The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Concept of Validity.
Abstract
This article advances a simple conception of test validity: A test is valid for measuring an attribute if (a) the attribute exists and (b) variations in the attribute causally produce variation in the measurement outcomes. This conception is shown to diverge from current validity theory in several respects. In particular, the emphasis in the proposed conception is on ontology, reference, and causality, whereas current validity theory focuses on epistemology, meaning, and correlation. It is argued that the proposed conception is not only simpler but also theoretically superior to the position taken in the existing literature. Further, it has clear theoretical and practical implications for validation research. Most important, validation research must not be directed at the relation between the measured attribute and other attributes but at the processes that convey the effect of the measured attribute on the test scores.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Pearl, J. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803161 · Cited by 11,653
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286 · Cited by 3,970
Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305 · Cited by 3,618
The theoretical status of latent variables.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.203 · Cited by 1,566
Self-citationStatistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291393 · Cited by 1,481
Cited by
The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175 · Cited by 3,107
Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores
Kane, M. T. (2013) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/jedm.12000 · Cited by 2,110
Comorbidity: a network perspective
Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Borsboom, D. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x09991567 · Cited by 1,575
Self-citationCultures and Selves: A Cycle of Mutual Constitution
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610375557 · Cited by 1,625
The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002 · Cited by 1,509
Metadata
- Authors
- Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2004
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1061-1071
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2132218683
- Cited by
- 1,674
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 44.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Concept of Validity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-295x.111.4.1061
- The paper
- Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The Concept of Validity. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.111.4.1061
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
