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 test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests". The two keys to this decision are that the term validity refers to the interpretations of test scores, not to the tests or the test scores themselves, and that the inferences that are validated are a product of the proposed uses of tests. Newton shows that this definition is potentially confusing, in part because of the multiplicity of uses of tests and the consequences of using tests in various ways. He proposes a definition of validity that is both more narrow and more precise, focusing on whether there is sufficient evidence for interpreting the results of an assessment-based-decision-making procedure as reflecting the attribute entailed by the decision. Newton's proposed definition hearkens back to Ruch's (1924) classic definition of validity as the degree to which a test or examination measures what it purports to measure. Newton broadens this formulation somewhat by considering the stated interpretation and use of test scores and by explicitly allowing for the contingent nature of test score interpretations. By refocusing on measurement, Newton suggests ways of reducing the ambiguity of the current consensus definition of validity. The author argues that optimal definition of validity depends on what inferences one is attempting to draw when making sense of test scores. Newton suggests focusing on inferences about what the test measures. The author believes that this narrowed focus pulls people away from the more important question of the broader meaning and implication of test scores.