<p>Since the 1970s, intelligence growth mindset and related interventions have received considerable attention for their potential impact on motivation and learning. However, since 2017, significant controversies have emerged, with reviews pointing to wide variability in the effectiveness of mindset interventions and raising concerns about rigor within the mindset research field. While long-term strategies are essential to address these challenges comprehensively, this paper outlines several short-term improvements that could enhance the quality and reliability of mindset studies more immediately. Specifically, we examine three critical areas where mindset measurement varies widely across studies: (1) evaluating only fixed versus both fixed and growth mindset beliefs; (2) assessments of domain-general versus domain-specific abilities, and (3) distinctions between self-theories and other-theories. Grounded in Carol Dweck’s foundational 1999 work and augmented by recent research, we discuss why these sources of variability pose challenges to primary and secondary research in the field and propose research directions to clarify the impact of mindset beliefs. With this paper, we aim to contribute to a more cohesive and robust foundation for mindset research.</p>