Kopec, J. A., Badii, M., McKenna, M., Lima, V. D., Sayre, E. C., & Dvorak, M.. (2008). Computerized adaptive testing in back pain: Validation of the CAT-5D-QOL. Spine, 33, 1384-90. presented at the May 20.

Kalender, I. (2012). Computerized Adaptive Testing for Student Selection to Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education.

Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., Ware, J. E., & Jr.,. (2004). Computerized adaptive testing and item banking. In . P. M. Fayers and R. D. Hays (Eds.) Assessing Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kingsbury, G. G. (1986). Computerized adaptive testing: A pilot project. In . W. C. Ryan (ed.), Proceedings: NECC 86, National Educational Computing Conference (pp.172-176). Eugene OR: University of Oregon, International Council on Computers in Education.

Kingsbury, G. G., & et. al.,. (1988). Computerized adaptive testing: A four-year-old pilot study shows that CAT can work. Technological Horizons in Education, 16 (4), 73-76.

de Ayala, R. J., & Koch, W. R.. (1987). Computerized adaptive testing: A comparison of the nominal response model and the three-parameter logistic model. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Washington DC.

Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Montowidlo, S. J., Drasgow, F., Foster, L., & Kubisiak, U. C.. (1998). Computerized adaptive rating scales that measure contextual performance. In Paper presented at the 3th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Dallas TX.

Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Kubisiak, U. C., & Buck, D. E.. (2000). Computerized adaptive rating scales (CARS): Development and evaluation of the concept. (Institute Rep No. 350). Tampa FL: Personnel Decisions Research Institute.

Gardner, W., Shear, K., Kelleher, K. J., Pajer, K. A., Mammen, O., Buysse, D., & Frank, E.. (2004). Computerized adaptive measurement of depression: A simulation study. BMC Psychiatry, 4, 13-23.

Koch, W. R., Dodd, B. G., & Fitzpatrick, S. J.. (1990). Computerized adaptive measurement of attitudes. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 23, 20-30.

Dodd, B. G., Koch, W. R., & de Ayala, R. J.. (1988). Computerized adaptive attitude measurement: A comparison of the graded response and rating scale models. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans.

Koch, W. R., & Dodd, B. G.. (1985). Computerized adaptive attitude measurement. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago.

Kim, D. - H., & Huynh, H.. (2008). Computer-Based and Paper-and-Pencil Administration Mode Effects on a Statewide End-of-Course English Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 554-570. doi:10.1177/0013164407310132

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.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Hauser, C.. (2004). Computer adaptive testing and the No Child Left Behind Act. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego CA.

Kalisch, S. J. (1974). The comparison of two tailored testing models and the effects of the models variables on actual loss. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.

Costa, D. R., Karino, C. A., Moura, F. A. S., & Andrade, D. F.. (2009). A comparison of three methods of item selection for computerized adaptive testing. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.

Wainer, H.,, Kaplan, B., & Lewis, C.. (1992). A comparison of the performance of simulated hierarchical and linear testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 243-251.

De Ayala, R. J., Dodd, B. G., & Koch, W. R.. (1992). A comparison of the partial credit and graded response models in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 17-34.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A.. (1991). A comparison of procedures for content-sensitive item selection in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 241-261.

Kingsbury, G. G. (1991). A comparison of procedures for content-sensitive item selection. Applied Measurement in Education.

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.

Burt, W. M., Kim, S. - J., Davis, L. L., & Dodd, B. G.. (2003). A comparison of item exposure control procedures using a CAT system based on the generalized partial credit model. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago IL.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Weiss, D. J.. (1983). A comparison of IRT-based adaptive mastery testing and a sequential mastery testing procedure. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 1-8). New York: Academic Press.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Weiss, D. J.. (1983). A comparison of IRT-based adaptive mastery testing and a sequential mastery testing procedure. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 257-283). New York: Academic Press.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Weiss, D. J.. (1983). A comparison of IRT-based adaptive mastery testing and a sequential mastery testing procedure. In New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 258-283). New York, NY. USA: Academic Press.

