Consequential validity: Right Concern‐Wrong Concept

157 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. (2009, background): “These contrasting positions regarding how to interpret the sex differences foreshadowed the wider debate in psychology over whether test consequences fall within the realm of validity (e.g., Linn, 1997; Messick, 1989; Popham, 1997; Shepard, 1997).”
The Consequences of Consequential Validity. (2005, background): “In the articles that stimulated this response, both Popham and Shepard make cogent and articulate points with respect to the issue of consequential validity. Shepard makes a well-reasoned plea for the centrality of test use and consequences for validity. As she correctly notes, the “debate is not wh”
The validity of formative assessment (2011, background): “This is a consequential argument, an approach both championed (Shepard, 1997) and disputed ( Popham, 1997 ) in test validity1.”
The Reliability, Validity, and Utility of Self-Assessment (2006, background): “Popham (1997) argued that the consequences of assessment should be a major concern of right minded people but cluttering the concept of validity with issues of the effects of test use sows confusion.”
Validity and the Consequences of Test Interpretation and Use (2011, background): “no place in validity, their argument tends to be based on a misconception that social consequences are about test use and, in particular, test misuse (cf. Brennan 2006; Mehrens 1997; Popham 1997).”