Due to myriad applications of the nominal group technique (NGT), a highly flexible iterative focus group method, researchers know little about its optimal scoring procedures. Exploring benefits and biases that such procedures might present, we aim to clarify how NGT scoring systems can privilege consensus or prioritization. In conducting the first study both to feature NGT data from the same participants at multiple time points or to compare scoring procedures with actual, not simulated, data, we found clear differences between consensus (ratings) and prioritization (rankings) scoring schemata's abilities to discriminate categories. We recommend that NGT users (1) state whether they intend to emphasize consensus, prioritization, or both; (2) name their scoring schema and explain it mathematically; and (3) detail implications of their choices. We also discuss uses of NGT as a research tool, especially for global citizenship education including study-abroad programmes in contexts where reliable access to electricity and/or the internet may be challenging.