___

• Agresti, A. ve Coull, B. A. (1998). Approximate is better than “exact” for ınterval estimation of binomial proportions. The American Statistician, 52(2), 119-126.
• Ariel, A., Veldkamp, B. P. ve Van Der Linden, W. J. (2004). Constructing rotating item pools for constrained adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41(4), 345359.
• Aytuğ Koşan, A. M. (2013). Tıp eğitiminde gelişim sınavı soru bankası oluşturulması ve benzetim verileri ile bilgisayar uyarlamalı test uygulaması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Boyd, A. M., Dodd, B ve Fitzpatrick, S. (2013). A comparison of exposure control procedures in CAT systems based on different measurement models for testlets. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(2), 113-135.
• Boyd, M. A. (2003). Strategies for controlling testlet exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing systems (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The University of Texas, Austin.
• Boztunç Öztürk, N. (2014). Bireyselleştirilmiş bilgisayarlı test uygulamalarında madde kullanım sıklığı kontrol yöntemlerinin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, N.J.: Guiford Press.
• Bulut, O. ve Kan, A. (2012). Application of computerized adaptive testing to entrance examination for graduate studies in Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 61-80.
• Burt, W. M., Kim S. J., Davis, L. Lve Dodd, B. G. (2003, April). A comparison of item exposure control procedures using a CAT system based on the generalized partial credit model. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association sunulmuş bildiri, Chicago, IL.
• Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with lirsel, prelis, and simplis: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Chang, H. H. ve Ying, Z. (1999). A-stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 211-222.
• Chang, H. H., Qian, J. ve Ying, Z. (2001). A-stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing with b blocking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 333-341.
• Chang, S. W. ve Twu, B. Y. (1998). A comparative study of item exposure control methods in CAT (Research Report 98-3). Iowa City, IA: ACT.
• Chen, S. Y., Ankenmann, R. D. ve Spay, J. A. (1999). Exploring the relationship between item exposure rate and test overlap rate in computerised adaptive testing (ACT Research Report Series. 99-5). http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/ACT_RR99-05.pdf adresinden erişildi.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.
• Cömert, M. (2008). Bireye uyarlanmış bilgisayar destekli ölçme ve değerlendirme yazılımı geliştirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Crocker, L. ve Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Çetin, E. (2009). Dikey ölçeklemede klasik test ve madde tepki kuramına dayalı yöntemlerin karşılştırılması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Davey, T. ve Parshall, C. G. (1995, April). New algorithms for item selection and exposure control with computerized adaptive testing. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) sunulmuş bildiri, San Francisco, CA.
• Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M. ve Bingham, C. B. (2007) Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 480-499.
• Davis, L. L. (2002). Strategies for controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with polytomously scored items (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The University of Texas, Austin.
• Davis, L. L. (2004). Strategies for controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(3), 165-185.
• Davis, L. ve Dodd, B. (2003). Item exposure constraints for testlets in the verbal reasoning section of the MCAT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(3), 335-356.
• Davis, L. L. ve Dodd, B. G. (2005). Strategies for controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with partial credit model (PEM Research Report No. 05-01). Austin, TX: Pearson Educational Measurement.
• DeMars, C. E. (2006). Application of the Bi-Factor multidimensional item response theory model to Testlet-Based tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(2), 145-168.
• Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2001). Overexposure and underexposure of items in computerized adaptive testing (Measurement and Research Department Reports. 2001-1). Arnhem, The Netherlands: CITO.
• Eignor, D. R., Stocking, M. L., Way, W. D. ve Steffen, M. (1993). Case studies in computer adaptive test design through simulation (ETS Research Report. RR-93-56). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Embretson, S. E. ve Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Eroğlu, M. G. (2013). Bireyselleştirilmiş bilgisayarlı test uygulamalarında farklı sonlandırma kurallarının ölçme kesinliği ve test uzunluğu açısından karşılaştırılması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Evans, J. J. (2010). Comparability of examinee proficiency scores on computer adaptive tests using real and simulated data (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey.
• French, B. ve Thompson, T. (2003). The evaluation of exposure control procedures for an operational CAT. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) sunulmuş bildiri, Chicago, IL.
• Georgiadou, E., Triantafillou, E. ve Economide, A. A. (2007). A review of item exposure control strategies for computerized adaptive testing developed from 1983 to 2005. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(8), 3-37.
• Glas, G. A. W. (2002). Item calibration and parameter drift. W. J. Van Der Linden ve G. A. W. Glas (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice içinde (s. 183-199). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Goldman, S. H. ve Raju, N. S. (1986). Recover of one and two parameter logistic item parameters: An empirical study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24, 11-21.
• Gökçe, S. (2012). Comparison of linear and adaptive versions of the Turkish pupil monitoring system (pms) mathematics assessment (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Grubbs, F. E. (1973). Errors of measurement, precision, accuracy and the statistical comparison of measuring instruments. Technometrics, 15, 53-66.
