Lee Cronbach once expressed the view that all roads lead to construct validity. In looking to clarify the consensus definition of validity, and its place in assessment, Newton is also led to the troublesome idea of construct validity. To be sure, he addresses other validity issues, but in this commentary, I will restrict my attention to construct…

In his article, Paul E. Newton has conducted a review of selected perspectives on validity theory with the goal of disambiguating the definition of validity and describing a consensus definition of validity. Newton provides a nuanced discussion of the evolution of the concept of validity over the years. His Focus article has two major goals: (1)…

Paul E. Newton argues in favor of a conception of validity, viz, "the consensus definition of validity," according to which the extension of the predicate "is valid" is a subset of "assessment-based decision-making procedure[s], which [are] underwritten by an argument that the assessment procedure can be used to measure the attribute entailed by…

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…

This paper presents the authors' critique on "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity" by Paul E. Newton (this issue). There are serious differences of opinion regarding the topic of validity. Newton is aware of these differences, as made clear by his choice of references and particularly his effort to respond to the various Borsboom…

As illuminated forcefully by Professor Newton's provocative analytical and historical excursion, as long as tests are employed to practical ends (prediction, selection, etc.) there is little cause for the metatheoretic angst that occasions rounds of papers on the topic of validity. But then, also, there seems little need, within this context of…

I congratulate Paul E. Newton on a thoughtful and evenhanded contribution to test validity theory. I especially appreciate the evident care that went into interpreting the various authors whose work Newton discusses. I found many useful insights along with the few minor points with which I might quibble. I comment on three aspects of Newton's…

As Paul Newton so ably demonstrates, the concept of validity is both important and problematic. Over the last several decades, a consensus definition of validity has emerged; the current edition of "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" notes, "Validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of…

Paul E. Newton's "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity" addresses the single most important, yet stubbornly protean, value in educational and psychological assessment. "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in…

As researchers at a testing organization concerned with the appropriate uses and validity evidence for our assessments, we provide an applied perspective related to the issues raised in the focus article. Newton's proposal for elaborating the consensus definition of validity is offered with the intention to reduce the risks of inadequate…

The 1999 "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" defines validity as the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests. Although quite explicit, there are ways in which this definition lacks precision, consistency, and clarity. The history of validity has taught us…

Describing, explaining, and discussing various modern indices of scholarly impact as accomplished by Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, and Mahalchik (this issue) is highly commendable, as such measures get increasingly important in hiring and promotion decisions. The author agrees with almost all points made in the target article, except the…

Scholarly impact is studied frequently and used to make consequential decisions (e.g., hiring, tenure, promotion, research support, professional honors), and therefore it is important to measure it accurately. Developments in information technology and statistical methods provide promising new metrics to complement traditional information sources…

Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, and Mahalchik (this issue) evaluate 22 bibliometric indicators, including conventional measures, like the number of publications, the "h" index, and many "h" index variants. To assess the quality of the indicators, their well-justified criteria encompass conceptual, empirical, and practical issues: ease of…