A study was conducted to investigate issues of test validation by placing them in a context. The study examined the ways in which instances of "good" and "poor" writing have been identified in the marking of part of an English writing test that is given each year to incoming Arts Faculty students at the University of Hong Kong. The study also investigated the overall performances of "good" and "poor" writers. Implications concern content validity of the test and uses to which test results are put. The study results provided evidence for the following conclusions: (1) the Language Analysis Sessions (LAS Writing Test), the focus of the study, appeared to have validity; (2) the ability to organize and develop a piece of writing that would be considered term paper length is not credited in the test, and therefore, the distinction that the test makes between "good" and "poor" writing is restricted in scope; and (3) the extent of individual learners to write academic text is an issue that the test, at present, fails to address; this discrepancy calls for careful evaluation within the Language Center to provide tests that measure the course's ability to meet the student needs that the courses were designed to do. (GLR)