• Gu, L. ve Reckase, M. D. (2007). Designing optimal item pools for computerized adaptive tests with Sympson-Hetter exposure control. D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 GMAC Conference on Computerize Adaptive Testing içinde. http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/CATCentral/ adresinden erişildi.
• Guyer, R. ve Thompson, N. (2011). Item response theory parameter recovery using Xcalibre 4.1. St. Paul MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.
• Guyer, R. ve Thompson, N.A. (2012). User’s manual for Xcalibre item response theory calibration software, version 4.1.6. St. Paul MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.
• Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. ve Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H. ve Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. California: Sage Publications Inc.
• Han, K. T. (2009). A gradual maximum information ratio approach to item selection in computerized adaptive testing. D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing içinde. http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/CATCentral/ adresinden erişildi.
• Han, K. T. (2011). User’s manual: SimulCAT: Windows software for simulating computerized adaptive test administration. ABD: Graduate Management Admission Council.
• Han, K. T. (2012). An efficiency balanced information criterion for item selection in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 49(3), 225-246.
• Harwell, M. R. ve Janosky, J. E. (1991). An empirical study of the effects of small datasets and varying prior variances on item parameter estimation in BILOG. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15(3), 279-291.
• Harwell, M., Stone, C. A., Hsu, T. ve Kirişçi, L. (1996). Monte carlo studies in item response theory. Aplied Psychological Measurement, 20(2), 101-125.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronical Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
• Howell, C. D. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology. USA: Cengage Wadsworth.
• Huang, H. Y., Chen, P. H. ve Wang, W. C. (2012). Computerized adaptive testing using a class of highorder ıtem response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(8), 689-706.
• Hulin, C. L., Lissak, R. L. ve Drasgow, F. (1982). Recovery of two- and three-parameter logistic item characteristic curves: A monte carlo study. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6(3), 249260.
• İşeri, A. I. (2002). Assessment of students' mathematics achievement through computer adaptive testing procedures (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Jöreskog, K. ve Sörbom, D. (1993).LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
• Kalender, İ. (2009). Başarı ve yetenek kestirimlerinde yeni bir yaklaşım: Bilgisayar ortamında bireyselleştirilmiş testler (Computerized adaptive tests-CAT). CITO Egitim Kuram ve Uygulama, 5, 39-48.
• Kalender, İ. (2011). Effects of different computerized adaptive testing strategies on recovery of ability (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Kaptan, F. (1993). Yetenek kestiriminde adaptive (bireyselleştirilmiş) test uygulaması ile geleneksel kâğıt-kalem testi uygulamasının karşılaştırılması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Kaskatı, O. T. (2011). Rasch modelleri kullanarak romatoid artirit hastaları özürlülük değerlendirimi için bilgisayar uyarlamalı test yöntemi geliştirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. United States of America: Sage Publications.
• Kezer, F. (2013). Bilgisayar ortamında bireye uyarlanmış test stratejilerinin karşılaştırılması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Publications.
• Köse, İ. A. (2010). Madde tepki kuramına dayalı tek boyutlu ve çok boyutlu modellerin test uzunluğu ve örneklem büyüklüğü açısından karşılaştırılması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi.
• AnkaraLee, H. Y. ve Dodd, B. G. (2012). Comparison of exposure controls, item pool characteristic, and population distributions for cat using the partial credit model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(1), 159-175.
• Leroux, A. J., Lopez, M., Hembry, I. ve Dodd, B. G. (2013). A comparison of exposure control procedures in CATs using the 3PL model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 857-874.
• Lord, F. ve Stocking, M. (1988). Item reponse theory. J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook içinde. New York: Pergamon Press.
• Lord, F. M. (1968). An analysis of the verbal scholastic aptitude test using Birnbaum's three-parameter logistic model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28(4), 989-1020.
• Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Lunz, M. E. ve Stahl, J. A. (1998). Patterns of item exposure using a randomized CAT algorithm. Annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education sunuşmuş bildiri, San Diego, CA.
• Magis, D. ve Raîche, G. (2012). Random generation of response patterns under computerized adaptive testing with the R package catR. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(8), 1-31.
• McDonald, P. L. (2002). Computer adaptive test for measuring personality factors using item response theory (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The University Western of Ontario, London.
• Özbaşı, D. (2014). Bilgisayar okuryazarlığı testinin bilgisayar ortamında bireye uyarlanmış test olarak uygulanabilirliğine ilişkin bir araştırma (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Öztuna, D. (2008). Kas-iskelet sistemi sorunlarının özürlülük değerlendiriminde bilgisayar uyarlamalı test yönteminin uygulanması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
• Pastor, D. A., Dodd, B. G. ve Chang, H. H. (2002). A comparison of item selection techniques and exposure control mechanisms in CATs using the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26(2), 147-163.
