Bibliography | Page 30 | IACAT

Search

Show only items where

Author

Type

Term

Year

Keyword

Export 2294 results:

Journal Article

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.

Coster, W. J., Haley, S. M., Andres, P. L., Ludlow, L. H., Bond, T. L., & Ni, P. S.. (2004). Refining the conceptual basis for rehabilitation outcome measurement: personal care and instrumental activities domain. Medical Care, 42, I62-172. presented at the Jan.

Moreno, K. E., Wetzel, C. D., McBride, J. R., & Weiss, D. J.. (1984). Relationship between corresponding Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and computerized adaptive testing (CAT) subtests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 155-163.

Moreno, K. E., Wetzel, C. D., McBride, J. R., & Weiss, D. J.. (1984). Relationship Between Corresponding Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) Subtests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(2), 155-163.

v08n2p155.pdf (594.04 KB)

Wise, S. L., Roos, L. L., Plake, B. S.,, & Nebelsick-Gullett, L. J.. (1994). The relationship between examinee anxiety and preference for self-adapted testing. Applied Measurement in Education , 7, 81-91.

Chen, S., Ankenmann, R. D., & Spray, J. A.. (2003). The relationship between item exposure and test overlap in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 129-145.

Chen, S., Ankenmann, R. D., & Spray, J. A.. (2003). The relationship between item exposure and test overlap in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 129-145.

Chen, S. - Y., Ankenmann, R. D., & Spray, J. A.. (2003). The relationship between item exposure and test overlap in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 129-145.

Riley, B. B., Conrad, K. J., Bezruczko, N., & Dennis, M. L.. (2007). Relative precision, efficiency and construct validity of different starting and stopping rules for a computerized adaptive test: The GAIN Substance Problem Scale. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8, 48-65.

Davison, M. L., Semmes, R., Huang, L., & Close, C. N.. (2012). On the Reliability and Validity of a Numerical Reasoning Speed Dimension Derived From Response Times Collected in Computerized Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 245-263. doi:10.1177/0013164411408412

Sireci, S. G., Wainer, H.,, & Thissen, D.. (1991). On the reliability of testlet-based tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 237-247.

Haley, S. M., Ni, P., Jette, A. M., Tao, W., Moed, R., Meyers, D., & Ludlow, L. H.. (2009). Replenishing a computerized adaptive test of patient-reported daily activity functioning. Quality of Life Research, 18, 461-71. presented at the May.

Cleary, T. A., Linn, R. L., & Rock, D. A.. (1968). Reproduction of total test score through the use of sequential programmed tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 183-187.

Olea Díaz, J., Ponsoda Gil, V., Revuelta Menéndez, J., Hontangas Beltrán, P., & Abad, F. J.. (2001). Requerimientos, aplicaciones e investigación en tests adaptativos informatizados [Requirements, applications, and investigation in computerized adaptive testing]. Apuntes de Psicologia, 19, 11-28.

Wainer, H.,. (2000). Rescuing computerized testing by breaking Zipf’s law. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 203-224.

Ware, J. E., J., Bjorner, J. B., & Kosinski, M.. (2000). Response to Hays et al and McHorney and Cohen: Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: A brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Medical Care, 38, 73-82.

Wood, R. L. (1973). Response-contingent testing. Review of Educational Research, 43, 529-544.

Wang, C., Chang, H. - H., & Huebner, A.. (2011). Restrictive Stochastic Item Selection Methods in Cognitive Diagnostic Computerized Adaptive Testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 48, 255–273. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2011.00145.x

Sekula-Wacura, R. (2000). A review of CAT review. Popular Measurement, 3, 47-49.

Georgiadou, E., Triantafillou, E., & Economides, A. A.. (2007). A review of item exposure control strategies for computerized adaptive testing developed from 1983 to 2005. Journal of Technology,Learning, and Assessment,, 5(8).

ge07-01.pdf (319.09 KB)

Andrich, D. (1995). Review of the book Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. Psychometrika, 4?, 615-620.

Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Reviewing and changing answers on computer-adaptive and self-adaptive vocabulary tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 328-345.

Stocking, M. L. (1997). Revising item responses in computerized adaptive tests: A comparison of three models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 129-142.

