Over time, criticisms related to the technical rigor of informal reading inventories (IRIs) have led many to question using these assessment instruments for high- or low-stakes purposes. In this article, I examine reliability evidence reported in 11 new and updated IRIs and make comparisons with Spector's earlier analysis that revealed fewer than half of the IRIs reported reliability. Based on the findings, I discuss ways in which IRIs have changed and use criteria recommended by Nitko, Salvia and Ysseldyke, and Spector to consider various educational uses of IRI data. (Contains 6 tables and 1 figure.)