• Patsula, L. N. ve Gessaroli, M. E. (1995, April). A comparison of item parameter estimates and ICCs produced with TESTGRAF and BILOG under different test lengths and sample sizes. Annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education sunulmuş bildiri, San Francisco.
• R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/. adresinden erişildi.
• Revuelta, J. ve Ponsoda, V. (1998). A comparison of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35(4), 311-327.
• Ross, S. M. (2013). Simulation. USA: Elsevier. Rudman, H. C. (1987). The future of testing is now. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 4, 5-11.
• Scullard, M. G. (2007). Application of item response theory based computerized adaptive testing to the strong interest inventory (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Minnesota, USA.
• Segall, D. O. (2004). Computerized adaptive testing. K. Kempf-Leanard (Ed.), The encyclopedia of social measurement içinde (s. 429-438). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Smits, N., Cuijpers, P. ve Straten, A. (2011). Applying computerized adaptive testing to the CES-D scale: A simulation study. Psychiatry Research, 188, 145-155.
• Speron, E. (2009). A comparison of metric linking procedures in ıtem response theory (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Chicago, Illinois: Illinois Institute of Technology.
• Stocking, M. L. ve Lewis, C. (1995). A new method of controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing (Research Report. 95-25). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Stocking, M. L. ve Lewis C. (2002). Methods of controlling the exposure of items in CAT. W. J. Van Der Linden ve G. A. W. Glas (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice içinde (s. 163-182).
• New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sulak, S. (2013). Bireyselleştirilmiş bilgisayarlı test uygulamalarında kullanılan madde seçme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6) 49-74.
• Şahin, A. ve Anıl, D. (2017). The effects of test length and sample size on item parameters in item response theory. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17, 321-335.
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınları.
• Tabachnick, B. Gve Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Tang, K. L., Way, W. D. ve Carey, P. A. (1993). The effect of small calibration sample sizes on TEOFL IRTbased equating (TOEFL technical report. TR-7). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Tay, P. H. (2015). On-the-fly assembled multistage adaptive testing (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The University of Texas, Urbana.
• Thissen, D. ve Wainer, H. (1982). Some standard errors in item response theory. Psychometrika, 47(4), 397-412. doi:10.1007/BF02293705
• Thompson, T. (2002, April). Employing new ideas in CAT to a simulated reading test. Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education sunulmuş sözlü bildiri, New Orleans, LA.
• Vaughn, B. K. ve Wang, Q. (2010). DIF trees: using classifications trees to detect differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(6), 941-952.
• Veldkamp, B. P. ve Van Der Linden, W. J. (2008). Implementing Sympson-Hetter item-exposure control in a shadow-test approach to constrained adaptive testing. International Journal of Testing, 8(3), 272289.
• Veldkamp, B. P. ve Van Der Linden W. J. (2010). Designing item pools for adaptive testing. W. J. Van Der Linden ve C. A. W. Glas (Ed.), Elements of adaptive testing içinde. New York: Springer.
• Veldkamp, B. P., Verschoor, A. J. ve Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2010). A multiple objective test assembly approach for exposure control problems in computerized adaptive testing. Psicológica, 31(2), 335- 355.
• Wang, H. P., Kuo, B. C., Tsai, Y. H. ve Liao, C. H. (2012). A cefr-based computerized testing system for chinese proficiency. The Turkish Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 1-12.
• Wang, T. ve Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Properties of ability estimation methods computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35(2), 109-135.
• Way, W. D. (1998). Protecting the integrity of computerized testing item pools. Educational Measurement: lssues and Practice, 17, 17-27.
• Way, W. D. (2005). Practical questions in ıntroducing computerized adaptive testing for k-12 assessments (PEM Research Report. 05-03). Londra: Pearson Educational Measurement.
• Weiss, D. J. (1988). Adaptive testing. J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook içinde (s. 881-884). New York: Pergamon Press.
• Weiss, D. J. (2004). Computerized adaptive testing for effective and efficient measurement in counseling and education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37(2), 70-84.
• Weiss, D. J. ve Guyer, R. (2012). Manual for CATSim: Comprehensive simulation of computerized adaptive testing. St. Paul MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.
• Weiss, D. J. ve Von Minden, S. (2012). A comparison of item parameter estimates from Xcalibre 4.1 and BilogMG. St. Paul MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.
• Yen, W. M. (1987). A comparison of the efficiency and accuracy of BILOG and LOGIST. Psychometrika, 52(2), 275291. doi:10.1007/BF02294241
• Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessment: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 187-213.
• Yoes, M. (1995). An updated comparison of microcomputer-based item parameter estimation procedures used with the 3-parameter IRT model. Saint Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.
• Zheng, Y. ve Chang, H. H. (2014). On-the-fly assembled multistage adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(2), 105-118.
• Zitny, P., Halama, P., Jelinek, M. ve Kveton, P. (2012). Validity of cognitive ability tests-comparison of computerized adaptive testing with paper and pencil and computer-based forms of administrations. Studia Psychologica, 54(3), 181-194.