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

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

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., & 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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.