Although pair programming has proved its usefulness in teaching and learning programming skills, it is difficult to assess the individual roles and abilities of students whilst programming in pairs. (Note that within this manuscript, the term assessment refers to evaluating individual student performance.) Assessing only the outcomes of a pair programming assignment and awarding each member of the pair the same score may not be a reliable reflection of individual programming abilities; it may result in a discrepancy between students' individual and pair programming marks. The aim of our study was to answer the following question: Do combined self, peer, and facilitator assessment strategies for pair programming contribute towards a more reliable assessment of individual programming abilities? In our study, all three types of assessments were conducted after the completion of every pair programming assignment. In each case, we used rubrics containing specific assessment criteria. These rubrics were provided to students at the beginning of every pair programming assignment. The facilitator gave formative feedback to students after completion of a pair programming assignment and thereafter when an individual test was written. To determine whether these specific assessment strategies could contribute towards a more reliable way of assessing individual abilities in pair programming situations, the averages of students' pair and individual marks were correlated. Moreover, two practical examinations of equal academic standard were conducted at the end of the course: one for pairs and the other for individuals. A significantly high correlation coefficient between the individual and pair examination marks was obtained, indicating that the pair assessment strategies implemented in this study proved to be successful in determining students' individual programming abilities. The results emerging from this study support the implementation of specific assessment strategies to assess individual programming abilities during pair programming situations. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.)