There is general agreement in the field of school psychology that revised versions of tests should be adopted in a timely manner, and that to do otherwise is poor practice. This would seem to be in accord with the intent, if not the explicit wording, of ethical and professional guidelines. But does this mean that practitioners should always, and immediately, press revised tests into service? As is often the case with ethical and professional issues, the argument can be made that "It's not that simple." The issue of timely adoption of new test versions revives a point-counterpoint exchange between two academic school psychologists that appeared in "Communique" 7 years ago. Dombrowski (2003) recommended that the transition to revised intellectual assessment instruments take place within 6 months to a year, and proposed that a 1-year time limit be incorporated into the NASP ethical principles, mandates such as IDEA, and state and national credentialing standards. Oakland (2003), in response, asserted that a fixed limit was ill-advised for several reasons--in particular, the need for independent research to verify that a new version of a test is more valid and better suited to the application at hand. The author contends that this is a complex issue, given the interplay among ethical, clinical, economic, practical, and psychometric factors. Applicable professional standards are best considered with regard to issues of: (1) timing; (2) validity; (3) cost-benefit; and (4) system-wide coordination.