In the task-switching paradigm, the latency switch-cost score-the difference in mean reaction time between switch and nonswitch trials-is the traditional measure of task-switching ability. However, this score does not reflect accuracy, where switch costs may also emerge. In two experiments that varied in response deadlines (unlimited vs. limited time), we evaluated the measurement properties of two traditional switch-cost scoring methods (the latency switch-cost score and the accuracy switch-cost score) and three alternatives (a rate residual score, a bin score, and an inverse efficiency score). Scores from the rate residual, bin score, and inverse efficiency methods had comparable reliability for latency switch-cost scores without response deadlines but were more reliable than latency switch-cost scores when higher error rates were induced with a response deadline. All three alternative scoring methods appropriately accounted for differences in accuracy switch costs when higher error rates were induced, whereas pure latency switch-cost scores did not. Critically, only the rate residual and bin score methods were more valid indicators of task-switching ability; they demonstrated stronger relationships with performance on an independent measure of executive functioning (the antisaccade analogue task), and they allowed the detection of larger effect sizes when examining within-task congruency effects. All of the three alternative scoring methods provide researchers with a better measure of task-switching ability than do traditional scoring methods, because they each simultaneously account for latency and accuracy costs. Overall, the three alternative scoring methods were all superior to the traditional latency switch-cost scoring method, but the strongest methods were the rate residual and bin score methods.