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…

Validation research for educational achievement tests is often limited to an examination of intended test score interpretations. This article calls for an expansion of validation research in three dimensions. First, validation must attend to actual test use and its consequences, not just score meaning. Second, validation must attend to unintended…

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 his focus article "How Is Testing Supposed to Improve Schooling?" Ed Haertel distinguishes between seven uses of educational tests as a function of the intended action and what or who will be influenced by the intended action. He then applies Mike Kane's interpretive argument approach (Kane, 2006) as a basis for speculating about the validity…

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 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"…

Haertel's argument is that one must "expand the scope of test validation to include indirect testing effects" because these effects are often the "rationale for the entire testing program." The author strongly agrees that this is essential. However, he maintains that Haertel's argument does not go far enough and that there are two additional…

In his article, Haertel (this issue) asks a fundamental question about how use of a test is expected to cause improvements in the educational system and in learning. He also considers how test validity should be investigated and argues for a more expansive view of validity that does not stop with scoring or generalization (the more technical and…

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…

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…

There is something about the topic of validity that seems to provoke dissatisfaction in many of those who encounter it--a sense that something is not right, and that something needs to be done to sort it out. Paul E. Newton in his target essay does not attempt a radical reconstruction of the validity edifice. His position is that the "consensus…

Paul E. Newton is to be commended for addressing as challenging a topic as the clarification of the concept of validity. The impetus for this foray is Newton's judgment that, despite decades of development, the definition and elaboration of the term test validity in the 1999 "Standards" retains sufficient ambiguity to permit, if not invite, both…

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…

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…