Despite agreement about the central importance of validity for educational and psychological testing, consensus regarding the definition of validity remains elusive. Differences in the definition of validity are examined and reveals that a potential cause of disagreement stems from differences in word use and meanings given to key terms commonly employed when discussing validity. A proposal for the meaning and use of specific terms is offered and a framework that divides issues associated with validity is presented. Specifically, the framework divides what Messick termed "an integrated evaluative judgment" into three components: Instrument Validity, Verification of Interpretation and Decision, and Utility of Actions.