Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates how students strategically allocate effort across multiple standardized test retakes and how this behavior interacts with scoring policies like Superscoring and Single-Sitting. The authors find that Superscoring leads to systematic score inflation and exacerbates socioeconomic disparities, while Single-Sitting maintains score fidelity but may disadvantage high-ability students lacking resources. Through simulations based on 2025 College Board data, the study proposes algorithmic interventions to improve score aggregation and fairness in admissions processes.
Superscoring inflates test scores and widens wealth-based disparities, while Single-Sitting preserves accuracy at the cost of excluding capable students.
Observed standardized test scores are the result of an endogenous process: students strategically allocate effort across multiple retake attempts to improve their outcomes. Because students differ in their ability to make these investments, the interaction between applicant strategy and institutional scoring rules---such as the widely used Single-Sitting and Superscoring policies---can disparately distort observed scores. We develop a strategic framework where students allocate effort in response to different scoring policies. We show that Superscoring---the practice of combining the best section scores across attempts---introduces systematic score inflation through order-statistic selection over noise draws. This degrades signal accuracy and amplifies wealth-based disparities by disproportionately rewarding applicants who can afford repeated testing. Conversely, Single-Sitting---which keeps the best overall score rather than section-level scores---preserves signal fidelity but excludes high-ability students who lack the resources to prepare for all subjects simultaneously. Neither rule uniformly dominates; instead, they force a structural trade-off between statistical precision and fair outcomes. Finally, to address this, we propose three algorithmic interventions which either modify how scores from multiple attempts are combined, or apply a post-hoc correction to observed scores. Using simulations calibrated to 2025 College Board data, we compare standard scoring rules against these proposed interventions.