National standardized assessment programs have increasingly included extended written performances, amplifying the need for reliable, valid, and efficient methods of assessment. This article examines a two-stage method using comparative judgments and calibrated exemplars as a complement and alternative to existing methods of assessing writing. Written performances were taken from Australia's National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy, which included both narrative and persuasive performances from students aged 8 to 15. In Stage 1, assessors performed comparative judgments on 160 performances to form a scale of 36 calibrated exemplars. These comparative judgments showed a very high level of reliability and concurrent validity. In Stage 2, assessors scored 2,380 new performances by matching them to the most similar calibrated exemplar. These matching judgments showed a generally high level of reliability and concurrent validity and were reasonably efficient after a familiarization period. Further research is suggested to enhance Stage 2 by simplifying the exemplar scale and scaffolding it with detailed descriptors. Overall, the findings support the use of the method in standardized writing assessment and its application to various learning areas.