The term speed-accuracy tradeoff is used when an increase in response speed comes at the expense of response accuracy. Although originally a concept from experimental psychology, the speed-accuracy tradeoff has been a topic in psychological assessment, too. In the first part of the manuscript, we discuss motivational factors that may be…

Maul's paper, "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation" (Andrew Maul), contains two stages. First he presents empirical results that cast doubt on traditional methods for validating psychological measurement instruments. These results motivate the second stage, a critique of current conceptions of psychological measurement…

In this commentary on "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation," found in this issue of "Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," William Fisher writes that Maul's paper raises issues of validity in survey-based measurement that deserve far wider consideration and scrutiny than they typically…

In his focus article, "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation," published in this issue of "Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," Andrew Maul introduces and discusses several foundational issues and concludes that self-report measures may be particularly difficult to validate and may fall short…

In Andrew Maul's focus paper "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation'" published in this issue of "Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," Maul contends that self-report measures may be particularly difficult to validate. He cautions that such techniques may fall short of providing the kinds of…

Maul's paper, "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation," is a clever and pointed indictment of a set of specific but widespread practices in psychological measurement and the social sciences at large. Through it, Maul highlights central issues in the way to approach theory building and theory testing, bringing to mind the…

This article presents the author's response to Paul E. Newton's paper titled "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity" ("Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," 2012). Newton's paper offers an interesting and constructive discussion about how people think about validity. In this reaction, the author comments on some of…

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)…

What is validity? A simple question but apparently one with many answers, as Paul Newton highlights in his review of the history of validity. The current definition of validity, as entertained in the 1999 "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" is indeed a consensus, one between the classical notion of attributes, and measures…

This focus article provided the author with an opportunity to unpack the consensus definition of validity and to explore its implications in the light of recent debates. He proposed an elaboration of the consensus definition, which was intended to express the spirit of the "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" with increased…

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…

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…

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…

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…

"Diagnostic classification models" (DCM) are frequently promoted by psychometricians as important modelling alternatives for analyzing response data in situations where multivariate classifications of respondents are made on the basis of multiple postulated latent skills. In this review paper, a definitional boundary of the space of DCM…