Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P.. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38, II28-II42.

Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F.. (2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 965-973.

Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Andres, P. L., Ludlow, L. H., Ni, P., Bond, T. L., et al.. (2004). Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Medical Care, 42, I49-161.

Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E., J.. (2003). The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: a re-analysis of three clinical studies. Quality of Life Research, 12, 887-902.

Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P.. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38, II28-II42.

Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E., J.. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT). Quality of Life Research, 12, 913-933.

Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R., Read, J. P., De Boeck, P., Wilson, M., Acton, G. S., et al.. (2005). Toward efficient and comprehensive measurement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 29, 1180-1189.

Robinson, D., Porporino, F. J., & Millson, W. A.. (1991). Patterns of alcohol and drug use among federal offenders as assessed by the Computerized Lifestyle Screening Instrument. Ottawa, ON. Canada: Research and Statistics Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.

Barnard, J. J. (2022). Improving Precision of CAT Measures. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Test-ing, 9(1), 1-7. presented at the 10/2022. doi:10.7333/2210-0901001

Wang, J., Weiss, D. J., & Wang, C.. (2017). DIF-CAT: Doubly Adaptive CAT Using Subgroup Information to Improve Measurement Precision. In IACAT 2017 Conference. presented at the 08/2017, Niigata, Japan: Niigata Seiryo University. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Gu4FR06qM5EZNp_Ns0Kt3HzBqWAv3LPy

Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Andres, P. L., Kosinski, M., & Ni, P.. (2004). Score comparability of short forms and computerized adaptive testing: Simulation study with the activity measure for post-acute care. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 661-6. presented at the Apr.

Haley, S. M., Gandek, B., Siebens, H., Black-Schaffer, R. M., Sinclair, S. J., Tao, W., et al.. (2008). Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: II. Participation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 275-283. presented at the Feb.

Haley, S. M., Siebens, H., Coster, W. J., Tao, W., Black-Schaffer, R. M., Gandek, B., et al.. (2006). Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: I. Activity outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87, 1033-42. presented at the Aug.

Shen, Y., Bao, Y., Wang, S., & Bradshaw, L.. (2017). Using Computerized Adaptive Testing to Detect Students’ Misconceptions: Exploration of Item Selection. In IACAT 2017 Conference. presented at the 08/2017, Niigata, Japan: Niigata Seiryo University.

Chien, T. W., Wu, H. M., Wang, W. - C., Castillo, R. V., & Chou, W.. (2009). Reduction in patient burdens with graphical computerized adaptive testing on the ADL scale: tool development and simulation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 39.

Kocalevent, R. D., Rose, M., Becker, J., Walter, O. B., Fliege, H., Bjorner, J. B., et al.. (2009). An evaluation of patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing stress perception. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 278-287.

Cook, K. F., Teal, C. R., Bjorner, J. B., Cella, D., Chang, C. - H., Crane, P. K., et al.. (2007). IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary. Quality of Life Research, 16, 121-132.

Smith, A. B., Rush, R., Velikova, G., Wall, L., Wright, E. P., Stark, D., et al.. (2007). The initial development of an item bank to assess and screen for psychological distress in cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology, 16, 724-732.

Chang, S. - W., & Ansley, T. N.. (2003). A comparative study of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 71-103.

Eton, D. T., Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Reeve, B. B., Talcott, J. A., Clark, J. A., et al.. (2005). Data pooling and analysis to build a preliminary item bank: an example using bowel function in prostate cancer. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28, 142-59.

Teresi, J. A. (2006). Overview of quantitative measurement methods. Equivalence, invariance, and differential item functioning in health applications. Medical Care, 44, S39-49. presented at the Nov.

Teresi, J. A. (2006). Overview of quantitative measurement methods. Equivalence, invariance, and differential item functioning in health applications. Medical Care, 44, S39-49. presented at the Nov.

van der Linden, W. J., Ariel, A., & Veldkamp, B. P.. (2006). Assembling a computerized adaptive testing item pool as a set of linear tests. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 81-99.

Thissen, D., Nelson, L. A., & Swygert, K. A.. (2001). Item response theory applied to combinations of multiple-choice and constructed-response items--approximation methods for scale scores. In Test scoring (pp. 289-315). Mahwah, N.J. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hambleton, R. K. (2000). Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Medical Care, 38, II60-II65.

Hol, A. M., Vorst, H. C. M., & Mellenbergh, G. J.. (2007). Computerized adaptive testing for polytomous motivation items: Administration mode effects and a comparison with short forms. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 412-429.

Cheng, P. E., & Liou, M.. (2003). Computerized adaptive testing using the nearest-neighbors criterion. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 204-216.

Archer, R. P., Tirrell, C. A., & Elkins, D. E.. (2001). Evaluation of an MMPI-A short form: Implications for adaptive testing. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 76-89.

