were recorded using a 12-camera motion capture system. Center of mass vertical displacement, ankle flexion, trunk forward lean, and bar to body distance were extracted. Differences between conditions were assessed using a one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: COM displacement was greater in IDP (0.45 ± 0.10m.) than FMS condition (0.32 ± 0.20m.; p = 0.003), but not different than baseline (0.39 ± 0.12m.; p = 0.047). Forward trunk lean was also greater in IDP (0.33 ± 0.65m.) than FMS condition (0.29 ± .096m.; p =0.013) but not different than baseline (0.30 ± 0.07m., p = 0.048). Ankle dorsiflexion was greater in IDP (21.33° ± 5.22) than FMS condition (17.62° ± 6.26; p = 0.01) but not different than baseline (20.94° ± 4.7; p = 0.035). Bar to body distance was not different between any conditions. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that practitioners using movement screens to identify movement dysfunction strongly consider whether they are seeing actual dysfunction or a lack of movement skill.