Reese, L. M., Schnipke, D. L., & Luebke, S. W.. (1999). Incorporating content constraints into a multi-stage adaptive testlet design. (No. BBB16784). LSAC Computerized Testing Report. Princeton, NJ. USA: Law School Admission Council.

Thomas, T. J., & Green, B. F.. (1989). Item-presentation controls for computerized adaptive testing: Content-balancing versus min-CAT (Research Report 89-1). Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Laboratory.

Eggen, T. (1998). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test (Measurement and Research Department Report, 98-1). Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.

Huisman, J. M. E. (1999). Item nonresponse: Occurrence, causes and imputation of missing answers to test items. (M and T Series No 32). Leiden: DSWO Press.

Hetter, R. D., Bloxom, B. M., & Segall, D. O.. (1993). Item Calibration: Medium-of-administration effect on computerized adaptive scores (TR-93-9). Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.

Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., & Cella, D.. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment.

Rudner, L. M. (1998). Item banking. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation.

Smith, R. W., Plake, B. S., & de Ayala, R. J.. (2001). Item and passage selection algorithm simulations for a computerized adaptive version of the verbal section of the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). MCAT Monograph Series.

Jiao, H., Wang, S., & Lau, A.. (2004). An investigation of two combination procedures of SPRT for three-category decisions in computerized classification test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego CA.

Hansen, D. N., & Schwarz, G.. (1968). An investigation of computer-based science testing. Tallahassee: Institute of Human Learning, Florida State University.

Hansen, D. N., & Schwarz, G.. (1968). An investigation of computer-based science testing. Tallahassee FL: Florida State University.

Stocking, M. L., Smith, R., & Swanson, L.. (2000). An investigation of approaches to computerizing the GRE subject tests (GRE Board Professional Report No 93-08P; Educational Testing Service Research Report 00-4). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Schaeffer, G. A., Steffen, M., & Golub-Smith, M. L.. (1993). Introduction of a computer adaptive GRE General test (Research Report 93-57). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Schaeffer, G. A., Steffen, M. Golub-Smith, M. L., Mills, C. N., & Durso, R.. (1995). The introduction and comparability of the computer-adaptive GRE General Test (GRE Board Professional Report 88-08ap; Educational Testing Service Research Report 95-20). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Reckase, M. D. (1989). The interpretation and application of multidimensional item response theory models; and computerized testing in the instructional environment: Final Report (Research Report ONR 89-2). Iowa City IA: The American College Testing Program.

Bejar, I. I., Weiss, D. J., & Gialluca, K. A.. (1977). An information comparison of conventional and adaptive tests in the measurement of classroom achievement (Research Report 77-7). Minneapolis: Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program.

Wetzel, C. D., & McBride, J. R.. (1983). Influence of fallible item parameters on test information during adaptive testing (Tech Rep 83-15). San Diego CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.

Urry, V. W. (1971). Individualized testing by Bayesian estimation. Seattle: University of Washington, Bureau of Testing Project 0171-177.

Lord, F. M. (1972). Individualized testing and item characteristic curve theory (RB-72-50). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Reese, L. M., Schnipke, D. L., & Luebke, S. W.. (1997). Incorporating content constraints into a multi-stage adaptive testlet design: LSAC report. Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.

Cliff, N. A., Cudeck, R., & McCormick, D.. (1978). Implied orders as a basis for tailored testing (Technical Report No. 6). Los Angeles CA: University of Southern California, Department of Psychology.

Chang, H. - H., & van der Linden, W. J.. (2001). Implementing content constraints in a-stratified adaptive testing using a shadow test approach (Research Report 01-001). University of Twente, Department of Educational Measurement and Data Analysis.

van der Linden, W. J., & Chang, H. - H.. (2005). Implementing content constraints in alpha-stratified adaptive testing using a shadow test approach. Law School Admission Council, Computerized Testing Report 01-09.

Veldkamp, B. P. (2001). Implementing constrained CAT with shadow tests for large item pools. Submitted for publication.

Ferguson, R. L., & Novick, M. R.. (1973). Implementation of a Bayesian system for decision analysis in a program of individually prescribed instruction (Research Report No 60). Iowa City IA: American College Testing Program.

Xing, D., & Hambleton, R. K.. (2001). Impact of several computer-based testing variables on the psychometric properties of credentialing examinations (Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research Report No 393). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, School of Education.

Rulison, K. L., & Loken, E.. (2009). I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up: Can High-Ability Students Recover From Early Mistakes in CAT?. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 83-101. doi:10.1177/0146621608324023

Rulison, K.,, & Loken, E.. (2009). I've fallen and I can't get up: can high-ability students recover from early mistakes in CAT?. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(2), 83-101.

