Export 497 results:
Filters: First Letter Of Title is C  [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
Schnipke, D. L.,, & Green, B. F.. (1995). A comparison of item selection routines in linear and adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 227-242.
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.
PDF icon bu03-01.pdf (264.96 KB)
PDF icon v18n3p197.pdf (1.07 MB)
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.
PDF icon Kingsbury & weiss #1.pdf (642.36 KB)
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.
PDF icon ki80-01.pdf (1.32 MB)
Bridgeman, B., & Schaeffer, G. A.. (1995). A comparison of gender differences on paper-and-pencil and computer-adaptive versions of the Graduate Record Examination. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco CA.
He, W., Diao, Q., & Hauser, C.. (2014). A Comparison of Four Item-Selection Methods for Severely Constrained CATs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 677-696. doi:10.1177/0013164413517503
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. doi:10.1177/0146621608327801
Choi, S. W., & Swartz, R. J.. (2009). Comparison of CAT item selection criteria for polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 419–440.
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)

Pages