Almond, R. G., & Mislevy, R. J.. (1999). Graphical models and computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 223-37.

Armstrong, R. D., Jones, D. H., Koppel, N. B., & Pashley, P. J.. (2004). Computerized adaptive testing with multiple-form structures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 147-164.

Barrada, J. R., Olea, J., & Ponsoda, V.. (2007). Methods for restricting maximum exposure rate in computerized adaptative testing. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 3, 14-23.

Ben-Porath, Y. S., Slutske, W. S., & Butcher, J. N.. (1989). A real-data simulation of computerized adaptive administration of the MMPI. Psychological Assessment, 1, 18-22.

Berg, S. R. (1996). Dynamic scaling: An ipsative procedure using techniques from computer adaptive testing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 56, 5824.

Bergstrom, B. A., Lunz, M. E., & Gershon, R. C.. (1992). Altering the level of difficulty in computer adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 137-149.

Bergstrom, B. A., & Lunz, M. E.. (1999). CAT for certification and licensure. In Innovations in computerized assessment (pp. 67-91). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bergstrom, B. A., & Lunz, M. E.. (1994). The equivalence of Rasch item calibrations and ability estimates across modes of administration. In Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 2, pp. 122-128). Norwood, N.J. USA: Ablex Publishing Co.

Bode, R. K., Lai, J. - S., Dineen, K., Heinemann, A. W., Shevrin, D., Von Roenn, J., & Cella, D.. (2006). Expansion of a physical function item bank and development of an abbreviated form for clinical research. Journal of Applied Measurement, 7, 1-15.

Buyske, S. G. (1999). Optimal design for item calibration in computerized adaptive testing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 59, 4220.

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.

Chang, H. - H., Qian, J., & Yang, Z.. (2001). a-stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing with b blocking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 333-41.

Chang, S. - H. (1991). Inter-subtest branching in computerized adaptive testing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 140-141.

Chang, H. - H., & Ying, Z.. (1999). a-stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 211-222.

Chen, S. - Y., & Ankenmann, R. D.. (2004). Effects of practical constraints on item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 149-174.

Chen, S. - K., Hou, L. Y., Fitzpatrick, S. J., & Dodd, B. G.. (1997). The effect of population distribution and method of theta estimation on computerized adaptive testing (CAT) using the rating scale model. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 57, 422-439.

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.

Claudio, M. J. C. (1998). Applications of network flows to computerized adaptive testing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 59, 0855.

Conejo, R., Guzmán, E., Millán, E., Trella, M., Pérez-De-La-Cruz, J. L., & Ríos, A.. (2004). Siette: a web-based tool for adaptive testing. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 29-61.

Cowan, P., & Morrison, H.. (2001). Assessment in the twenty-first century: A role of computerised adaptive testing in national curriculum subjects. Teacher Development, 5, 241-57.

Coyle, J. (2001). Final answer?. American School Board Journal, 188, 24-26.

Davis, L. L. (2004). Strategies for controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 165-185.

de Ayala, R. J., Dodd, B. G., & Koch, W. R.. (1990). A simulation and comparison of flexilevel and Bayesian computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 227-239.

de Ayala, R. J. (1988). Computerized adaptive testing: A comparison of the nominal response model and the three parameter model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 3148.

DeMars, C. E. (2022). The (non)Impact of Misfitting Items in Computerized Adaptive Testing. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 9(2). doi:10.7333/2211-0902008

Dorronsoro, J. R., Santa-Cruz, C., Rubio Franco, V. J., & Aguado García, D.. (2000). Algoritmo mixto mínima entropía-máxima información para la selección de ítems en un test adaptativo informatizado. Psicothema, 12, 12-14.

Drasgow, F., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B.. (1999). Innovations in computerized assessment. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Egberink, I. J. L., Meijer, R. R., Veldkamp, B. P., Schakel, L., & Smid, N. G.. (2010). Detection of aberrant item score patterns in computerized adaptive testing: An empirical example using the CUSUM. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 921-925.

Eggen, T., & Straetmans, G. J. J. M.. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing for classifying examinees into three categories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 713-34.

