The percentage of students retaking college admissions tests is rising (Harmston & Crouse, 2016). Researchers and college admissions offices currently use a variety of methods for summarizing these multiple scores. Testing companies, interested in validity evidence like correlations with college first-year grade-point averages (FYGPA), often use the most recent test score available (Allen, 2013; Mattern & Patterson, 2014). In contrast, institutions report using a variety of composite scoring methods for applicants with multiple test records, including averaging and taking the maximum subtest score across test occasions ("superscoring"). We compare four scoring methods (average, highest, last, and superscoring) on two criteria. First, we compare correlations between scores from each scoring method and FYGPA. We find them similar (?? ˜ 0.40). Second, we compare scores from each scoring method based on whether they differentially predict FYGPA across the number of testing occasions (retakes). We find that retakes account for additional variance beyond standardized achievement and positively predict FYGPA across all scoring methods. We also find that superscoring minimizes this differential prediction--although it may seem that superscoring should inflate scores across retakes, this inflation is "true" to the extent that it accounts for the positive effects of retaking for predicting FYGPA. Future research should identity what factors, such as academic motivation and socioeconomic status, are related to retesting and consider how these should be considered in college admissions.