Frey, A., & Moosbrugger, H.. (2004). Kann die Konfundierung von Konzentrationsleistung und Aktivierung durch adaptives Testen mit dern FAKT vermieden werden? [Avoiding the confounding of concentration performance and activation by adaptive testing with the FACT]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 25, 1-17.

Thompson, N. A. (2011). JATT Special Issue on Adaptive Testing: Welcome and Overview. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 12. presented at the 05/2011. Retrieved from http://www.testpublishers.org/journal-of-applied-testing-technology

Nogami, Y., & Hayashi, N.. (2010). A Japanese Adaptive Test of English as a Foreign Language: Developmental and Operational Aspects. In Elements of Adaptive Testing (pp. 191-211). doi:10.1007/978-0-387-85461-8

Rulison, K. L., & Loken, E.. (2009). I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up: Can High-Ability Students Recover From Early Mistakes in CAT?. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 83-101. doi:10.1177/0146621608324023

Rulison, K. L., & Loken, E.. (2009). I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up: Can High-Ability Students Recover From Early Mistakes in CAT?. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 83-101. doi:10.1177/0146621608324023

Rulison, K.,, & Loken, E.. (2009). I've fallen and I can't get up: can high-ability students recover from early mistakes in CAT?. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(2), 83-101.

Thomas, T. J., & Green, B. F.. (1989). Item-presentation controls for computerized adaptive testing: Content-balancing versus min-CAT (Research Report 89-1). Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Laboratory.

Paap, M. C. S., Kroeze, K. A., Terwee, C. B., van der Palen, J., & Veldkamp, B. P.. (2017). Item usage in a multidimensional computerized adaptive test (MCAT) measuring health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 26, 2909–2918. doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1624-3

Hornke, L. F. (1995). Item times in computerized testing: A new differential information. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11 (Suppl. 1), 108-109.

Sheng, Y., & Sheng, Z.. (2009). Item selection with biased-coin up-and-down designs. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.

Luecht, R. M., & Hirsch, T. M.. (1992). Item selection using an average growth approximation of target information functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 41-51.

Ping, C., Shuliang, D., Haijing, L., & Jie, Z.. (2006). [Item Selection Strategies of Computerized Adaptive Testing based on Graded Response Model.]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38, 461-467.

Chandra, I. (2017). Item Selection Strategies for Developing CAT in Indonesia. In IACAT 2017 Conference. presented at the 08/2017, Niigata Japan: Niiagata Seiryo University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KuFrRATq9Q

Barrada, J. R., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & Abad, F. J.. (2009). Item selection rules in computerized adaptive testing: Accuracy and security. Methodology, 5, 7-17.

Tu, D., Han, Y., Cai, Y., & Gao, X.. (2018). Item Selection Methods in Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Testing With Polytomously Scored Items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 42, 677-694. doi:10.1177/0146621618762748

van Groen, M. M., Eggen, T. J. H. M., & Veldkamp, B. P.. (2014). Item Selection Methods Based on Multiple Objective Approaches for Classifying Respondents Into Multiple Levels. Applied Psychological Measurement, 38, 187-200. doi:10.1177/0146621613509723

van Groen, M., Eggen, T., & Veldkamp, B.. (2011). Item Selection Methods based on Multiple Objective Approaches for Classification of Respondents into Multiple Levels. In Annual Conference of the International Association for Computerized Adaptive Testing. presented at the 10/2011.

Veldkamp, B. P. (2003). Item selection in polytomous CAT. In . H. Yanai, A. Okada, K. Shigemasu, Y Kano, and J. J. Meulman (eds.), New developments in psychometrics (pp. 207-214). Tokyo, Japan: Springer-Verlag.

Veldkamp, B. P. (2003). Item selection in polytomous CAT. In A. Okada, Shigenasu, K., Kano, Y., & Meulman, J., New developments in psychometrics (pp. 207–214). Tokyo, Japan: Psychometric Society, Springer.

Thompson, N. A. (2009). Item selection in computerized classification testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 778-793.

Thompson, N. A. (2009). Item Selection in Computerized Classification Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 778-793. doi:10.1177/0013164408324460

Thompson, N. A. (2007). Item selection in computerized classification testing. In Paper presented at the Conference on High Stakes Testing. University of Nebraska.

Hau, K. T., & Chang, H. - H.. (1998). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Should more discriminating items be used first? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. In .

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.

Hau, K. T., & Chang, H. - H.. (1998). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Should more discriminating items be used first?. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 249-266.

Leung, C. K., Chang, H. - H., & Hau, K. T.. (2002). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Improving the a-stratified design with the Sympson-Hetter algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 376-392.

Leung, C. - K., Chang, H. - H., & Hau, K. - T.. (2002). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Improving the a-stratified design with the Sympson-Hetter algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 376-392.

Leung, C. - K., Chang, H. - H., & Hau, K. - T.. (1999). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: improving the a-stratified design with the Sympson-Hetter algorithm. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, CA.

