This article explores an approach for test score validation that examines test takers' strategies for taking a reading comprehension test. The authors formulated three working hypotheses about score validity pertaining to three types of test-taking strategy (comprehending meaning, test management, and test-wiseness). These hypotheses were formulated in terms of the use of three types of test-taking strategy and their relationships with performance on specific task types (testlets) and overall test performances. We illustrated the proposed method for validation using example data from the Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program-General (CELPIP-General) reading pilot test. The findings were that (a) test takers were engaging more in processing the texts for comprehending meaning, less in test-management skills, and least in test-wiseness; (b) at the task level, task characteristics (e.g., difficulty) had implications on test takers' engagement with different types of strategies, which, in turn, led to differences in predicting task performances; and (c) at the test level, higher engagement in comprehending meaning led to higher test performance, engagement in test management showed a small negative association with test performance, and higher engagement in test-wiseness led to poorer performance. The high congruence between the working hypotheses and the empirical results offered plausible evidence that supported the validity of CELPIP-General reading scores. Revisions to both hypotheses and research design that might improve the proposed validation method are reviewed in the "Discussion" section.