Keith Marcus congratulates Almond et al. on an interesting article bringing together two topics that are important to the field of testing. He states that some aspects of the exposition came across as not yet fully developed, as if the manuscript had been hurried to press. In this commentary, he attempts to expand aspects of the article, which he…

Paul E. Newton's article on the consensus definition of validity tackles a number of big issues and makes a number of strong claims. I agreed with much of what he said, and I disagreed with a number of his claims, but I found his article to be consistently interesting and thought provoking (whether I agreed or not). I will focus on three general…

This paper presents the authors' critique on "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity" by Paul E. Newton (this issue). There are serious differences of opinion regarding the topic of validity. Newton is aware of these differences, as made clear by his choice of references and particularly his effort to respond to the various Borsboom…

The 1999 "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" defines validity as the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests. Although quite explicit, there are ways in which this definition lacks precision, consistency, and clarity. The history of validity has taught us…

Operating from multiple literature bases in cognitive psychology, mathematics education, and theoretical and applied psychometrics, Schilling, Hill and their colleagues provide a systemic approach to studying the validity of scores of mathematical knowledge for teaching. This system encompasses an array of task formats and methodologies. The…