During the past 30 years, individual psychological assessment (IPA) has gained in use and in value to organizations in the management of human resources. However, even though IPA is considered a core competency for industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology, its practice is not without critics. This article is written not only to address several criticisms of IPA but also to discuss a variety of issues that must be taken into consideration if IPA is to advance as a major component of the I–O scientist–practitioner model. We rely upon a working definition of IPA in general but, when possible, focus on executive assessment in particular, given its high level of complexity and growing popularity. We discuss the effectiveness of assessment practice, including the ongoing statistical versus clinical prediction argument and the difficulties with establishing validity. Although we are confident that IPA has many strong research and practice underpinnings, we also propose some important research questions, training guidelines, and opportunities for assessing psychologists to improve their practices.

Individual Psychological Assessment is widely practiced among I–O psychologists and supported as a core competency by a majority of the commentaries. Our response addresses some of the key points made in the commentaries, such as issues related to the definition, contextual and criterion variables, interpretation and integration methods, validity evidence, professional matters, and future research directions. We also respond to a few critics who want to entirely eliminate expert assessor judgment in IPAs. Models are presented for using assessor judgment and mechanical methods in IPAs and for distinguishing naïve and sophisticated IPA researchers and practitioners. We conclude that IPA is now widely accepted as a core part of I–O psychology.

Although work–family research has mushroomed over the past several decades, an implementation gap persists in putting work–family research into practice. Because of this, work–family researchers have not made a significant impact in improving the lives of employees relative to the amount of research that has been conducted. The goal of this article is to clarify areas where implementation gaps between work–family research and practice are prevalent, discuss the importance of reducing these gaps, and make the case that both better and different research should be conducted. We recommend several alternative but complementary actions for the work–family researcher: (a) work with organizations to study their policy and practice implementation efforts, (b) focus on the impact of rapid technological advances that are blurring work–family boundaries, (c) conduct research to empower the individual to self-manage the work–family interface, and (d) engage in advocacy and collaborative policy research to change institutional contexts and break down silos. Increased partnerships between industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology practitioners and researchers from many industries and disciplines could break down silos that we see as limiting development of the field.