This article addresses a 2006 article by Hojnoski, Morrison, Brown, and Matthews on the use of performance-based measurement among school-based practitioners. Their results suggest that many of their survey respondents favor the use of this form of measurement. This line of research is important and addresses an important issue in current clinical practice. However, they offer a critique of this form of assessment, in response to which the author raises four issues. First, there is a difference between "tests" and "techniques". Second, assessment tools do not make decisions or diagnoses; clinicians do. Third, actuarial prediction and clinical expertise are mutually enhancing. Last, the relationship between science and practice should be bidirectional and integrative. These points are discussed in terms of the utility and appropriateness of performance-based measurement tools and techniques for helping psychologists answer diagnostic, placement, and treatment questions in the school setting.