Export 2294 results:
Filters: Filter is   [Clear All Filters]
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
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
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
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
PDF icon bo03-02.pdf (404.34 KB)
Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A.. (1999). A comparison of conventional and adaptive testing procedures for making single-point decisions. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Montreal, Canada.
Bejar, I. I. (1977). A comparison of conventional and adaptive achievement testing. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1977 Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program.
PDF icon be77373.pdf (687.07 KB)
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
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
Waters, C. J., & Bayroff, A. G.. (1971). A comparison of computer-simulated conventional and branching tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 125-136.
Patsula, L. N. (1999). A comparison of computerized-adaptive testing and multi-stage testing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
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
Patsula, L. N. (2000). A comparison of computerized adaptive testing and multistage testing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 60, 5829.
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)
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.
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)
Dolan, S. (1993). A comparison of computer adaptive test administration methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
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.
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
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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
File Recalibrating Drifting Items in CAT MS.docx (543.3 KB)
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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. (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.
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.

Pages