s (1994) Need for Closure Scale (NFCS) confounds multiple dimensions and is redundant with existing instruments (S. L. Neuberg, T. N. Judice, & S. G. . A. W. Kruglanski and his colleagues ( 1997) dismissed these findings as "psychometric naysaying," although they presented no data that refute them. Moreover, Kruglanski et al. (1997) suggested that researchers (a) be unconcerned with the NFCS's lack of discriminant validity and (b) use the scale as if it were unidimensional. These recommendations are problematic. Using the NFCS in this manner invites interpretational ambiguity and theoretical confusion. In contrast to the Kruglanski et al. (1997) position, proper psychometric analyses play a critical role in theory testing and in the development of conceptually coherent measures of individual differences.Several years ago, Webster and Kruglanski (1994) presented their Need for Closure Scale (NFCS), an instrument designed to capture individual differences in people's desire to come to relatively quick closure in thejr decisions and judgments. Although young, the NFCS has already demonstrated impressive predictive validity: People who score high on the NFCS are more likely to exhibit impression primacy effects (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), fall victim to the correspondence bias (Webster, 1993), assimilate new information to existing beliefs