The dynamic retinoscopy technique that has undergone the most quantitative study is the Monocular estimate method (MEM). For reasons of examiner preference, patient cooperation, or equipment availability it may be useful for the practitioner to have alternative methods available to assess accommodative status. The purpose of this study was to compare data obtained by two experienced examiners using Bell, Cross, and Nott retinoscopies, MEM and Binocular cross cylinder (BCC) to evaluate accommodative lags of 10 young adult subjects. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the results of the two examiners (p less than 0.2672). Results obtained by the MEM, Cross, and Nott techniques were not significantly different, but those obtained by Bell and BCC were significantly different from the other three techniques. The results of this study suggest that an examiner may use MEM, Cross retinoscopy, or Nott retinoscopy interchangeably to evaluate accommodative lag of the young adult subject.