This nonexperimental, descriptive correlational study was conducted to determine whether a significant difference exists between the results of an electronically monitored nonstress test (NST) and those of auscultation for single fetal heart rate acceleration, the auscultated acceleration test (AAT). Of 130 NSTs, both the NST and the AAT were reactive in 105 cases and both were nonreactive in seven cases. Eighteen nonreactive AATs went on to have reactive NSTs (72.00% false-positive rate). There were no reactive AATs that went on to have nonreactive NSTs (0% false-negative rate). Various recommendations are made for future research in an attempt to decrease the false-positive rate. The McNemar's test for data analysis used in previous research indicated that there was a significant difference between the two tests. However, the sensitivity (100%) and specificity (85.37%) of the AAT indicate that the test is valid in predicting the results of the NST and thus appears to be a valid screening tool for fetal well-being and may be a reliable alternative to the NST.