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 "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)…

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…

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 is valuable in many ways, especially for clarifying confusions and inconsistencies in the assessment business. Most importantly, he points out confusions that persist and where open discussion will help us understand what we say and what we mean to say. But I will focus here on the only faults I find in the article: three…

This article presents the author's response to Paul E. Newton's paper titled "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity" ("Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," 2012). Newton's paper offers an interesting and constructive discussion about how people think about validity. In this reaction, the author comments on some of…

This focus article provided the author with an opportunity to unpack the consensus definition of validity and to explore its implications in the light of recent debates. He proposed an elaboration of the consensus definition, which was intended to express the spirit of the "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" with increased…

Paul E. Newton provides an insightful and scholarly overview of central issues in validity theory. As he notes, many of the conceptual problems in validity theory derive from the fact that the word "validity" has two meanings. First, it indicates "whether a test measures what it purports to measure." This is a factual claim about the psychometric…

Insofar as the title of this piece might call for a straightforward answer, it seems obvious that EPMA professionals are servants. Viewed in this perspective, Paul E. Newton's analysis is carefully balanced, in that it respects the complex history of the concerns of the professionals, whilst moving towards conclusions that place the needs of 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…

What is validity? A simple question but apparently one with many answers, as Paul Newton highlights in his review of the history of validity. The current definition of validity, as entertained in the 1999 "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" is indeed a consensus, one between the classical notion of attributes, and measures…