Growing reliance on complex constructed response items has generated considerable interest in automated scoring solutions. Many of these solutions are described in the literature; however, relatively few studies have been published that "compare" automated scoring strategies. Here, comparisons are made among five strategies for machine-scoring examinee performances of computer-based case simulations, a complex item format used to assess physicians' patient-management skills as part of the Step 3 United States Medical Licensing Examination. These strategies utilize expert judgments to obtain various (a) case-specific or (b) generic scoring algorithms. The various compromises between efficiency, validity, and reliability that characterize each scoring approach are described and compared.