Examinees who take high-stakes assessments are usually given an opportunity to repeat the test if they are unsuccessful on their initial attempt. To prevent examinees from obtaining unfair score increases by memorizing the content of specific test items, testing agencies usually assign a different test form to repeat examinees. The use of multiple forms is expensive and can present psychometric challenges, particularly for low-volume credentialing programs; thus, it is important to determine if unwarranted score gains actually occur. Prior studies provide strong evidence that the same-form advantage is pronounced for aptitude tests. However, the sparse research within the context of achievement and credentialing testing suggests that the same-form advantage is minimal. For the present experiment, 541 examinees who failed a national certification test were randomly assigned to receive either the same test or a different (parallel) test on their second attempt. Although the same-form group had shorter response times on the second administration, score gains for the two groups were indistinguishable. We discuss factors that may limit the generalizability of these findings to other assessment contexts.