When “Good Enough” Is Just Not Good Enough: Response to Holden and Marjanovic

Kathleen Slaney, Jennifer Storey, Jordan Barnes

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review


In this article, we respond to a commentary by Holden and Marjanovic (this issue) on Slaney, Storey, and Barnes’ article “‘Is My Test Valid?’: Guidelines for the Practicing Psychologist for Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of Measures” (this issue). Specifically, we reply to Holden and Marjanovic’s claims that our guidelines: endorse a “construct approach” to test evaluation and development, rely too heavily on modern test theoretic methods and as such are too mathematically and technically intractable to be practically useful, and may present too unrealistic a challenge to be used in test development and the evaluation of well-established measures. Finally, we attempt to clarify the major themes that the guidelines described in Slaney, Storey, and Barnes were intended to convey.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)290-294
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Journal of Forensic Mental Health
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 7 Dec 2011


  • data-based test evaluation
  • test evaluation guidelines
  • test development

Cite this