The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Consequential validity: Right Concern‐Wrong Concept
Abstract
Why is the I985 view of validity in the Standards clear and useful? Does the issue of social consequences confuse the meaning o f validity? Can we address test use consequences without making them a facet of validity?
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
Cited by
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
On the cultural validity of science assessments
Solano‐Flores, G., & Nelson‐Barber, S. (2001) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.1018 · Cited by 314
Test Validity: A Matter of Consequence
Messick, S. (1998) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1023/a:1006964925094 · Cited by 290
Validity and the consequences of test interpretation and use
Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9843-4 · Cited by 153
The Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Identification Process for Giftedness in Utah
Warne, R. T., Anderson, B., & Johnson, A. O. (2013) · Journal for the Education of the Gifted · doi:10.1177/0162353213506065 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Popham, W. J.
- Venue
- Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 9-13
- ISSN
- 0731-1745 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-3992
- OpenAlex
- W2041218274
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.35
- 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: Consequential validity: Right Concern‐Wrong Concept. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00586.x
- The paper
- Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right Concern‐Wrong Concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00586.x
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.
