The current study applies a newly proposed mechanical combination method along with four traditional mechanical combination methods to assessment center scoring. These comparisons were made for two job levels (Fire Lieutenant and Fire Captain). The study further assesses the level of adverse impact for the various methods at three cut-off scores. Results indicated that the new contingency-based scoring method was successfully implemented in the assessment center. Results were mixed regarding whether the contingencies developed for the two job levels were different. Further, results indicated that although the various combination methods were highly correlated as expected, there were clear distinctions in the decisions made based on the different combination methods. Specifically, the various combination methods resulted in different candidates comprising the qualifying cut-off ranks. Finally, results showed that the contingency-based method had less adverse impact overall when compared to the other four methods. Future research is proposed in addition to a discussion of the limitations of the study. The main limitation was a lack of criterion data.