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

Harris, J. D., & Smith, P. F.. (1979). A comparison of a standard and a computerized adaptive paradigm in Bekesy fixed-frequency audiometry. Journal of Auditory Research, 19, 1-22.

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

Patsula, L. N. (2000). A comparison of computerized adaptive testing and multistage testing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 60, 5829.

Smits, N., & Finkelman, M. D.. (2013). A Comparison of Computerized Classification Testing and Computerized Adaptive Testing in Clinical Psychology. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 1(2), 19-37. doi:10.7333/1302-0102019

Waters, C. J., & Bayroff, A. G.. (1971). A comparison of computer-simulated conventional and branching tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 125-136.

Su, Y. - H. (2016). A Comparison of Constrained Item Selection Methods in Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 40, 346-360. doi:10.1177/0146621616639305

Li, J., & van der Linden, W. J.. (2018). A Comparison of Constraint Programming and Mixed-Integer Programming for Automated Test-Form Generation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 55, 435-456. doi:10.1111/jedm.12187

Riley, B. B., Dennis, M. L., & Conrad, K. J.. (2010). A Comparison of Content-Balancing Procedures for Estimating Multiple Clinical Domains in Computerized Adaptive Testing: Relative Precision, Validity, and Detection of Persons With Misfitting Responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 410-423. doi:10.1177/0146621609349802

Riley, B. B., Dennis, M. L., & Conrad, K. J.. (2010). A comparison of content-balancing procedures for estimating multiple clinical domains in computerized adaptive testing: Relative precision, validity, and detection of persons with misfitting responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 410-423.

Boyd, A. M., Dodd, B., & Fitzpatrick, S.. (2013). A Comparison of Exposure Control Procedures in CAT Systems Based on Different Measurement Models for Testlets. Applied Measurement in Education, 26, 113-135. doi:10.1080/08957347.2013.765434

Leroux, A. J., Lopez, M., Hembry, I., & Dodd, B. G.. (2013). A Comparison of Exposure Control Procedures in CATs Using the 3PL Model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 857-874. doi:10.1177/0013164413486802

Lee, H. Y., & Dodd, B. G.. (2012). Comparison of Exposure Controls, Item Pool Characteristics, and Population Distributions for CAT Using the Partial Credit Model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 159-175. doi:10.1177/0013164411411296

He, W., Diao, Q., & Hauser, C.. (2014). A Comparison of Four Item-Selection Methods for Severely Constrained CATs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 677-696. doi:10.1177/0013164413517503

Ito, K., & Segall, D. O.. (2013). A Comparison of Four Methods for Obtaining Information Functions for Scores From Computerized Adaptive Tests With Normally Distributed Item Difficulties and Discriminations. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 1(5), 88-107. doi:10.7333/1312-0105088

Kim, S., Moses, T., & Yoo, H. (Henry). (2015). A Comparison of IRT Proficiency Estimation Methods Under Adaptive Multistage Testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 52, 70–79. doi:10.1111/jedm.12063

Hetter, R. D., Segall, D. O., & Bloxom, B. M.. (1994). A comparison of item calibration media in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 197-204.

Hetter, R. D., Segall, D. O., & Bloxom, B. M.. (1994). A Comparison of Item Calibration Media in Computerized Adaptive Testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(3).

Revuelta, J.,, & Ponsoda, V.. (1998). A comparison of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 311-327.

Schnipke, D. L.,, & Green, B. F.. (1995). A comparison of item selection routines in linear and adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 227-242.

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.

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.

Pastor, D. A., Dodd, B. G., & Chang, H. - H.. (2002). A comparison of item selection techniques and exposure control mechanisms in CATs using the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 147-163.

Murphy, D. L., Dodd, B. G., & Vaughn, B. K.. (2010). A Comparison of Item Selection Techniques for Testlets. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 424-437. doi:10.1177/0146621609349804

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.

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.

Chen, S. - K. (1997). A comparison of maximum likelihood estimation and expected a posteriori estimation in computerized adaptive testing using the generalized partial credit model. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 58, 453.

Chen, S. - K. (2007). The comparison of maximum likelihood estimation and expected a posteriori in CAT using the graded response model. Journal of Elementary Education, 19, 339-371.

Chen, S., Hou, L., & Dodd, B. G.. (1998). A comparison of maximum likelihood estimation and expected a posteriori estimation in CAT using the partial credit model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 569-595.