Lord, F. M. (1971). Robbins-Monro procedures for tailored testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 3-31.

Veldkamp, B. P., & Paap, M. C. S.. (2017). Robust Automated Test Assembly for Testlet-Based Tests: An Illustration with Analytical Reasoning Items. Frontiers in Education, 2, 63. doi:10.3389/feduc.2017.00063

Robust_ATA_veldkamp_paap_2017.pdf (184.33 KB)

Roos, L. L., Wise, S. L., & Plake, B. S.. (1997). The role of item feedback in self-adapted testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 85-98.

Barrada, J. R., Olea, J., & Abad, F. J.. (2008). Rotating item banks versus restriction of maximum exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 618-625.

ba08618.pdf (266.26 KB)

Svetina, D., Liaw, Y. - L., Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D.. (2019). Routing Strategies and Optimizing Design for Multistage Testing in International Large-Scale Assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 56, 192-213. doi:10.1111/jedm.12206

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.

Rocklin, T. R. (1994). Self-adapted testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 3-14.

Rocklin, T. R.,, & O’Donnell, A. M.. (1987). Self-adapted testing: A performance improving variation of computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 315-319.

Wise, S. L., Ponsoda, V., & Olea, J.. (2002). Self-adapted testing: An overview. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 12, 107-122.

Rocklin, T. (1997). Self-adapted testing: Improving performance by modifying tests instead of examinees. Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 10(1), 83-104.

Lord, F. M. (1971). The self-scoring flexilevel test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8, 147-151.

Wang, C., Fan, Z., Chang, H. - H., & Douglas, J. A.. (2013). A Semiparametric Model for Jointly Analyzing Response Times and Accuracy in Computerized Testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 381-417. doi:10.3102/1076998612461831

Haley, S. M., Fragala-Pinkham, M. A., & Ni, P.. (2006). Sensitivity of a computer adaptive assessment for measuring functional mobility changes in children enrolled in a community fitness programme. Clin Rehabil, 20, 616-622.

Armitage, P. (1950). Sequential analysis with more than two alternative hypotheses, and its relation to discriminant function analysis, 12, 137-144.

Wiberg, M. (2006). Sequential Computerized Mastery Testsâ€”Three Simulation Studies. International Journal of Testing, 6, 41-55. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0601_3

Chang, I. Y. (2004). Sequential estimation in variable length computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 121, 249-264.

Tutz, G. (1990). Sequential item response models with an ordered response. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 43, 39-55.

Krathwohl, D. R., & Huyser, R. J.. (1956). The sequential item test. American Psychologist, 2, 419.

Nydick, S. W. (2014). The Sequential Probability Ratio Test and Binary Item Response Models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39, 203-230. doi:10.3102/1076998614524824

Zhang, J. (2014). A Sequential Procedure for Detecting Compromised Items in the Item Pool of a CAT System. Applied Psychological Measurement, 38, 87-104. doi:10.1177/0146621613510062

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

Thomas, D. B. (1975). Sequential testing for instructional classification. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction., 1, 92-99.

Weitzman, R. A. (1982). Sequential Testing for Selection. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6(3), 337-351.

v06n3p337.pdf (1.59 MB)

Weitzman, R. A. (1982). Sequential testing for selection. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 337-351.

Qing Yi,, Jinming Zhang,, & Chang, H. - H.. (2008). Severity of Organized Item Theft in Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Simulation Study. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 543-558. doi:10.1177/0146621607311336

Segall, D. O. (2004). A sharing item response theory model for computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 439-460. presented at the Win.

Jacobson, R. L. (1995). Shortfall of questions curbs use of computerized graduate exam. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

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.

Raîche, G., & Blais, J. - G.. (2006). SIMCAT 1.0: A SAS computer program for simulating computer adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 60-61.

Nisbet, J., Adams, M., & Arthur, J.. (1980). A simple form of tailored testing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 301-303.

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

Hart, D., Mioduski, J., Werenke, M., & Stratford, P.. (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.

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, 290-8.

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., & Stratford, P. W.. (2005). Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 629-38.

ha05629.pdf (227.89 KB)

Stocking, M. L., Ward, W. C., & Potenza, M. T.. (1998). Simulating the use of disclosed items in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 48-68.

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.

Pages