Lunz, M. E., Bergstrom, B. A., & Wright, B. D.. (1992). The effect of review on student ability and test efficiency for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 33-40.

Lunz, M. E., Berstrom, B. A., & Wright, B. D.. (1992). The Effect of Review on Student Ability and Test Efficiency for Computerized Adaptive Tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(1), 33-40.

Ito, K., & Sykes, R. C.. (1994). The effect of restricting ability distributions in the estimation of item difficulties: Implications for a CAT implementation. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New Orleans.

Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Wingersky, M.. (1995). Effect of Rasch calibration on ability and DIF estimation in computer-adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 341-363.

Chen, S., Hou, L., Fitzpatrick, S. J., & Dodd, B. G.. (1995). The effect of population distribution and methods of theta estimation on CAT using the rating scale model. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.

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

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.

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.

Abdel-Fattah, A. A., & Lau, C. - M. A.. (1995). The effect of model misspecification on classification decisions made using a computerized test: UIRT versus MIRT. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society. Minneapolis MN.

Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., Schulz, M., & Fleer, J. P.. (1995). The effect of model misspecification on classification decisions made using a computerized test: 3-PLM vs. 1PLM (and UIRT versus MIRT). In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society. Minneapolis, MN.

Dodd, B. G. (1990). The Effect of Item Selection Procedure and Stepsize on Computerized Adaptive Attitude Measurement Using the Rating Scale Model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(4), 355-366.

Dodd, B. G. (1990). The effect of item selection procedure and stepsize on computerized adaptive attitude measurement using the rating scale model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 355-386.

Kalohn, J. C., & Spray, J. A.. (1998). Effect of item selection on item exposure rates within a computerized classification test. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. San Diego CA.

Li, Y. H., & Schafer, W. D.. (2003). The effect of item selection method on the variability of CAT’s ability estimates when item parameters are contaminated with measurement errors. In Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Chicago IL.

Halkitis, P. N. (1998). The effect of item pool restriction on the precision of ability measurement for a Rasch-based CAT: comparisons to traditional fixed length examinations. J Outcome Meas, 2, 97-122.

Reckase, M. D. (1976). The effect of item pool characteristics on the operation of a tailored testing procedure. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society. Murray Hill NJ.

Spray, J. A., & Reckase, M. D.. (1987). The effect of item parameter estimation error on the decisions made using the sequential probability ratio test (ACT Research Report Series 87-17). Iowa City IA: American College Testing.

Spray, J. A., & Reckase, M. D.. (1987). The effect of item parameter estimation error on decisions made using the sequential probability ratio test (No. Research Report 87-1). ACT Research Report Series. Iowa City, IA. USA: DTIC Document.

Reckase, M. D. (1975). The effect of item choice on ability estimation when using a simple logistic tailored testing model. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, D.C.

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.

Ferdous, A. A., Plake, B. S., & Chang, S. - R.. (2007). The effect of including pretest items in an operational computerized adaptive test: Do different ability examinees spend different amounts of time on embedded pretest items?. Educational Assessment, 12, 161-173.

Colvin, K., Keller, L. A., & Robin, F.. (2016). Effect of Imprecise Parameter Estimation on Ability Estimation in a Multistage Test in an Automatic Item Generation Context . Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 4(1), 1-18. doi:10.7333/1608-040101

Bridgeman, B., Cline, F., & Hessinger, J.. (2003). Effect of extra time on GRE® Quantitative and Verbal Scores (Research Report 03-13). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing service.

Crichton, L. I. (1981). Effect of error in item parameter estimates on adaptive testing (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 06-B.

Guyer, R. D. (2008). Effect of early misfit in computerized adaptive testing on the recovery of theta. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN.

Guyer, R. D., & Weiss, D. J.. (2009). Effect of early misfit in computerized adaptive testing on the recovery of theta. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.

Abdel-Fattah, A. A., Lau, C. A., & Spray, J. A.. (1996). Effect of altering passing score in CAT when unidimensionality is violated. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. presented at the April, New York NY.

Smits, N. (2016). On the effect of adding clinical samples to validation studies of patient-reported outcome item banks: a simulation study. Quality of Life Research, 25, 1635–1644. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1199-9

Zwick, R. (1997). The effect of adaptive administration on the variability of the Mantel-Haenszel measure of differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 412-421.

Fan, M., & Hsu, Y.. (1995). The effect of ability estimation for polytomous CAT in different item selection procedures. In Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Psychometric Society. Minneapolis MN.

McBride, J. R. (1994). Early psychometric research in the CAT-ASVAB Project. In Paper presented at the 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Los Angeles. CA.

Chen, J. - H., Chao, H. - Y., & Chen, S. - Y.. (2020). A Dynamic Stratification Method for Improving Trait Estimation in Computerized Adaptive Testing Under Item Exposure Control. Applied Psychological Measurement, 44, 182-196. doi:10.1177/0146621619843820

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.

