Standards-based score reports interpret test performance with reference to cut scores defining categories like "below basic," "proficient," or "master." This article first develops a conceptual framework for validity arguments supporting such interpretations, then presents three applications. Two of these serve to introduce new standard-setting methods. The conceptual framework lays out the logic of validity arguments in support of standards-based score interpretations, focusing on requirements that the performance standard (i.e., the characterization of examinees who surpass the cut score) be defensible both as a description and as a normative judgment, and that the cut score accurately operationalize that performance standard. The three applications illustrate performance standards that differ in the breadth of the claims they set forth. The first, a "criterion-referenced testing" application, features a narrow performance standard that corresponds closely to performance on the test itself. The second, "minimum competency testing," introduces a new standard-setting method that might be used when there is a weaker linkage between the test and the performance standard. The third, a contemporary standards-based testing application, proposes a new procedure whereby the performance standard would be derived directly from the specification for the test itself. (Contains 2 tables and 20 footnotes.)