In this study, a ranking strategy was evaluated for comparing subgroups' change using identical, equated, and nonidentical measures. Four empirical data sets were evaluated, each of which contained examinees' scores on two occasions, where the two occasions' scores were obtained on a single identical measure, on two equated tests, and on two nonidentical measures. The two subgroups' rates of change were compared based on ranked nonidentical measures, on raw and ranked equated measures, and on a raw and ranked identical measure. The results of comparing subgroups' change were similar when based on the nonidentical measures and on the identical and equated measures. Additional evaluations using simulated data demonstrated that the ranking strategy proposed for nonidentical measures is accurate, especially when the subgroups were large, the difference between the subgroups' change was large, and scores obtained on the measure(s) were highly correlated across occasions. The statistical power of the proposed ranking method is slightly reduced because of the tendency of the nonidentical measures to have relatively low correlations. (Contains 8 tables, 12 figures, and 1 note.)