@article {8,
	title = {Computer adaptive testing: a strategy for monitoring stroke rehabilitation across settings},
	journal = {Stroke Rehabilitation},
	volume = {11},
	number = {2},
	year = {2004},
	note = {Andres, Patricia LBlack-Schaffer, Randie MNi, PengshengHaley, Stephen MR01 hd43568/hd/nichdEvaluation StudiesResearch Support, U.S. Gov{\textquoteright}t, Non-P.H.S.Research Support, U.S. Gov{\textquoteright}t, P.H.S.United StatesTopics in stroke rehabilitationTop Stroke Rehabil. 2004 Spring;11(2):33-9.},
	month = {Spring},
	pages = {33-39},
	edition = {2004/05/01},
	abstract = {Current functional assessment instruments in stroke rehabilitation are often setting-specific and lack precision, breadth, and/or feasibility. Computer adaptive testing (CAT) offers a promising potential solution by providing a quick, yet precise, measure of function that can be used across a broad range of patient abilities and in multiple settings. CAT technology yields a precise score by selecting very few relevant items from a large and diverse item pool based on each individual{\textquoteright}s responses. We demonstrate the potential usefulness of a CAT assessment model with a cross-sectional sample of persons with stroke from multiple rehabilitation settings.},
	keywords = {*Computer Simulation, *User-Computer Interface, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cerebrovascular Accident/*rehabilitation, Disabled Persons/*classification, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic/methods, Severity of Illness Index, Task Performance and Analysis},
	isbn = {1074-9357 (Print)},
	author = {Andres, P. L. and Black-Schaffer, R. M. and Ni, P. and Haley, S. M.}
}
@article {36,
	title = {An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales},
	journal = {Journal of Applied Psychology},
	volume = {86},
	number = {5},
	year = {2001},
	note = {214803450021-9010Journal ArticleValidation Studies},
	pages = {965-973},
	abstract = {This laboratory research compared the reliability, validity, and accuracy of a computerized adaptive rating scale (CARS) format and 2 relatively common and representative rating formats. The CARS is a paired-comparison rating task that uses adaptive testing principles to present pairs of scaled behavioral statements to the rater to iteratively estimate a ratee{\textquoteright}s effectiveness on 3 dimensions of contextual performance. Videotaped vignettes of 6 office workers were prepared, depicting prescripted levels of contextual performance, and 112 subjects rated these vignettes using the CARS format and one or the other competing format. Results showed 23\%-37\% lower standard errors of measurement for the CARS format. In addition, validity was significantly higher for the CARS format (d = .18), and Cronbach{\textquoteright}s accuracy coefficients showed significantly higher accuracy, with a median effect size of .08. The discussion focuses on possible reasons for the results.},
	keywords = {*Computer Simulation, *Employee Performance Appraisal, *Personnel Selection, Adult, Automatic Data Processing, Female, Human, Male, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Support, U.S. Gov{\textquoteright}t, Non-P.H.S., Task Performance and Analysis, Video Recording},
	author = {Borman, W. C. and Buck, D. E. and Hanson, M. A. and Motowidlo, S. J. and Stark, S. and F Drasgow}
}
