Communication research will often tout that it “tests theory,” even though it (a) forms hypotheses by combining multiple theories, (b) modifies hypotheses from theory to match a researcher’s own perspective, and/or (c) uses inadequate methods for causal inference. Such studies should be considered nondiagnostic for theory testing as (a) their hypotheses are derived from theory in name only and (b) their patterns of results would be consistent with an infinite number of alternative explanations. This working group will discuss how communication research often fails to meet the necessary conditions for falsification and guidelines for improving hypothesis generation/testing (e.g., treating a theory as “capital-t True” when generating hypotheses). Specific questions for discussion include (1) How do we determine whether a theory is capable of being treated as capital-T “True”?, (2) What makes a concept/process sufficiently defined for theory testing?, (3) Should theory extensions require data?, and (4) Can we establish criteria for what should be considered theory-testing research?.