In this commentary on "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation," found in this issue of "Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," William Fisher writes that Maul's paper raises issues of validity in survey-based measurement that deserve far wider consideration and scrutiny than they typically receive. He says that if the paper would lead to the kinds of rethinking proposed by the author simply in the terms in which he presents them, that alone would be a very positive consequence. Maul's demonstration that reliability coefficients are not measures of the internal consistency or unidimensionality of an instrument accords exactly with theory, for instance, but remains widely unacknowledged in research and practice (Green, Lissitz, & Mulaik, 1977; Hattie, 1985; Sijtsma, 2009). Fisher offers some alternative paths for rethinking validation processes in survey research. [For "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation," see EJ1156001.]