There is a tendency in the literature to characterize linking as equating done somewhat less rigorously. The ambiguity of this conception can lead to confusion amongst policy-makers and members of the public and can result in the proliferation of comparability myths. As the constructs assessed by two tests decrease in similarity, so the difference between equating and linking becomes one of kind rather than degree. To help make sense of linking in different contexts, a general model is proposed, based upon the idea of a 'linking construct'. This general model is used to define the limits of linking and to clarify what users and stakeholders need to know about linking and linked scores. Finally, a distinction is drawn between judgemental linking as a method (e.g., social moderation) and judgemental linking as a theory (i.e., the value judgement theory of linking). The latter presents a challenge to the general model, which is defended.