Maul's paper, "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation," is a clever and pointed indictment of a set of specific but widespread practices in psychological measurement and the social sciences at large. Through it, Maul highlights central issues in the way to approach theory building and theory testing, bringing to mind the…

In Shepard's (1997) discussion on the importance of test use and consequences in a validity argument for educational assessments, she reflected on Cronbach and Meehl's (1955) perspective on the role of test developers in providing consequential evidence. In the following year, a special issue in "Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice"…

In the context of using tests for educational improvement, Haertel's article--"How Is Testing Supposed to Improve Schooling?"--highlights how the measurement field falls short on validation efforts and demonstrates how by posing the question of how testing is supposed to improve schooling one may start testing different hypotheses about the…

At the outset of his thoughtful and thought-provoking article, Haertel (this issue) clearly identifies the issue with which he will be dealing: The disjunct, or gap, in current approaches to evaluating the merits of a given test, between the intended uses of that test and the validity of its score-based interpretations. The author thinks that…

In 2012, Edward Haertel received the NCME Career Contributions Award. The focus article for this issue emerged from his address on the topic "How Is Testing Supposed to Improve Schooling?" His focus article provides a discussion of the relationships between testing and schooling in which he issues a call to action to the measurement community to…

In his thoughtful focus article, Haertel (this issue) pushes testing experts to broaden the scope of their validation efforts and to invite scholars from other disciplines to join them. He credits existing validation frameworks for helping the measurement community to identify incomplete or nonexistent validity arguments. However, he notes his…

The author is deeply gratified by the commentators' thoughtful responses and finds almost nothing to disagree with in any of them. Each offers additional insights prompting further reflection. In drawing out just a few common themes, this brief rejoinder omits many important ideas from the individual contributions. As stated in his title, the…

This paper presents the author's critique to Paul E. Newton's article titled "Clarifying the consensus definition of validity." In his article, Newton not only clarifies but also redefines the consensus definition of validity. In this redefinition he omits the term "construct" and introduces the term "measurement." Both omission and introduction…

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…

As researchers at a testing organization concerned with the appropriate uses and validity evidence for our assessments, we provide an applied perspective related to the issues raised in the focus article. Newton's proposal for elaborating the consensus definition of validity is offered with the intention to reduce the risks of inadequate…

In "How Is Testing Supposed to Improve Schooling?" Edward Haertel has proposed a framework for thinking about the mechanisms by which testing might improve the various educational processes undertaken in schools. The framework seems to the author to be quite general (he uses the word "general" here in its mathematical sense of including all cases)…

As Paul Newton so ably demonstrates, the concept of validity is both important and problematic. Over the last several decades, a consensus definition of validity has emerged; the current edition of "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" notes, "Validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of…

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…

Paul E. Newton's "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity" addresses the single most important, yet stubbornly protean, value in educational and psychological assessment. "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in…

Considering consequences in the evaluation of validity is not new although it is still debated by Paul E. Newton and others. The argument-based approach to validity entails an interpretative argument that explicitly identifies the proposed interpretations and uses of test scores and a validity argument that provides a structure for evaluating the…