307 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9661734)
21. The maximum priority index method for severely constrained item selection in computerized adaptive testing.
Cheng Y; Chang HH
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 May; 62(Pt 2):369-83. PubMed ID: 18534047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Piloting use of computerized practice tests.
Rossignol M; Scollin P
Comput Nurs; 2001; 19(5):206-12. PubMed ID: 11577662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments.
Tarrant M; Ware J
Med Educ; 2008 Feb; 42(2):198-206. PubMed ID: 18230093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A comparison of the separation ratio and coefficient alpha in the creation of minimum item sets.
Mallinson T; Stelmack J; Velozo C
Med Care; 2004 Jan; 42(1 Suppl):I17-24. PubMed ID: 14707752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Applying the item response theory to classroom examinations.
Lawson DM
J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 2006 Jun; 29(5):393-7. PubMed ID: 16762668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. An application of Rasch analysis to the measurement of communicative functioning.
Doyle PJ; Hula WD; McNeil MR; Mikolic JM; Matthews C
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Dec; 48(6):1412-28. PubMed ID: 16478380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Validating standard setting with a modified nedelsky procedure through common item test equating.
Smith RM; Gross LJ
J Outcome Meas; 1997; 1(2):164-72. PubMed ID: 9661719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Item and rater analysis of constructed response items via the multi-faceted Rasch model.
Wolfe EW
J Appl Meas; 2009; 10(3):335-47. PubMed ID: 19671993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A comparison of stopping rules for computerized adaptive screening measures using the rating scale model.
Leroux AJ; Dodd BG
J Appl Meas; 2014; 15(3):213-26. PubMed ID: 24992246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Using the Rasch model in nursing research: an introduction and illustrative example.
Hagquist C; Bruce M; Gustavsson JP
Int J Nurs Stud; 2009 Mar; 46(3):380-93. PubMed ID: 19059593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Substantive scale construction.
Stone MH
J Appl Meas; 2003; 4(3):282-97. PubMed ID: 12904678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Evaluating the usefulness of computerized adaptive testing for medical in-course assessment.
Kreiter CD; Ferguson K; Gruppen LD
Acad Med; 1999 Oct; 74(10):1125-8. PubMed ID: 10536635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Progress in assessing physical function in arthritis: PROMIS short forms and computerized adaptive testing.
Fries JF; Cella D; Rose M; Krishnan E; Bruce B
J Rheumatol; 2009 Sep; 36(9):2061-6. PubMed ID: 19738214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. An investigation of factors affecting test equating in latent trait theory.
Suanthong S; Schumacker RE; Beyerlein MM
J Appl Meas; 2000; 1(1):25-43. PubMed ID: 12023556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Computer adaptive testing improved accuracy and precision of scores over random item selection in a physical functioning item bank.
Haley SM; Ni P; Hambleton RK; Slavin MD; Jette AM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Nov; 59(11):1174-82. PubMed ID: 17027428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Rasch analysis of distractors in multiple-choice items.
Wang WC
J Outcome Meas; 1998; 2(1):43-65. PubMed ID: 9661731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. a-Stratified CAT design with content blocking.
Yi Q; Chang HH
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2003 Nov; 56(Pt 2):359-78. PubMed ID: 14633340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A computerized adaptive knowledge test as an assessment tool in general practice: a pilot study.
Roex A; Degryse J
Med Teach; 2004 Mar; 26(2):178-83. PubMed ID: 15203528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A critique of Rasch residual fit statistics.
Karabatsos G
J Appl Meas; 2000; 1(2):152-76. PubMed ID: 12029176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Developing new online calibration methods for multidimensional computerized adaptive testing.
Chen P; Wang C; Xin T; Chang HH
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2017 Feb; 70(1):81-117. PubMed ID: 28130937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
