@article {208,
	title = {Infeasibility in automated test assembly models: A comparison study of different methods},
	journal = {Journal of Educational Measurement},
	volume = {42},
	number = {3},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {223-243},
	abstract = {Several techniques exist to automatically put together a test meeting a number of specifications. In an item bank, the items are stored with their characteristics. A test is constructed by selecting a set of items that fulfills the specifications set by the test assembler. Test assembly problems are often formulated in terms of a model consisting of restrictions and an objective to be maximized or minimized. A problem arises when it is impossible to construct a test from the item pool that meets all specifications, that is, when the model is not feasible. Several methods exist to handle these infeasibility problems. In this article, test assembly models resulting from two practical testing programs were reconstructed to be infeasible. These models were analyzed using methods that forced a solution (Goal Programming, Multiple-Goal Programming, Greedy Heuristic), that analyzed the causes (Relaxed and Ordered Deletion Algorithm (RODA), Integer Randomized Deletion Algorithm (IRDA), Set Covering (SC), and Item Sampling), or that analyzed the causes and used this information to force a solution (Irreducible Infeasible Set-Solver). Specialized methods such as the IRDA and the Irreducible Infeasible Set-Solver performed best. Recommendations about the use of different methods are given. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA ) (journal abstract)},
	keywords = {Algorithms, Item Content (Test), Models, Test Construction},
	author = {Huitzing, H. A. and Veldkamp, B. P. and Verschoor, A. J.}
}
@conference {1216,
	title = {Implementing an alternative to Sympson-Hetter item-exposure control in constrained adaptive testing},
	booktitle = {Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education},
	year = {2003},
	address = {Chicago IL},
	author = {Veldkamp, B. P. and van der Linden, W. J.}
}
@inbook {1927,
	title = {Item selection in polytomous CAT},
	year = {2003},
	note = {$\#$VE03207 {PDF file, 79 KB}},
	address = {H. Yanai, A. Okada, K. Shigemasu, Y Kano, and J. J. Meulman (eds.), New developments in psychometrics (pp. 207-214). Tokyo, Japan: Springer-Verlag.},
	author = {Veldkamp, B. P.}
}
@inbook {414,
	title = {Item selection in polytomous CAT},
	booktitle = {New developments in psychometrics},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {207{\textendash}214},
	publisher = {Psychometric Society, Springer},
	organization = {Psychometric Society, Springer},
	address = {Tokyo, Japan},
	keywords = {computerized adaptive testing},
	author = {Veldkamp, B. P.},
	editor = {A. Okada and K. Shigenasu and Y. Kano and J. Meulman}
}
@booklet {1547,
	title = {Implementing constrained CAT with shadow tests for large item pools},
	year = {2001},
	address = {Submitted for publication},
	author = {Veldkamp, B. P.}
}
@article {409,
	title = {An integer programming approach to item bank design},
	journal = {Applied Psychological Measurement},
	volume = {24},
	number = {2},
	year = {2000},
	pages = {139-150},
	abstract = {An integer programming approach to item bank design is presented that can be used to calculate an optimal blueprint for an item bank, in order to support an existing testing program. The results are optimal in that they minimize the effort involved in producing the items as revealed by current item writing patterns. Also presented is an adaptation of the models, which can be used as a set of monitoring tools in item bank management. The approach is demonstrated empirically for an item bank that was designed for the Law School Admission Test. },
	keywords = {Aptitude Measures, Item Analysis (Test), Item Response Theory, Test Construction, Test Items},
	author = {van der Linden, W. J. and Veldkamp, B. P. and Reese, L. M.}
}
