The Joint Committee on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing met in Washington DC, November 13–16 and addressed the question that’s been on everyone’s lips: "If and when will the committee release another draft for public comment?" As noted in the Practice Network in October’s TIP, the committee released a draft in March 1997 to mixed reviews. Most I/O psychologists agreed that the Employment Testing chapter draft is superb, however many remaining chapters faced stinging criticism. Indeed, the committee received nearly 4,000 pages of comments, which they waded through individually and then again during the marathon 4-day meeting in November. A hefty set of comments submitted by the Equal Employment Advisory Council (EEAC) was included, along with letters from individuals urging the committee to carefully consider the EEAC comments and accede to another large review of the draft before approval was sought from APA and the other sponsoring associations. As mentioned in the October Practice Network, some individuals were already contemplating efforts to block approval if requested changes were not forthcoming and/or the committee did not circulate revised drafts for further comment.

Committee co-chair Paul Sackett, speaking at the November meeting of the Personnel Testing Council of Metropolitan Washington (PTC/MW), noted that the committee did not previously commit to a 1998 review mostly out of the optimistic hope that the comments received this past summer would be less voluminous and more complimentary than they actually turned out to be. The committee had last met in February 1997 and, at that time, was not sure how the draft release would be received. While numerous commenters cried for another round of revision, no announcement was made between the August comment deadline and the November meeting simply because the committee had not met as a group and formally decided that the considerable time and expense of another review was warranted. Once committee members got together and shared opinions on a course of action, there was clear agreement that a spring 1998 review was warranted. The committee will meet again February 27 to March 1 and release a revised draft shortly after.

SIOP has been actively involved in commenting on drafts thus far and will undoubtedly organize a substantive set of comments from SIOP members this Spring. As Kevin Murphy noted in his October column, the Scientific Affairs Committee spearheaded the SIOP effort in response to the December 1995 release of five technical chapters and the March 1997 release of the Preface and 15 chapters. One positive theme from many reviewers of the 1997 draft was praise for how responsive the Joint Committee was to comments on the 5 technical chapters. When these chapters were released for a second review, many reviewers noted improvement and focused criticism on the 10 newer chapters that were much rougher around the edges. Hopefully, history will repeat itself and SIOP members, along with the many other reviewers, will be pleased with improvements in the next draft.