An Alternative to Nonstress Test


  • Susan Moore Daniels CNM, MSN,

    Corresponding authorSearch for more papers by this author
    • Susan Moore Daniels, CN, MSN, received her B.S.N. from the University of New Mexico in 1983 and her M.S.N. and nurse-midwifery education from Yale University in 1988. She is currently a staff midwife for the Lovelace Midwifery Service, a full-scope midwifery practice in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She is also currently on the Courtesy Faculty for Yale University, School of Nursing, as a clinical instructor for integration students. Ms. Daniels is an active member of Sigma Theta Tau and a member of ACNM.

  • Nanette Boehm CNM, MSN

    Search for more papers by this author
    • Nanette Boehm, CNM, msn, received her B.S.N. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1978 and her M.S.N, and nurse-midwifery education from Yale University in 1988. She is currently employed in a three-person, full-scope midwifery practice at Group Health Cooperative in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Ms. Boehm is a member of ACNM and the International Childbirth Educators Association.

Susan Moore Daniels, CNM, MSN, 1129 Vassar Drive, NE, Albuquerque, NM 87106


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.