Early in 2006, my colleagues and I published an article on unproctored Internet testing (UIT) in employment settings (Tippins et al., 2006). The purpose of that article was to identify the issues surrounding UIT and the ways in which those issues might be resolved. The panel of experts addressed a number of important questions about (a) the uses and applications of UIT and (b) the major issues and known problems associated with UIT, including test security, examinee identification, cheating, ethical use of tests, subgroup and cultural issues, standardization, and context effects. In addition, the panelists attempted to predict the future of UIT, highlight the research needed to facilitate UIT and provide advice to practitioners contemplating UIT. In the present article, “UIT” is used to refer to Internet-based testing completed by a candidate without a traditional human proctor. Thus, nontraditional forms of or alternatives to proctoring may be in place, such as quantitative analyses of response patterns, the use of video cameras, or follow-up testing with traditional proctoring.

So, where is unproctored Internet testing (UIT) now? What has happened since 2006? Is the train stalled right outside the station, waiting on answers? Is it lurching forward, making slow but sure progress? Or, is it simply chugging in circles? The original focal article (Tippins, 2009) and the 13 subsequent commentaries are not comprehensive summaries of all the research and thought about UIT and can hardly be considered definitive as a collective body of work. In total, these articles probably do not convince many of the doubters. However, the articles collectively highlight the critical issues faced in UIT, suggest new ideas, and give guidance for the future, indicating the UIT train is at least moving. In this concluding article of the UIT series, I try to summarize where I believe we are in 2009 in terms of the important points that must be taken into consideration when contemplating UIT and emerging questions that industrial and organizational (I–O) psychologists must answer.

The study of work motivation progresses through the inspiration that comes from creating new alignments between scientific understanding and considerations of practical use (cf. D. E. Stokes, 1997). Using the 3 C’s framework for work motivation (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, 2008a, b), I coordinate 5 practical concerns related to work motivation with recent scientific trends in order to encourage the development of new research agendas in the field.

Kanfer (2009) argues that “context” is an important consideration in the study of motivated behavior, but our knowledge of contextual constructs is immature and in need of considerable development. We agree and build on her position by proposing that situational strength (Hough & Oswald, 2008; Mischel, 1977) has the potential to help conceptualize what Johns (2006) calls “discrete context” (i.e., the particular task, social, and physical variables that influence motivation, attitudes, and behavior). The present article briefly describes situational strength, discusses its operationalization and measurement, explores its implications for practice, and describes two research questions that fall within Pasteur’s Quadrant (Stokes, 1997).