Eggen, T. (1998). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test (Measurement and Research Department Report, 98-1). Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.

Eggen, T. (1999). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 249-261.

Lin, C. - J., & Chang, H. - H.. (2018). Item Selection Criteria With Practical Constraints in Cognitive Diagnostic Computerized Adaptive Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 0013164418790634. doi:10.1177/0013164418790634

Lin, C. - J., & Chang, H. - H.. (2019). Item Selection Criteria With Practical Constraints in Cognitive Diagnostic Computerized Adaptive Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79, 335-357. doi:10.1177/0013164418790634

Lin, C. - J. (2011). Item Selection Criteria With Practical Constraints for Computerized Classification Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 20-36. doi:10.1177/0013164410387336

Finkelman, M., Weiss, D. J., & Kim-Kang, G.. (2009). Item selection and hypothesis testing for the adaptive measurement of change. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.

Finkelman, M. D., Weiss, D. J., & Kim-Kang, G.. (2010). Item Selection and Hypothesis Testing for the Adaptive Measurement of Change. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(4), 238-254. doi:10.1177/0146621609344844

Chen, C. - W., Wang, W. - C., Chiu, M. Ming, & Ro, S.. (2020). Item Selection and Exposure Control Methods for Computerized Adaptive Testing with Multidimensional Ranking Items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 57, 343-369. doi:10.1111/jedm.12252

Ho, T. - H., & Dodd, B. G.. (2012). Item Selection and Ability Estimation Procedures for a Mixed-Format Adaptive Test. Applied Measurement in Education, 25, 305-326. doi:10.1080/08957347.2012.714686

van der Linden, W. J., & Pashley, P. J.. (2010). Item Selection and Ability Estimation in Adaptive Testing. In Elements of Adaptive Testing (pp. 3-30). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-85461-8

van der Linden, W. J., & Pashley, P. J.. (2000). Item selection and ability estimation in adaptive testing. In Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Garcia, D. A., Santa Cruz, C., Dorronsoro, J. R., & Rubio Franco, V. J.. (2000). Item selection algorithms in computerized adaptive testing. Psicothema, 12, 12-14.

Wise, S. L. (1995). Item review and answer changing in computerized adaptive tests. In Paper presented at the Third European Conference on Psychological Assessment. Trier, Germany.

Kingsbury, G. G. (1996). Item review and adaptive testing. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New York.

Shi, Y. (2017). Item Response Time on Task Effect in CAT. In IACAT 2017 Conference. presented at the 08/2017, Niigata, Japan: Niigata Seiryo University.

Lai, J. - S., Dineen, K., Reeve, B. B., Von Roenn, J., Shervin, D., McGuire, M., et al.. (2005). An item response theory-based pain item bank can enhance measurement precision. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 30, 278-88.

Wainer, H.,, & Mislevy, R. J.. (1990). Item response theory, item calibration, and proficiency estimation. In . H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 65-102). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Ware, J. E., Gandek, B., Sinclair, S. J., & Bjorner, J. B.. (2005). Item response theory in computer adaptive testing: implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol, 50, 71-78.

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.

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.

Wainer, H.,. (1983). On item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: The coming technical revolution in testing. Journal of College Admissions, 28, 9-16.

Reise, S. P., & Waller, N. G.. (2009). Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 27-48.

Segall, D. O. (2002). An item response model for characterizing test compromise. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 163-179.

Flaugher, R. (2000). Item pools. In . Wainer, H. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: a primer. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bock, B. D.,, Muraki, E., & Pfeiffenberger, W.. (1988). Item pool maintenance in the presence of item parameter drift. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 275-285.

Kingsbury, G. G. (1997). Item pool development and maintenance. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Chicago IL.

Segall, D. O., Moreno, K. E., & Hetter, D. H.. (1997). Item pool development and evaluation. In . W. A. Sands, B. K. Waters, and J. R. McBride (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: From inquiry to operation (pp. 117-130). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Reckase, M. D. (2003). Item pool design for computerized adaptive tests. In Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Chicago IL.

Reckase, M. D. (2001). Item pool design for computerized adaptive tests. In Invited small group session at the 6th Conference of the European Association of Psychological Assessment. Aachen, Germany.

He, W., & Reckase, M. D.. (2014). Item Pool Design for an Operational Variable-Length Computerized Adaptive Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 473-494. doi:10.1177/0013164413509629

Reckase, M. D., He, W., Xu, J. - R., & Zhou, X.. (2017). Item Pool Design and Evaluation. In IACAT 2017 Conference. presented at the 08/2017, Niigata, Japan: Niigata Seiryo University. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZAsqm1yNZlliqxEHcyyqQ_vOSu20xxZs

Han, K. T. (2013). Item Pocket Method to Allow Response Review and Change in Computerized Adaptive Testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 259-275. doi:10.1177/0146621612473638