Recently, Shape Memory Alloys (SMAs) have been receiving more attention and further study, due to their ability to develop extremely large, recoverable strains and great forces. In this paper, three major models of SMA behavior, used in the literature, for studying the static performance of SMA compOnents attributed to Tanaka, Liang and Rogers, and Brinson, have been analyzed and compared. The major differences and similarities between these models have also been emphasized and presented in this paper, based on the experimental data of the shape memory and superelastic behavior of an SMA wire. It is shown that these models all agree well in their prediction of the superelastic behavior of SMAs at higher temperatures, but the models developed by Tanaka, and Liang and Rogers cannot be used for predicting the shape memory effect behavior of SMAs. It is also shown analytically that the original evolution kinetics, proposed by Brinson, in a specified region, are inadmissible for some thermo mechanical loading and initial conditions. Furthermore, corrected evolution kinetics is addressed here in detail, that is, admissible and valid in this region. According to this research, regarding the validation assessment of three major 1-D constitutive models with experimental data, it will be shown that the Brinson model with the corrected evolution kinetics developed by Chung et al. can be applied for the modeling of SMA smart structures, such as flexible SMA beam structures.