Fan, M. (1995). Assessment of scaled score consistency in adaptive testing from a multidimensional item response theory perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 55, 5598.

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

Finkelman, M., & Wang, C.. (2019). Time-Efficient Adaptive Measurement of Change. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 7(2), 15-34. doi:10.7333/1909-0702015

Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., & Cella, D.. (2005). The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 23, S53-7.

Garrison, W. M., & Baumgarten, B. S.. (1986). An application of computer adaptive testing with communication handicapped examinees. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 23-35.

Gershon, R. C. (1996). The effect of individual differences variables on the assessment of ability for Computerized Adaptive Testing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 57, 4085.

Glas, C. A. W., & van der Linden, W. J.. (2003). Computerized adaptive testing with item cloning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 247-261.

Green, B. F., Bock, R. D., Humphreys, L. G., Linn, R. L., & Reckase, M. D.. (1984). Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 347-360.

Grodenchik, D. J. (2002). The implications of the use of non-optimal items in a Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) environment. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 63, 1606.

Hai-qi, D., De-zhi, C., Shuliang, D., & Taiping, D.. (2006). The comparison among item selection strategies of CAT with multiple-choice items. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38, 778-783.

Hart, D. L., Cook, K. F., Mioduski, J. E., Teal, C. R., & Crane, P. K.. (2006). Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(3), 290-298.

Hart, D. L., Mioduski, J. E., Werneke, M. W., & Stratford, P. W.. (2006). Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 947–956. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.017

Häusler, J.. (2006). Adaptive success control in computerized adaptive testing. Psychology Science, 48, 436-450.

Hontangas, P., Ponsoda, V., Olea, J., & Abad, F. J.. (2000). Los tests adaptativos informatizados en la frontera del siglo XXI: Una revisión [Computerized adaptive tests at the turn of the 21st century: A review]. Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 2, 183-216.

Hung, P. - H. (1989). Application of computerized adaptive testing to the University Entrance Exam of Taiwan, R.O.C. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 3662.

Jiao, H., Wang, S., & Lau, C. A.. (2004). An investigation of two combination procedures of SPRT for three-category classification decisions in computerized classification test. annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. presented at the 04/2004, San Antonio, Texas.

Kalohn, J. C., & Spray, J. A.. (1999). The effect of model misspecification on classification decisions made using a computerized test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 47-59.

Kim, H. - O. (1994). Monte Carlo simulation comparison of two-stage testing and computerized adaptive testing. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 54, 2548.

Kingsbury, G. G. (2002). An empirical comparison of achievement level estimates from adaptive tests and paper-and-pencil tests. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. USA.

Kingsbury, G. G. (1985). Adaptive self-referenced testing as a procedure for the measurement of individual change due to instruction: A comparison of the reliabilities of change estimates obtained from conventional and adaptive testing procedures. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3057.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Houser, R. L.. (2008). ICAT: An adaptive testing procedure for the identification of idiosyncratic knowledge patterns. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 216, 40-48.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Houser, R. L.. (1993). Assessing the utility of item response models: computerized adaptive testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 21-27.

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.

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.

Latu, E., & Chapman, E.. (2002). Computerised adaptive testing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 619-22.

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.

Leung, C. - K., Chang, H. - H., & Hau, K. - T.. (2003). Incorporation of Content Balancing Requirements in Stratification Designs for Computerized Adaptive Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 257-70.

Li, Y. H., & Schafer, W. D.. (2005). Increasing the homogeneity of CAT's item-exposure rates by minimizing or maximizing varied target functions while assembling shadow tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42, 245-269.

Lilley, M., Barker, T., & Britton, C.. (2004). The development and evaluation of a software prototype for computer-adaptive testing. Computers and Education, 43, 109-123.

Linacre, J. M. (2000). Computer-adaptive testing: A methodology whose time has come. In U. Kang, Jean, E., & Linacre, J. M., Development of Computerised Middle School Achievement Tests (Vol. 69). Chicago, IL. USA: MESA.

Luecht, R. M., de Champlain, A., & Nungester, R. J.. (1998). Maintaining content validity in computerized adaptive testing. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 3, 29-41.