Bronchial reactivity is being measured with increasing frequency in epidemiological studies, but there debate continues about the relative merits of the different methods used to measure reactivity, particularly for subjects with no previous experience of reactivity testing as is the case in epidemiological studies. Repeatability is likely to improve with practice, and laboratory based studies on experienced subjects may overestimate the repeatability of a test in inexperienced subjects. We have compared the repeatability of the Yan method with a dosimeter (Mefar) method of administering methacholine to 40 asthmatic subjects: 20 with experience of methacholine challenge on at least six previous occasions and 20 with no previous experience. Subjects attended the laboratory on four days within a two week period, at the same time of day. A methacholine challenge was performed on two occasions using the Yan method and on two occasions using the dosimeter. Methacholine responsiveness was measured as the provocative dose causing a 20% reduction in forced expiratory volume in one second (PD20FEV1). Geometric mean PD20FEV1 values with the Yan method were 1.14 doubling doses (DD) of methacholine higher than with the dosimeter method. In the experienced subjects, the 95% range for a single estimate was +/- 1.56 DD for the Yan method and +/- 1.37 DD for the dosimeter method. In the inexperienced subjects, the 95% ranges were +/- 2.65 and +/- 1.87 DD for the Yan and dosimeter methods, respectively. Thus, the differences in repeatability between the Yan and dosimeter methods, were small; experienced subjects gave more repeatable values than inexperienced subjects.