Link to working document: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UOGBnjpCr-CZG2AER8pBdsre3Z2mid_DPf-IT6mwxO8/edit?usp=sharing][1] The quality of any measuring instrument is limited by the clarity and coherence of the definition of the target construct. However, instrument validation procedures have historically focused on statistical issues; as a result, it is possible to meet standardly accepted criteria for validity even when a construct definition is ill-formed, incoherent, or under-articulated. This has arguably led to a crisis of confidence in psychological measurement. In part, this may relate to the lack of systematization of practices in how constructs are defined. Even researchers committed to transparency may have trouble seeing how to apply values of open science to the theoretical work involved in defining relevant phenomena. In this session we hope to discuss strategies for systematizing language use and practices to establish new normative criteria for construct definitions, and possibly help facilitate conceptual and linguistic clarity in the psychological sciences more generally. [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UOGBnjpCr-CZG2AER8pBdsre3Z2mid_DPf-IT6mwxO8/edit?usp=sharing