In response to Ebel's article (TM 508 146) the author points out that, in emphasizing what a test is intended to measure, the vital question of what should be measured is set aside. While explicit specifications for a test should be encouraged, questions of worth ought to be prominent in designing and selecting tests. (Author/LC)

The findings in Volume I of the Committee on Ability Testing's report (see ED 213 770 and ED 213 771) are shown to be ambiguous regarding the meaning of ability, vague regarding test validity, and ingenuous regarding test uses and misuse. The neglect of the basic question of what tests measure is noted. (CM)

Confusion in the terminology used in criterion-referenced measurement specifications and development and standard setting and the attendant role of cut-off scores are shown to need practical clarification through psychometric research on test applications and consequences. (CM)

This reply to William A. Mehrens argues that test validity is the central issue in discussing the appropriate role of tests. It states that the procedures used to establish the validity of tests are inadequate because they depend primarily on content validity and not on construct and criterion validity. (JAZ)

The President of the National Council on Measurement in Education replies to his critics. He argues that the concept of measurement error should not be used to make cut-scores more valid and that grade point averages have not been demonstrated to be valid indicators of teachers' subject matter competence. (LMO)

Several issues facing the measurement community were brought on by the recent emphasis on stricter educational accountability measures. These testing issues include the limits of test scores, effects of testing on instruction, proper test use, importance of the test content, and defining the basics in education. (EGS)