New methods are needed to judge the quality of alternative student assessment, methods which complement the philosophy underlying authentic assessments. This paper examines assumptions underlying validity, reliability, and objectivity, and why they are not matched to authentic assessment, concentrating on the constructivist paradigm of E. Guba and Y. Lincoln and its synergy with authentic assessment. Guba and Lincoln have rejected validity, reliability, generalizability, and objectivity as criteria for judging inquiries conducted within the constructivist paradigm. They have suggested trustworthiness and authenticity as frameworks for judging the quality of studies. Trustworthiness consists of four elements: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. These elements parallel validity, generalizability, reliability, and objectivity. Authenticity criteria, which focus on knowing, action, and fairness, have no counterparts in the conventional research paradigm, but are primarily demonstrated through stakeholder testimony and are supported by an audit trail of evidence of fairness and authenticity. The constructivist paradigm offers new lenses for judging the quality of authentic assessments. (Contains 12 references.) (SLD)