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…

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…

The author's doctoral work involved relating abilities in play to the results of a developmental assessment. She found them to be highly correlated, which should have made her happy. Instead she was troubled by the results. The skills that children use in play are important. Given materials that appeal to them and that "pull for" the desired skill…

Lissitz and Samuelsen (2007) propose a new framework for validity theory and terminology, emphasizing a shift in theory and practice toward issues of test content rather than constructs. The author of this article argues that several of Lissitz and Samuelsen's critiques of validity theory focus on previously considered, but subsequently discarded,…

This paper argues that using intelligence as an aptitude benchmark in defining reading disability conceals unsupported assumptions about educational potential and makes it difficult to differentiate the cognitive characteristics of dyslexic children from those of other poor readers. The use of a more educationally relevant aptitude measure such as…