Tucker and chained linear equatings were evaluated in two testing scenarios. In Scenario 1, referred to as rater comparability scoring and equating, the anchor-to-total correlation is often very high for the new form but moderate for the reference form. This may adversely affect the results of Tucker equating, especially if the new and reference form samples differ in ability. In Scenario 2, the new and reference form samples are randomly equivalent but the correlation between the anchor and total scores is low. When the correlation between the anchor and total scores is low, Tucker equating assumes that the new and reference form samples are similar in ability (which, with randomly equivalents groups, is the correct assumption). Thus Tucker equating should produce accurate results. Results indicated that in Scenario 1, the Tucker results were less accurate than the chained linear equating results. However, in Scenario 2, the Tucker results were more accurate than the chained linear equating results. Some implications are discussed. (Contains 2 notes, 4 figures and 3 tables.)