This work argues about how assessment measures in reading provide evidence for reading ability. Taking its lead from contemporary psychological theory and other social fields which ponder the role of evidence and argumentation in making claims about social issues, it examines the historical and contemporary ways in which such claims have been made for reading assessment. It critiques traditional individualized and standardized tests from a variety of perspectives. It interviews stakeholders in reading assessment to determine what might be markers of reading accomplishment if traditional measures were not used. Finally, the book considers the assumptions and operational bases of contemporary revisionist assessments - large scale performance-based assessments, authentic assessments and others, in terms for what they include and what they omit. This volume provides a systematic analysis of several different reading assessment instruments and conceptualizations of reading assessment with particular emphasis on the evidence they provide on reading.