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…

Michael Kane comments on three articles in this issue: (1) "Is Psychometrics Pathological Science?" (Joel Mitchell); (2) "Latent Variable Theory" (Denny Borsboom); and (3) "Constructs, Concepts, and the Worlds of Possibility" (Keith Markus). He states that the common thread in these three articles is the goal of putting measurement practice on a…

According to Schilling, Blunk, and Hill, the set of papers presented in this journal issue had two main purposes: (1) to use an argument-based approach to evaluate the validity of the tests of mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT), and (2) to critically assess the author's version of an argument-based approach to validation (Kane, 2001, 2004).…

The theories of validity developed over the past 60 years are quite sophisticated, but the methodology of validity is not generally very effective. The validity evidence for major testing programs is typically much weaker than the evidence for more technical characteristics such as reliability. In addition, most validation efforts have a strong…

The commentaries include a wealth of insightful and interesting observations and suggestions, and I appreciate each author taking the time to comment on my efforts. In responding to their suggestions, I am inclined to develop a few general points raised in the commentaries a bit further.