Validity in Educational & Psychological Assessment
Open accessAbstract
Validity and Validation The Genesis of Validity: Mid-1800s-1951 The Fragmentation of Validity: 1952-1974 The (Re)Unification of Validity: 1975-1999 The Deconstruction of Validity: 2000-2012 Twenty-first-century Evaluation
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
From an economic rationalist view in which students' success is strongly linked to the outcomes of education, trustworthy outcomes from assessments are required.
“Also, from an economic rationalist view in which students' success is strongly linked to the outcomes of education, trustworthy outcomes from assessments are required (MacDonald & Brooker, 1999;Newton & Shaw, 2014).”
From Taking a future perspective by learning from the past – A systematic review of assessment instruments that aim to measure primary and secondary school students' ICT literacy (2016) · cites this paper as Newton & Shaw, 2014
The available passages, headed “Assessment for Learning” (page not given), discuss assessment’s role in learning, grading, and feedback. Searches for economic rationalism and trustworthy assessment outcomes found no passage linking students’ success to educational outcomes in the way claimed. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNewton and Shaw (2014) suggested a new framework for 21st-century evaluation.
“Newton and Shaw (2014) have made an attempt to address this and suggested a new framework for 21st-century evaluation.”
From Taking a future perspective by learning from the past – A systematic review of assessment instruments that aim to measure primary and secondary school students' ICT literacy (2016) · cites this paper as Newton and Shaw (2014)
The indexed copy contains an Assessment Reform Group leaflet on principles of assessment for learning, with no section or page labels. Searches for a “new framework for 21st-century evaluation” and for Newton and Shaw’s evaluation framework found no passage addressing the claimed proposal. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Siddiq, F., Hatlevik, O. E., Olsen, R. V., Throndsen, I., & Scherer, R. (2016) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.05.002 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
- Authors
- Newton, P. E., & Shaw, S. D.
- Venue
- SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications Ltd
- Published
- 2014
- OpenAlex
- W419007064
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 10.64
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- validity, validation, educational assessment, psychological assessment, psychometrics, measurement theory, history of psychology
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
