Export 650 results:
Filters: First Letter Of Last Name is S  [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 
cohort growth
Taherbhai, H., & Seo, D.. (2013). The Philosophical Aspects of IRT Equating: Modeling Drift to Evaluate Cohort Growth in Large-Scale Assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32, 2–14. doi:10.1111/emip.12000
common item equating
Schwall, A., & Sinar, E.. (2011). Adaptive Item Calibration and Norming: Unique Considerations of a Global Deployment. In Annual Conference of the International Association for Computerized Adaptive Testing. presented at the 10/2011.
PDF icon IACAT 2011 Schwall Sinar Item Calibration.pdf (1.15 MB)
Schwall, A., & Sinar, E.. (2011). Adaptive Item Calibration and Norming: Unique Considerations of a Global Deployment. In Annual Conference of the International Association for Computerized Adaptive Testing. presented at the 10/2011.
PDF icon IACAT 2011 Schwall Sinar Item Calibration.pdf (1.15 MB)
Computer Assisted Testing
Schneider, R. J., Goff, M., Anderson, S., & Borman, W. C.. (2003). Computerized adaptive rating scales for measuring managerial performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 237-246.
Sireci, S. G., & Clauser, B. E.. (2001). Practical issues in setting standards on computerized adaptive tests. In Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 355-369). Mahwah, N.J. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Strong, S. D. (2000). The development of a computerized version of Vandenberg's mental rotation test and the effect of visuo-spatial working memory loading. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 60, 3938.
computerized adaptive testing
Sands, W. A., Waters, B. K., & McBride, J. R.. (1997). Computerized adaptive testing: From inquiry to operation. Washington, D.C., USA: American Psychological Association.
Schoonman, W. (1989). An applied study on computerized adaptive testing. Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences. University of Groingen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Segall, D. O. (2002). An item response model for characterizing test compromise. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 163-179.
Spray, J. A., & Reckase, M. D.. (1987). The effect of item parameter estimation error on decisions made using the sequential probability ratio test (No. Research Report 87-1). ACT Research Report Series. Iowa City, IA. USA: DTIC Document.
Veldkamp, B. P. (2003). Item selection in polytomous CAT. In A. Okada, Shigenasu, K., Kano, Y., & Meulman, J., New developments in psychometrics (pp. 207–214). Tokyo, Japan: Psychometric Society, Springer.
PDF icon ve03027.pdf (78.48 KB)
Computerized classification testing
Concerto 5
Stillwell, D. (2017). Concerto 5 Open Source CAT Platform: From Code to Nodes. In IACAT 2017 Conference. presented at the 08/2017, Niigata, Japan: Niigata Seiryo University. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/open?id=11eu1KKILQEoK5c-CYO1P1AiJgiQxX0E0
construct-relevant drift
Taherbhai, H., & Seo, D.. (2013). The Philosophical Aspects of IRT Equating: Modeling Drift to Evaluate Cohort Growth in Large-Scale Assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32, 2–14. doi:10.1111/emip.12000
CUSUM method
Meng, H., Steinkamp, S., Jones, P., & Matthews-Lopez, J.. (2011). Practitioner’s Approach to Identify Item Drift in CAT. In Annual Conference of the International Association for Computerized Adaptive Testing. presented at the 10/2011.
PDF icon IACAT 2011Meng Item Drift.pdf (337.44 KB)

Pages