Ware, J. E., J., Bjorner, J. B., & Kosinski, M.. (1999). Dynamic health assessments: The search for more practical and more precise outcomes measures. Quality of Life Newsletter, 11-13.

Cook, K. F., O'Malley, K. J., & Roddey, T. S.. (2005). Dynamic assessment of health outcomes: Time to let the CAT out of the bag?. Health Services Research, 40, 1694-1711.

Kang, H. - A., Zhang, S., & Chang, H. - H.. (2017). Dual-Objective Item Selection Criteria in Cognitive Diagnostic Computerized Adaptive Testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 54, 165–183. doi:10.1111/jedm.12139

Passos, V. L., Berger, M. P. F., & Tan, F. E. S.. (2008). The D-optimality item selection criterion in the early stage of CAT: A study with the graded response model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33, 88-110.

Gershon, R. C., & Bergstrom, B.. (1995). Does cheating on CAT pay: Not. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.

Mislevy, R. J., & Chang, H. - H.. (1998). Does adaptive testing violate local independence? (Research Report 98-33). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Mislevy, R. J., & Chang, H. - H.. (2000). Does adaptive testing violate local independence?. Psychometrika, 65, 149-156.

Nering, M. L. (1997). The distribution of indexes of person fit within the computerized adaptive testing environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 115-127.

Johnson, S. H. (1996). Dispelling myths about the new NCLEX exam. Recruitment, Retention, and Restructuring Report, 9, 6-7. presented at the Jan-Feb.

Novick, M. R. (1980). Discussion: Session 3. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1979 Item Response Theory and Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference (pp. 140-143). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laborat.

Waters, B. K. (1980). Discussion: Session 1. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1979 Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference (pp. 51-55). Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laboratory.

Reckase, M. D. (1982). Discussion: Adaptive and sequential testing. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.). Proceedings of the 1982 Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference (pp. 290-294). Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program.

Bock, R. D. (1975). Discussion. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Computerized adaptive trait measurement: Problems and Prospects (Research Report 75-5), pp. 46-49. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program.

Green, B. F. (1976). Discussion. In . C. K. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing (pp. pp. 118-119). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Linn, R. L. (1975). Discussion. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Computerized adaptive trait measurement: Problems and Prospects (Research Report 75-5), pp. 44-46. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program.

Lord, F. M. (1976). Discussion. In . C. K. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing (pp. 113-117). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Belov, D. I., & Armstrong, R. D.. (2009). Direct and Inverse Problems of Item Pool Design for Computerized Adaptive Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 533-547. doi:10.1177/0013164409332224

Belov, D. I., & Armstrong, R. D.. (2009). Direct and inverse problems of item pool design for computerized adaptive testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 533-547.

Zwick, R. (1992). Differential item functioning analysis for computer-adaptive tests and other IRT-scored measures. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Military Testing Association. San Diego CA.

Pitkin, A. K., & Vispoel, W. P.. (2001). Differences between self-adapted and computerized adaptive tests: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 235-247.

Wang, J., Weiss, D. J., & Wang, C.. (2017). DIF-CAT: Doubly Adaptive CAT Using Subgroup Information to Improve Measurement Precision. In IACAT 2017 Conference. presented at the 08/2017, Niigata, Japan: Niigata Seiryo University. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Gu4FR06qM5EZNp_Ns0Kt3HzBqWAv3LPy

Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Wingersky, M.. (1994). DIF analysis for pretest items in computer-adaptive testing (Educational Testing Service Research Rep No RR 94-33). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Kubinger, K. D. (1989). Die Optimierung der Mebgenauikeit beim branched adaptiven Testen [Optimization of measurement precision for branched-adaptive testing. In . K. D. Kubinger (Ed.), Moderne Testtheorie Ein Abrib samt neusten Beitrgen [Modern test theory Overview and new issues] (pp. 187-218). Weinhem, Germany: Beltz.

Xiao, B. (1990). Dichotomous search strategies for computerized adaptive testing. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Schreiber, M. D., Schneider, R. J., Schweizer, A., Beckmann, J. F., & Baltissen, R.. (2000). Diagnostische programme in der Demenzfrüherkennung: Der Adaptive Figurenfolgen-Lerntest (ADAFI) [Diagnostic programs in the early detection of dementia: The Adaptive Figure Series Learning Test (ADAFI)]. Zeitschrift für Gerontopsychologie & -Psychiatrie, 13, 16-29.

Frey, A., & Carstensen, C. H.. (2009). Diagnostic classification models and multidimensional adaptive testing: A commentary on Rupp and Templin. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 7, 58-61.

Tatsuoka, K. K., & Tatsuoka, M. M.. (1997). Diagnostic adaptive testing: Effects of remedial instruction as empirical validation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 3-20.