Export 2294 results:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 
C
Giouroglou, H., & Economides, A. A.. (2003). Cognitive CAT in foreign language assessment. In Proceedings 11th International PEG Conference. Powerful ICT Tools for Learning and Teaching, PEG '03, CD-ROM, 2003.
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1986). A cognitive error diagnostic adaptive testing system. In . the 28th ADCIS International Conference Proceedings. Washington DC: ADCIS.
Stenson, H., Graves, P., Gardiner, J., & Dally, L.. (1991). Collected works on the legal aspects of computerized adaptive testing. Chicago, IL: National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Inc.
McGlohen, M., & Chang, H. - H.. (2008). Combining computer adaptive testing technology with cognitively diagnostic assessment. Behavioral Research Methods , 40, 808-21. presented at the Aug.
McGlohen, M. K., Chang, H. - H., & Wills, J. T.. (2004). Combining computer adaptive testing technology with cognitively diagnostic assessment. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. San Diego CA.
PDF icon mcgl04-01.pdf (781.41 KB)
Green, B. F. (2011). A Comment on Early Student Blunders on Computer-Based Adaptive Tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35(2), 165-174. doi:10.1177/0146621610377080
Green, B. F. (2011). A Comment on Early Student Blunders on Computer-Based Adaptive Tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 165-174. doi:10.1177/0146621610377080
Green, B. F. (1970). Comments on tailored testing. In . W. H. Holtzman, (Ed.), Computer-assisted instruction, testing, and guidance (pp. 184-197). New York: Harper and Row.
McBride, J. R. (1989). Commercial applications of computerized adaptive testing. In C.E. Davis Chair, Computerized Adaptive Testing–Military and Commercial Developments Ten Years Later: Symposium conducted at the Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association (524-529). San Antonio, TX.
Roper, B. L. (1993). Comparability and validity of computerized adaptive testing with the MMPI-2. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 3791.
Roper, B. L., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N.. (1995). Comparability and validity of computerized adaptive testing with the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 358-71. presented at the Oct.
Handel, R. W., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Watt, M.. (1997). Comparability and validity of computerized adaptive testing with the MMPI-2 using a clinical sample. In Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Symposium and Recent Developments in the use of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. Minneapolis MN.
Shudong Wang,, Hong Jiao,, Young, M. J., Brooks, T., & Olson, J.. (2008). Comparability of Computer-Based and Paper-and-Pencil Testing in K–12 Reading Assessments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 5-24. doi:10.1177/0013164407305592
Roper, B. L., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N.. (1991). Comparability of computerized adaptive and conventional testing with the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 278-290. presented at the Oct.
Schaeffer, G. A., Bridgeman, B., Golub-Smith, M. L., Lewis, C., Potenza, M. T., & Steffen, M.. (1998). Comparability of paper-and-pencil and computer adaptive test scores on the GRE General Test (No. ETS Research Report 98-38). presented at the August, 1998, Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Services.
Eignor, D. R., & Schaffer, G. A.. (1995). Comparability studies for the GRE CAT General Test and the NCLEX using CAT. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. San Francisco.
Gorman, S. (1980). A comparative evaluation of two Bayesian adaptive ability estimation procedures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the Catholic University of America.
PDF icon go80-02.pdf (762.83 KB)
Patsula, L. N., & Hambleton, R. K.. (1999). A comparative study of ability estimates from computer-adaptive testing and multi-stage testing. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Montreal Canada.
Chang, S. - W., & Twu, B. - Y.. (1998). A comparative study of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Research Report Series 98-3, Iowa City: American College Testing.
Chang, S. - W. (1998). A comparative study of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa , Iowa City IA.
Lau, C. A., & Wang, T.. (1998). Comparing and combining dichotomous and polytomous items with SPRT procedure in computerized classification testing. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego.
PDF icon la98-01.pdf (374.46 KB)
Wise, S. L., Roos, L. L., & Plake, B. S.. (1994). Comparing computerized adaptive and self-adapted tests: The influence of examinee achievement locus of control. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New Orleans LA.
