In his article "Construct Maps for Standard Setting," Adam E. Wyse provides a detailed review on the current use of construct maps in standard setting, including how they may be operationalized within a variety of standard-setting methods. The premise of the argument is that construct maps can serve as a useful tool for conducting a standard setting and for interpreting the results from a standard setting by providing an organized way to show information related to the test (score scale, items), examinees (performance measures), the construct (elements of the performance-level descriptors [PLDs]), and rater judgments (recommended cut-scores). According to this idea, many of the common issues faced by practitioners conducting these studies could be resolved. In turn, in the conclusion, Wyse poses the question why are construct maps not more widely used? In this response to Wyse's article, Susan Davis-Becker supplements Wyse's answer to this question based on her real-world experiences in standard setting that span both the education and credentialing sectors. She concludes by encouraging continued research in this area to provide practitioners with guidance on what construct maps are, what information they should include, what situational factors related to the testing program and standard setting should be evaluated to determine if/how construct maps would be beneficial, and how they can be applied to provide the validity evidence needed to support the outcomes of the standard setting.