Methodological biases may help explain the modality effect, which is superior recall of auditory recency (end of list) items relative to visual recency items. In 1985 Nairne and McNabb used a counting procedure to reduce methodological biases, and they produced modality-like effects, such that recall of tactile recency items was superior to recall of visual recency items. The present study extended Nairne and McNabb's counting procedure and controlled several variables which may have enhanced recall of tactile end items or disrupted recall of visual end items in their study. Although the results of the present study indicated general serial position effects across tactile, visual, and auditory presentation modalities, the tactile condition showed lower recall for the initial items in the presentation list than the other two conditions. Moreover, recall of the final list item did not differ across the three presentation modalities; modality effects were not found. These results did not replicate the findings of Nairne and McNabb, or much of the past research showing superior recall of auditory recency items. Implications of these findings are discussed.