The background of this presentation is the research project on the modern commented educational report (Berichtszeugnis, KROPE et al. 2000). It is the type of report, which has been introduced frequently in the FRG as an alternative to the traditional mark report. The new type may be regarded as extremely controversial. The attitudes range from strict disapproval to decided agreement. The research project is based on the assumption that the differences may be explained by a fundamental disagreement on the goals which such a report is supposed to serve. Within this discussion, a rational dialogic method is tested, for a non-dogmatic, circle- free agreement on incompatible goals. It is intended to control the result of this intervention by measuring changes in attitude using objective methods.While developing a method to measure attitudes, a problem has arisen which is the subject of this presentation. Someone, who intends to produce empirically true statements about persons, for example about their opinion concerning the commented educational report, has to rely on a theory for the application or development of tests and questionnaires. At present, two relevant test theories are available. They are based on models, which axiomatically describe the connection between the manifest and the latent parameters (SCHEUCH and ZEHNPFENNIG 1974, p. 134).An axiomatic description is a problematical base for methods intended to give information about persons. In fact, axiomatic theories have no empirical relevance at all in so far as their basic symbols are not semantically interpreted (BUNGE 1967). But if the elements of an axiomatic system cannot be interpreted according to rules, the necessary condition for the validation of empirical statements about persons is no longer applicable. Due to this restriction another problem arises. In analysing the latent structures, the probabilistic test theory may overcome the instructions of extreme behaviourism, which prescribes the observation of external behaviour as opposed to internal motives (WATSON 1966). These models connect external with internal dimensions of the tested persons. But the answers to the question regarding the type of relation between the manifest and the latent dimension are nothing but correctly formed logical sentences in an axiomatic theory. The question of their validity may only be answered within the restriction of the mathematical description of the test method. This test theory which divides its subject into two entities creates a problem which has a parallel in the body-and- mind problem of philosophical tradition. The attempts to solve this problem which are caused by the search for the relation between body and mind cannot be proven empirically (POPPER and ECCLES 1982).The fundamental objections against the modern test theories have been the reason for developing a constructivistic theory of educational measurement (KROPE 2000a). Its basis is the Methodical Constructivism (the Constructivism of the Erlangen School; compare KAMLAH and LORENZEN 1973, LORENZEN 1987). For the purpose of the research project the constructivistic theory has been developed further, an important part of which is the principle of generic acts (Handlungsschemata). It is to be expected that this principle combined with the constructivistic philosophy presented by HARTMANN (1998), will contribute to a solution of the body-and-mind problem, which is of importance beyond the research project. Selected References HARTMANN, D. (1998). Philosophische Grundlagen der Psychologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.KAMLAH, W., LORENZEN, P. (1973). Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. 2nd edn. Mannheim etc.: Bibliographisches Institut. KROPE, P. (2000). Konstruktive Pädagogische Diagnostik. 2nd edn. Münster etc.: Waxmann.LORENZEN, P. (1987). Lehrbuch der konstruktiven Wissenschaftstheorie. Mannheim etc.: BI-Wissenschaftsverlag.MÜLLER, G. E. (1896). Zur Psychophysik der Gesichtsempfindungen. In: Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesempfindungen. 10. pp. 1- 82, 321 - 413.WATSON, J. B. (1966). Behaviorism. Sixth Impression. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.