Scale scores play a significant role in research and practice in a wide range of areas such as education, psychology, and health sciences. Although the methods of scale scoring have advanced considerably over the last 100 years, researchers and practitioners have generally been slow to implement these advances. There are many topics that fall under this umbrella but the current study focuses on two. The first topic is that of subscores and total scores. Many of the scales in psychological and health research are designed to yield subscores, yet it is common to see total scores reported instead. Simplifying scores in this way, however, may have important implications for researchers and scale users in terms of interpretation and use. The second topic is subscore augmentation. That is, if there are subscores, how much value is there in using a subscore augmentation method? Most people using psychological assessments are unfamiliar with score augmentation techniques and the potential benefits they may have over the traditional sum score approach. The current study borrows methods from education to explore the magnitude of improvement of using augmented scores over observed scores. Data was simulated using the Graded Response Model. Factors controlled in the simulation were number of subscales, number of items per subscale, level of correlation between subscales, and sample size. Four estimates of the true subscore were considered (raw, subscore-adjusted, total score-adjusted, joint score-adjusted). Results from the simulation suggest that the score adjusted with total score information may perform poorly when the level of inter-subscore correlation is 0.3. Joint scores perform well most of the time, and the subscore-adjusted scores and joint-adjusted scores were always better performers than raw scores. Finally, general advice to applied users is provided.