Kane, Mroch, Suh, and Ripkey (2009) describe what they call five linear equating methods for the nonequivalent groups with anchor test (NEAT) design. The authors embed these methods within a two-dimensional framework. The first dimension contrasts what the authors call a parameter substitution (PS) approach what they call a chained linear relationship (CLR) approach. The second dimension involves a choice of invariant relationship they will use to compensate for the fact that they do not have equivalent groups. In this article, the author places the five methods that Kane et al. discuss into a more standard score-linking framework, namely that used by Holland and Dorans. He maintains that these methods are potential scale aligning methods, which may or may not be equating methods. He then examines what happens with the five methods when they replace the NEAT design data with data from a single population. He demonstrates that the two CLR methods do not even qualify as scale-aligning methods.