In a pioneering research article, Wollack and colleagues suggested the "erasure detection index" (EDI) to detect test tampering. The EDI can be used with or without a continuity correction and is assumed to follow the standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis of no test tampering. When used without a continuity correction, the EDI often has inflated Type I error rates. When used with a continuity correction, the EDI has satisfactory Type I error rates, but smaller power compared with the EDI without a continuity correction. This article suggests three methods for detecting test tampering that do not rely on the assumption of a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis. It is demonstrated in a detailed simulation study that the performance of each suggested method is slightly better than that of the EDI. The EDI and the suggested methods were applied to a real data set. The suggested methods, although more computation intensive than the EDI, seem to be promising in detecting test tampering.