A debater grasps the arguments pro and con se well the he or she could speak for either side. Or Shifting the metaphor to legal counselors, so well that they could tell either party what is strong and weak in its position.I propose here to extend to all testing the lessons from program evaluation. What House (1977) has called "the logic of evaluation argument" applies, and I invite you to think of "validity argument" rather than "validation research"The argument must link concepts, evidence, social and personal consequences and values.Most validty theorists have been saying that content and criterion validities are no more than strands within a cable of validity argument. A favorable answer to one or two questions can fully support a test only when no one cares enough to raise further questions.A hypothesis that fails is more likely to be amended than abandoned.

"What work is requirred to validate a test interpretation?". Nor can supporting research in any amount immunize a theory against a future challenge based on new and credible assumptions. As psychological science generates new concepts, test interpretations will have to be reconsidered. Also because psychological and educational test influence who gets what in society, fresh challenges follow shifts in social power or social philosophy. VALIDATION IS NEVER FINISHED.

An affirmative argument should make clear and, to the extent possible, persuasive the construction of reality and the value weightings implicit in a test and its application. To be plausible, an argument pro or con must fit with prevailing beliefs and values- or succesfully overturn them.Questions about test originate in five perspectives: the functional, the political, the operationist, the economic, and the explanatory.

Functional perspective:

The literature on validation has concentrated on the truthfulness of test interpretations, but the functionalist is more concerned with worth than truth. In the very earliest discussions of test validity, some writers said that a test is valid if it measures "what it purports to measure". That raised, in a primitive form, a question about truth. Other ealy writers, saying that a test is avlid if it serves the purpose for which it is used, raised a question about worth. Truthfulness is an element in worth, but the two are not tightly linked. "Similarly, built in conservatism was what aroused latter-day objections to Strong's blank for women, with its scores for occupations in which women were numerous, the profile seemed to respond directly to typical questions fo female counselees. By hinting however, that the list of scales spanned the range of women's vocational options, the profile reinforced sex stereotypes.

Test that impinge on the rights and life chances of individuals are inherently disputable. We have come a long way from the naive testimony given Congress two decades ago to the effect that, if sex life or religion correlates with a criterion, psychologist who ask prospective employees about that are only doing their duty. Representativenedd of the jury weighed far heavier on the scales of justice than superior comprenhension, said the judge. Validators have an obligation to review whether a practice has appropiate consequences for individuals and institutions, and especially to guard against adverse consequences.

THE POLITICAL PERSPECTIVENon professionals will do the evaluating of practices unaided, if professionals do not communicate sensibly to them. Whether institutions are treating examinees fairly will be decided by the political legal process, but the profession ought to improve the basis for that decision. Acceptance or rejection of a practice or theory comes about because a community is persuaded even research specialist do not judge a conclusion as it stands alo

ne: they judge its compatibility with a network of prevailing beliefs.Validity argument contributes when it develops facts and when it highlights uncertainties of fact or implication. A community should be disputatios. Then judgements are more likely to be as sound as present information allows. The investigator should canvass all types of stakeholders for candidate questions. Evaluators should resist pressure to concentrate on what persons in power have specified as their chief question. The obvious example of too narrow an inquiry is the validation of employment tests, which used to concentrate on predicting a criterion the employer cared about and neglected to collect facts on what kinds of applicants were most likely to be rejected by the test.To win acceptance for test professionals view as fair, effective communication is vital. Response to unfamiliar material must be examined to assess thinking.

Until educators and testers convince students and the public that, in those very subjects where excellence is most wanted, coping with the problematic is a main objetive, valid tests will be howled down as unfair. Matching tests to the curriculum produces a spurious validty argument, wherever the curricular aim is no higher than to have students reproduce authority's responses to a catechism.