Lei, P. - W., Chen, S. - Y., & Yu, L.. (2006). Comparing Methods of Assessing Differential Item Functioning in a Computerized Adaptive Testing Environment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 245–264. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2006.00015.x
File Recalibrating Drifting Items in CAT MS.docx (543.3 KB)
Yao, L. (2013). Comparing the Performance of Five Multidimensional CAT Selection Procedures With Different Stopping Rules. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 3-23. doi:10.1177/0146621612455687
Leung, C. - K., Chang, H. - H., & Hau, K. - T.. (2002). Comparing three item selection approaches for computerized adaptive testing with content balancing requirement. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New Orleans LA.
PDF icon le02-01.pdf (225.92 KB)
Olsen, J. B., Maynes, D. D., Slawson, D., & Ho, K.. (1986). Comparison and equating of paper-administered, computer-administered, and computerized adaptive tests of achievement. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco CA.
Jiao, H., Liu, J., Haynie, K., Woo, A., & Gorham, J.. (2012). Comparison Between Dichotomous and Polytomous Scoring of Innovative Items in a Large-Scale Computerized Adaptive Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 493-509. doi:10.1177/0013164411422903
McKinley, R. L.,, & Reckase, M. D.. (1981). A comparison of a Bayesian and a maximum likelihood tailored testing procedure. Research Report 81-2. Columbia MO: University of Missouri, Department of Educational Psychology, Tailored Testing Research Laboratory.
Rosso, M. A., & Reckase, M. D.. (1981). A comparison of a maximum likelihood and a Bayesian estimation procedure for tailored testing. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Los Angeles CA.
Diao, Q., & Reckase, M.. (2009). Comparison of ability estimation and item selection methods in multidimensional computerized adaptive testing. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.
PDF icon cat09diao.pdf (341.8 KB)
Kingsbury, G. G., & Houser, R. L.. (1988). A comparison of achievement level estimates from computerized adaptive testing and paper-and-pencil testing. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans LA.
PDF icon ki88-01.pdf (42.27 KB)
Chen, P. H. (2009). Comparison of adaptive Bayesian estimation and weighted Bayesian estimation in multidimensional computerized adaptive testing. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.
PDF icon cat09chen.pdf (307.42 KB)
Jacobs-Cassuto, M. S. (2005). A comparison of adaptive mastery testing using testlets with the 3-parameter logistic model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
PDF icon ja05-01.pdf (644.06 KB)
Kingsbury, G. G., & Weiss, D. J.. (1980). A comparison of adaptive, sequential, and conventional testing strategies for mastery decisions (Research Report 80-4). Minneapolis, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laboratory.
PDF icon ki80-04.pdf (1.86 MB)
Frick, T. W. (1989). A comparison of an expert systems approach to computerized adaptive testing and an IRT model. Unpublished manuscript (submitted to American Educational Research Journal).
Maurelli, V. A. (1978). A comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood scoring in a simulated stradaptive test. Unpublished Masters thesis, St. Mary’s University of Texas, San Antonio TX.
Choi, S. W., & Swartz, R. J.. (2009). Comparison of CAT item selection criteria for polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 419–440.
Choi, S. W., & Swartz, R. J.. (2009). Comparison of CAT Item Selection Criteria for Polytomous Items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 419-440. doi:10.1177/0146621608327801
Lewis, M. J., Subhiyah, R. G., & Morrison, C. A.. (1995). A comparison of classification agreement between adaptive and full-length test under the 1-PL and 2-PL models. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco CA.
Dolan, S. (1993). A comparison of computer adaptive test administration methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Smith, R. L., & Lewis, C.. (2002). A comparison of computer mastery models when pool characteristics vary. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New Orleans LA.
PDF icon sm02-01.pdf (691.36 KB)
Zara, A. (1992). A comparison of computerized adaptive and paper-and-pencil versions of the national registered nurse licensure examination. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco CA.
Kim-Kang, G., & Weiss, D. J.. (2007). Comparison of computerized adaptive testing and classical methods for measuring individual change. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.). Proceedings of the 2007 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.
PDF icon cat07kim-kang.pdf (346.06 KB)

Pages