Kim, S., Moses, T., & Yoo, H. (Henry). (2015). A Comparison of IRT Proficiency Estimation Methods Under Adaptive Multistage Testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 52, 70–79. doi:10.1111/jedm.12063

Kingsbury, G. G., & Weiss, D. J.. (1980). A comparison of ICC-based adaptive mastery testing and the Waldian probability ratio method. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.). Proceedings of the 1979 Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference (pp. 120-139). Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laboratory.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ward, W. C., Kline, R. G., & Flaugher, J.. (1986). College Board computerized placement tests: Validation of an adaptive test of basic skills (Research Report 86-29). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Finkelman, M. D., Kim, W., Weissman, A., & Cook, R. J.. (2014). Cognitive Diagnostic Models and Computerized Adaptive Testing: Two New Item-Selection Methods That Incorporate Response Times. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 2(4), 59-76. doi:10.7333/1412-0204059

Krass, I. A. (2000). Change in distribution of latent ability with item position in CAT sequence. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education in New Orleans. LA.

Wainer, H.,, & Kiely, G. L.. (1986). CATs, testlets, and test construction: A rationale for putting test developers back into CAT (Technical Report 86-71). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service, Program Statistics Research.

Wainer, H.,, & Kiely, G. L.. (1987). CATS, testlets, and test construction: A rationale for putting test developers back into CAT. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 185-202.

Bejar, I. I., Weiss, D. J., & Kingsbury, G. G.. (1977). Calibration of an item pool for the adaptive measurement of achievement (Research Report 77-5). Minneapolis: Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program.

Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E., J.. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT). Quality of Life Research, 12, 913-933.

Krass, I. A., & Williams, B.. (2003). Calibrating CAT pools and online pretest items using nonparametric and adjusted marginal maximum likelihood methods. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Chicago IL.

Wainer, H.,, Lewis, C., Kaplan, B., & Braswell, J.. (1991). Building algebra testlets: A comparison of hierarchical and linear structures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8, xxx-xxx.

Kaplan, M., & de la Torre, J.. (2020). A Blocked-CAT Procedure for CD-CAT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 44, 49-64. doi:10.1177/0146621619835500

Krass, I. A., & Thomasson, G. L.. (1999). Automated flawed item detection and graphical item used in on-line calibration of CAT-ASVAB. . In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Montreal, Canada.

Watkins, M. W., & Kush, J. C.. (1988). Assessment of academic skills of learning disabled students with classroom microcomputers. School Psychology Review, 17, 81-88.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Houser, R. L.. (1990). Assessing the utility of item response models: Computerized adaptive testing. In A paper presented to the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education. Boston MA.

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.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Houser, R. L.. (1989). Assessing the impact of using item parameter estimates obtained from paper-and-pencil testing for computerized adaptive testing. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. San Francisco.

Sinharay, S., Wan, P., Choi, S. W., & Kim, D. - I.. (2015). Assessing Individual-Level Impact of Interruptions During Online Testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 52, 80–105. doi:10.1111/jedm.12064

Epstein, K. I., & Knerr, C. S.. (1978). Applications of sequential testing procedures to performance 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.

Epstein, K. I., & Knerr, C. S.. (1977). Applications of sequential testing procedures to performance testing. 1977 Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference. Minneapolis, MN. USA: University of Minnesota.

Krass, I. A. (2001). Application of score information for CAT pool development and its connection with "likelihood test information. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Seattle WA.

Krass, I. A. (1998). Application of direct optimization for on-line calibration in computerized adaptive testing. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. San Diego CA.

Kingsbury, G. G., & Weiss, D. J.. (1980). An alternate-forms reliability and concurrent validity comparison of Bayesian adaptive and conventional ability tests (Research Report 80-5). Minneapolis, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laboratory.

Kiely, G. L., Zara, A., & Weiss, D. J.. (1983). Alternate forms reliability and concurrent validity of adaptive and conventional tests with military recruits. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laboratory.

de Ayala, R. J., & Koch, W. R.. (1985). ALPHATAB: A lookup table for Bayesian computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 326.

Karino, C. A., Costa, D. R., & Laros, J. A.. (2009). Adequacy of an item pool measuring proficiency in English language to implement a CAT procedure. In . D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.

Wang, W., & Kingston, N.. (2019). Adaptive Testing With a Hierarchical Item Response Theory Model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43, 51-67. doi:10.1177/0146621618765714

Kingsbury, G. G., & Weiss, D. J.. (1979). An adaptive testing strategy for mastery decisions (Research Report 79-5). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program.

Kingsbury, G. G. (1984). Adaptive self-referenced testing as a procedure for the measurement of individual change in instruction: A comparison of the reliabilities of change estimates obtained from conventional and adaptive testing procedures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univerity of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

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.