Veldkamp, B. P., van der Linden, W. J., & Ariel, A.. (2002). Mathematical-programming approaches to test item pool design (No. RR 02-09) (pp. 93-108). Twente, The Netherlands: University of Twente, Faculty of Educational Science and Technology.

Meijer, R. R. (2002). Outlier detection in high-stakes certification testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39, 219-233.

Reckase, M., Ju, U., & Kim, S.. (2019). How Adaptive Is an Adaptive Test: Are All Adaptive Tests Adaptive?. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 7(1), 1-14. doi:10.7333/1902-0701001

Chen, S. - Y., Ankenmann, R. D., & Chang, H. - H.. (2000). A comparison of item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 241-255.

Cheng, P. E., & Liou, M.. (2000). Estimation of trait level in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 257-265.

Cheng, P. E., & Liou, M.. (2003). Computerized adaptive testing using the nearest-neighbors criterion. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 204-216.

Meijer, R. R. (2002). Outlier detection in high-stakes certification testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39, 219-233.

Roberts, J. S., Lin, Y., & Laughlin, J. E.. (2001). Computerized adaptive testing with the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 177-196.

Stark, S., & Drasgow, F.. (2002). An EM approach to parameter estimation for the Zinnes and Griggs paired comparison IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 208-227.

Thissen, D., Nelson, L. A., & Swygert, K. A.. (2001). Item response theory applied to combinations of multiple-choice and constructed-response items--approximation methods for scale scores. In Test scoring (pp. 289-315). Mahwah, N.J. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ban, J. - C., Hanson, B. A., Yi, Q., & Harris, D. J.. (2002). Data sparseness and on-line pretest item calibration-scaling methods in CAT. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39, 207-218.

Archer, R. P., Tirrell, C. A., & Elkins, D. E.. (2001). Evaluation of an MMPI-A short form: Implications for adaptive testing. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 76-89.

Stark, S., & Drasgow, F.. (2002). An EM approach to parameter estimation for the Zinnes and Griggs paired comparison IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 208-227.

Ruscio, J., & Ruscio, A. M.. (2002). A structure-based approach to psychological measurement: Matching measurement models to latent structure. Assessment, 9, 4-16.

Bradlow, E. T., & Weiss, R. E.. (2001). Outlier measures and norming methods for computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 26, 85-104.

Cheng, P. E., & Liou, M.. (2003). Computerized adaptive testing using the nearest-neighbors criterion. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 204-216.

Hau, K. - T., & Chang, H. - H.. (2001). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Should more discriminating items be used first?. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 249-266.

Koppel, N. B. (2000). Lagrangian relaxation for constrained curve-fitting with binary variables: Applications in educational testing. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 61, 1063.

Muñiz, J.. (2005). La Validez desde una óptica psicométrica [Validity from a psychometric perspective]. Acta Comportamentalia, 13, 9-20.

Linn, R. L., Rock, D. A., & Cleary, T. A.. (1972). Sequential testing for dichotomous decisions. . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 85-95.

Reckase, M. D. (1983). A procedure for decision making using tailored testing. In New horizons in testing: Latent trait theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 237-254). New York, NY. USA: Academic Press.

van der Linden, W. J. (2005). A comparison of item-selection methods for adaptive tests with content constraints. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42, 283-302.

Beeman, P. B., & Waterhouse, J. K.. (2001). NCLEX-RN performance: predicting success on the computerized examination. Journal of Professional Nursing, 17, 158-165. presented at the Jul-Aug.

Chakravarty, E. F., Bjorner, J. B., & Fries, J. F.. (2007). Improving patient reported outcomes using item response theory and computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Rheumatology, 34, 1426-31. presented at the Jun.

Chen, S. - Y., & Doong, S. H.. (2008). Predicting item exposure parameters in computerized adaptive testing. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 75-91. presented at the May.

Cheng, Y., & Chang, H. - H.. (2009). The maximum priority index method for severely constrained item selection in computerized adaptive testing. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 369-83. presented at the May.

Gardner, W., Shear, K., Kelleher, K. J., Pajer, K. A., Mammen, O., Buysse, D., & Frank, E.. (2004). Computerized adaptive measurement of depression: A simulation study. BMC Psychiatry, 4, 13-23.

Haley, S. M., Ni, P., Hambleton, R. K., Slavin, M. D., & Jette, A. M.. (2006). Computer adaptive testing improved accuracy and precision of scores over random item selection in a physical functioning item bank. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 1174-82. presented at the Nov.

Newton, D. W., Boyle, M., & Catizone, C. A.. (2008). The NAPLEX: evolution, purpose, scope, and educational implications. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72, 33. presented at the Apr 15.

Unick, G. J., Shumway, M., & Hargreaves, W.. (2008). Are we ready for computerized adaptive testing?. Psychiatric Services, 59, 369. presented at the Apr.

Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E., J.. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT). Quality of Life Research, 12, 913-933.

Bouchard, J. (1990). Future directions for the National Council: the Computerized Adaptive Testing Project. Issues, 11, 1, 3, 5.