Individual Psychological Assessment is widely practiced among I–O psychologists and supported as a core competency by a majority of the commentaries. Our response addresses some of the key points made in the commentaries, such as issues related to the definition, contextual and criterion variables, interpretation and integration methods, validity evidence, professional matters, and future research directions. We also respond to a few critics who want to entirely eliminate expert assessor judgment in IPAs. Models are presented for using assessor judgment and mechanical methods in IPAs and for distinguishing naïve and sophisticated IPA researchers and practitioners. We conclude that IPA is now widely accepted as a core part of I–O psychology.

The goal of our focal article was to open up a discussion within our profession on a new trend called identified surveys. We feel that we have achieved this goal with the varied and interesting commentaries. At the same time, we do not feel discussion is enough. We as a profession need to better understand the implications and use of identified surveys. We have an obligation to inform others and to have a point of view on how they should be used, taking into account not just an organizational perspective but the point of view of employees as well.

Although work–family research has mushroomed over the past several decades, an implementation gap persists in putting work–family research into practice. Because of this, work–family researchers have not made a significant impact in improving the lives of employees relative to the amount of research that has been conducted. The goal of this article is to clarify areas where implementation gaps between work–family research and practice are prevalent, discuss the importance of reducing these gaps, and make the case that both better and different research should be conducted. We recommend several alternative but complementary actions for the work–family researcher: (a) work with organizations to study their policy and practice implementation efforts, (b) focus on the impact of rapid technological advances that are blurring work–family boundaries, (c) conduct research to empower the individual to self-manage the work–family interface, and (d) engage in advocacy and collaborative policy research to change institutional contexts and break down silos. Increased partnerships between industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology practitioners and researchers from many industries and disciplines could break down silos that we see as limiting development of the field.

The primary federal regulation concerning employment testing has not been revised in over 3 decades. The regulation is substantially inconsistent with scientific knowledge and professional guidelines and practice. We summarize these inconsistencies and outline the problems faced by U.S. employers in complying with the regulations. We describe challenges associated with changing federal regulations and invite commentary as to how such changes can be implemented. We conclude that professional organizations, such as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), should be much more active in promoting science-based federal regulation of employment practices.