Rulison, K. L., & Loken, E.. (2009). I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up: Can High-Ability Students Recover From Early Mistakes in CAT?. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 83-101. doi:10.1177/0146621608324023

Paap, M. C. S., Kroeze, K. A., Terwee, C. B., van der Palen, J., & Veldkamp, B. P.. (2017). Item usage in a multidimensional computerized adaptive test (MCAT) measuring health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 26, 2909–2918. doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1624-3

Hornke, L. F. (1995). Item times in computerized testing: A new differential information. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11 (Suppl. 1), 108-109.

Luecht, R. M., & Hirsch, T. M.. (1992). Item selection using an average growth approximation of target information functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 41-51.

Ping, C., Shuliang, D., Haijing, L., & Jie, Z.. (2006). [Item Selection Strategies of Computerized Adaptive Testing based on Graded Response Model.]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38, 461-467.

Barrada, J. R., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & Abad, F. J.. (2009). Item selection rules in computerized adaptive testing: Accuracy and security. Methodology, 5, 7-17.

Tu, D., Han, Y., Cai, Y., & Gao, X.. (2018). Item Selection Methods in Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Testing With Polytomously Scored Items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 42, 677-694. doi:10.1177/0146621618762748

van Groen, M. M., Eggen, T. J. H. M., & Veldkamp, B. P.. (2014). Item Selection Methods Based on Multiple Objective Approaches for Classifying Respondents Into Multiple Levels. Applied Psychological Measurement, 38, 187-200. doi:10.1177/0146621613509723

Thompson, N. A. (2009). Item Selection in Computerized Classification Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 778-793. doi:10.1177/0013164408324460

Thompson, N. A. (2009). Item selection in computerized classification testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 778-793.

Hau, K. - T., & Chang, H. - H.. (2001). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Should more discriminating items be used first?. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 249-266.

Hau, K. T., & Chang, H. - H.. (1998). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Should more discriminating items be used first?. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 249-266.

Leung, C. - K., Chang, H. - H., & Hau, K. - T.. (2002). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Improving the a-stratified design with the Sympson-Hetter algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 376-392.

Leung, C. K., Chang, H. - H., & Hau, K. T.. (2002). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Improving the a-stratified design with the Sympson-Hetter algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 376-392.

Eggen, T. (1999). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 249-261.

Lin, C. - J., & Chang, H. - H.. (2018). Item Selection Criteria With Practical Constraints in Cognitive Diagnostic Computerized Adaptive Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 0013164418790634. doi:10.1177/0013164418790634

Lin, C. - J., & Chang, H. - H.. (2019). Item Selection Criteria With Practical Constraints in Cognitive Diagnostic Computerized Adaptive Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79, 335-357. doi:10.1177/0013164418790634

Lin, C. - J. (2011). Item Selection Criteria With Practical Constraints for Computerized Classification Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 20-36. doi:10.1177/0013164410387336

Finkelman, M. D., Weiss, D. J., & Kim-Kang, G.. (2010). Item Selection and Hypothesis Testing for the Adaptive Measurement of Change. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(4), 238-254. doi:10.1177/0146621609344844

Chen, C. - W., Wang, W. - C., Chiu, M. Ming, & Ro, S.. (2020). Item Selection and Exposure Control Methods for Computerized Adaptive Testing with Multidimensional Ranking Items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 57, 343-369. doi:10.1111/jedm.12252

Ho, T. - H., & Dodd, B. G.. (2012). Item Selection and Ability Estimation Procedures for a Mixed-Format Adaptive Test. Applied Measurement in Education, 25, 305-326. doi:10.1080/08957347.2012.714686

Garcia, D. A., Santa Cruz, C., Dorronsoro, J. R., & Rubio Franco, V. J.. (2000). Item selection algorithms in computerized adaptive testing. Psicothema, 12, 12-14.

Lai, J. - S., Dineen, K., Reeve, B. B., Von Roenn, J., Shervin, D., McGuire, M., et al.. (2005). An item response theory-based pain item bank can enhance measurement precision. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 30, 278-88.

Ware, J. E., Gandek, B., Sinclair, S. J., & Bjorner, J. B.. (2005). Item response theory in computer adaptive testing: implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol, 50, 71-78.

Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P.. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38, II28-II42.

Wainer, H.,. (1983). On item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: The coming technical revolution in testing. Journal of College Admissions, 28, 9-16.

Reise, S. P., & Waller, N. G.. (2009). Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 27-48.

Segall, D. O. (2002). An item response model for characterizing test compromise. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 163-179.

Bock, B. D.,, Muraki, E., & Pfeiffenberger, W.. (1988). Item pool maintenance in the presence of item parameter drift. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 275-285.

He, W., & Reckase, M. D.. (2014). Item Pool Design for an Operational Variable-Length Computerized Adaptive Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 473-494. doi:10.1177/0013164413509629

Han, K. T. (2013). Item Pocket Method to Allow Response Review and Change in Computerized Adaptive Testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 259-275. doi:10.1177/0146621612473638

Huebner, A. (2012). Item Overexposure in Computerized Classification Tests Using Sequential Item Selection. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(12).