Micheline Chaloub-Deville

Micheline Chalhoub-Deville (Ph.D., The Ohio State University) is Professor of Educational 
Research Methodology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG), where 
she teaches courses in language assessment, validity, and research methodology. Prior to 
joining UNCG, she held academic appointments at the University of Minnesota and the 
University of Iowa. Her scholarship has contributed to advancing contemporary 
understanding of language testing and assessment as an emergent, context-dependent, and 
socially situated process.

Professor Chalhoub-Deville’s work over the years has examined language assessment for 
linguistically diverse populations, computer-adaptive testing, K–12 academic English 
assessment, admissions testing systems, accountability testing, translanguaging, and the role 
of social and contextual factors in shaping validity arguments. Her publications, 
presentations, and professional engagements have helped shape international discussions of 
language testing, validity theory, and assessment practices.

Her contributions have been recognized through honors such as the ILTA Best Article 
Award, ETS TOEFL Outstanding Young Scholar Award, UNCG School of Education 
Outstanding Senior Scholar Award, the Charles A. Ferguson Award for Outstanding 
Scholarship from the Center for Applied Linguistics and Stanford University, and the ETSILTA Samuel J. Messick Memorial Lecture Award. She founded the Midwest Association of 
Language Testers and served as president of the International Language Testing Association.

Abstract 

Beyond Tradition, Beyond Silos: Challenging the Canon in Validity Conceptualization
Over the past several decades, validity theory has evolved toward increasingly comprehensive 
frameworks that emphasize the interpretation, use, and consequences of assessment (Lane & 
Marion, 2025). Yet, despite these advances, prevailing approaches continue to position the social 
dimensions of testing largely as consequences to be examined rather than as conditions through 
which validity itself is produced. Many foundational notions also reflect a canonical view of 
testing in which researchers, test developers, practitioners, policymakers, and test users occupy 
distinct roles with relatively discrete responsibilities for establishing validity. Contemporary 
testing operations such as accountability testing systems associated with the Global Education 
Reform Movement (GERM) challenge these assumptions. Closer examination of accountability 
testing indicates that validity is socially constituted and that the meaning, interpretation, use, and 
consequences of test scores emerge through interactions among multiple actors, institutions, and 
policy contexts.

This presentation argues that taking seriously the social ramifications of testing requires a deeper 
reconceptualization of how validity is produced. Validity is not simply a property supported 
through evidentiary arguments or a set of consequences resulting from assessment use. Validity, I 
argue, is an emergent, situated, and negotiated process, which is produced through networks of 
actors and institutions. Such a perspective requires moving beyond traditional boundaries 
separating psychometric, evaluative, social, and policy research and perspectives. This also 
underscores moving beyond the institutional silos that divide researchers, practitioners, 
policymakers, and industry.

Drawing on the scholarship of GERM, accountability testing, and socially mediated theories of 
assessment (e.g., McNamara & Roever, 2006; Shohamy, 2007; Chalhoub-Deville, 2025) this 
presentation reconceptualizes validity as an ongoing, practice-embedded process situated within 
complex socio-educational and policy-driven systems. From this perspective, validation extends 
beyond establishing support for score-based inferences to examining the broader processes 
through which assessment meanings are constructed, authorized, implemented, and experienced 
across contexts. Validity claims are, therefore, not solely established through technical evidence 
but are collectively negotiated among interconnected actors and shaped by institutional practices, 
policy decisions, and socio-cultural conditions. This reconceptualization offers a more realistic 
framework for understanding how validity is produced, sustained, and contested in an era of 
increasingly interconnected policy, research, development, and practice.