Colleges and universities conduct student satisfaction studies for many important policy making reasons. However the differences in instrumentation and the use of students' self-reported ratings of satisfaction makes such decisions sample-, instrument-, and institution-dependent. A common metric of student satisfaction would assist decision makers by providing a richness of information not typically obtained. The present study investigated the extent to which two nationally known instruments of student satisfaction could be scaled on the same quantitative metric. Pseudo-common item equating (Fisher, 1997) based on five link items of low and high endorsability enabled comparisons of "similar, but not identical items, from different instruments, calibrated on different samples" (p. 87). Results suggest that both instruments measured similar constructs and could be reasonably used to create a single, common metric. While samples used in the experiment were less than ideal, results clearly demonstrated the usefulness and reasonability of the pseudo-common item equating process.