Barrada, J. R., Abad, F. J., & Veldkamp, B. P.. (2009). Comparison of methods for controlling maximum exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Psicothema, 21, 313-320. presented at the May.

Brossman, B. G., & Guille, R. A.. (2014). A Comparison of Multi-Stage and Linear Test Designs for Medium-Size Licensure and Certification Examinations. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 2(2), 18-36. presented at the 02-2014. doi:10.7333/1402-0202018

Hockemeyer, C. (2002). A comparison of non-deterministic procedures for the adaptive assessment of knowledge. Psychologische Beitrge, 44, 495-503.

Kuan, T. H. (1991). A comparison of paper-and-pencil, computer-administered, computerized feedback, and computerized adaptive testing methods for classroom achievement testing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 1719.

Kingsbury, G. G. (1991). A comparison of procedures for content-sensitive item selection. Applied Measurement in Education.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A.. (1991). A comparison of procedures for content-sensitive item selection in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 241-261.

Wise, S. L., Plake, S. S., Johnson, P. L., & Roos, S. L.. (1992). A comparison of self-adapted and computerized adaptive achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 329-339.

Spray, J. A., & Reckase, M. D.. (1996). Comparison of SPRT and sequential Bayes procedures for classifying examinees into two categories using a computerized test. Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 21, 405-414.

de Ayala, R. J. (1989). A comparison of the nominal response model and the three-parameter logistic model in computerized adaptive testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 789-805.

De Ayala, R. J., Dodd, B. G., & Koch, W. R.. (1992). A comparison of the partial credit and graded response models in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 17-34.

Wainer, H.,, Kaplan, B., & Lewis, C.. (1992). A comparison of the performance of simulated hierarchical and linear testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 243-251.

Jodoin, M. G., Zenisky, A., & Hambleton, R. K.. (2006). Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of Several Computer-Based Test Designs for Credentialing Exams With Multiple Purposes. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 203-220. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1903_3

Frick, T. W. (1990). A comparison of three decision models for adapting the length of computer-based mastery tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(4), 479-513.

Riley, B. B., & Carle, A. C.. (2012). Comparison of two Bayesian methods to detect mode effects between paper-based and computerized adaptive assessments: a preliminary Monte Carlo study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 12, 124. presented at the 2012. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-124

Olson, J. B., Maynes, D. D., Slawson, D., & Ho, K.. (1989). Comparisons of paper-administered, computer-administered and computerized adaptive achievement tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 311-326.

Bezruczko, N. (1999). Competency gradient for child-parent centers. Journal of Outcomes Measurement, 3, 35-52.

Cliff, N. A. (1975). Complete orders from incomplete data: Interactive ordering and tailored testing. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 259-302.

Gershon, R. C. (2005). Computer adaptive testing. Journal of Applied Measurement , 6, 109-27.

Lunz, M. E., Bergstrom, B. A., & Gershon, R. C.. (1994). Computer adaptive testing. International journal of Educational Research, 6, 623-634.

Gershon, R. C. (2005). Computer adaptive testing. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6, 109-27.

Carlson, R. D. (1993). Computer adaptive testing: A comparison of four item selection strategies when used with the golden section search strategy for estimating ability. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 1772.

Smittle, P. (1993). Computer adaptive testing: A new era. Journal of Developmental Education, 17 (1), 8-10.

Carlson, R. (1994). Computer adaptive testing: A shift in the evaluation paradigm. Educational Technology Systems, 22 (3), 213-224.

Andres, P. L., Black-Schaffer, R. M., Ni, P., & Haley, S. M.. (2004). Computer adaptive testing: a strategy for monitoring stroke rehabilitation across settings. Stroke Rehabilitation, 11, 33-39. presented at the Spring.

Haley, S. M., Ni, P., Fragala-Pinkham, M. A., Skrinar, A. M., & Corzo, D.. (2005). A computer adaptive testing approach for assessing physical functioning in children and adolescents. Developmental Medicine and Child Neuropsychology, 47, 113-120. presented at the Feb.

Diones, R., & Everson, H.. (1994). Computer adaptive testing: Assessment of the future. Curriculum/Technology Quarterly, 4 (2), 1-3.

Rudner, L. M., & Guo, F.. (2011). Computer adaptive testing for small scale programs and instructional systems. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 12(1).

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.

Haley, S., Ni, P., Hambleton, R. K., Slavin, M., & Jette, A.. (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, 1174-1182.

Dijkers, M. P. (2003). A computer adaptive testing simulation applied to the FIM instrument motor component. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 84, 384-393.