Ackerman, P. L. (1987). Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1), 3–27. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.102.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beaty, J. C., Dawson, C. R., Fallaw, S. S., & Kantrowitz, T.M. (2009). Recovering the scientist–practitioner model: How I-Os should respond to unproctored Internet testing. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T., & Smith, M. A. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(4), 317–335. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2389.2006.00354.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16. doi:10.2307/1175554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boyce, A. S., Conway, J. S., Caputo, P. M., & Huber, C. R. (2015). Development of the adaptive employee personality test (ADEPT-15TM). Paper Presented at the 2015 Conference of the International Personnel Assessment Council, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Brown, A. (2016). Item response models for forced-choice questionnaires: A common framework. Psychometrika, 81(1), 135–160. doi:10.1007/s11336-014–9434-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brown, A., Inceoglu, I., & Lin, Y. (2017). Preventing rater biases in 360-degree feedback by forcing choice. Organizational Research Methods, 20(1), 121–148. doi:10.1177/1094428116668036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, A. & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 71(3), 460–502. doi:10.1177/0013164410375112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, A. & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2013). How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 36–52. doi:10.1037/a0030641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chen, C., Lee, H., & Chen, Y. (2005). Personalized e-learning system using item response theory. Computers & Education, 44(3), 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheung, M. W. L., & Chan, W. (2002). Reducing uniform response bias with ipsative measurement in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(1), 55–77. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E. (2005). Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18(3), 267–307. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1803_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173. doi:10.1080/00461520802178466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar

Daniels, J. A., Spero, R. A., Leonard, J. M., & Schimmel, C. J. (2015). A content analysis of military psychology: 2002–2014. Military Pschology, 27(6), 366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Boeck, P. (2017). Interwovenness of response time and response accuracy in cognitive tests. Paper Presented at the 82nd International Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Drasgow, F., Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Nye, C. D., Hulin, C. L., & White, L. A. (2012). Development of the tailored adaptive personality assessment system (TAPAS) to support army selection and classification decisions (tech. rep. no. 1311). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embretson, S., & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Fetzer, M. (2009, April). Validity and utility of computer adaptive testing in personnel selection. Symposium presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New Orleans, LA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gartner (2015). www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3088221. Retrieved on December 20, 2015.Google Scholar

Georgiadou, E., Triantafillou, E., & Economides, 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), 3–38.Google Scholar

Goldberg, B., Brawner, K., Sottilare, R., Tarr, R., Billings, D. R., & Malone, N. (2012). Use of evidence-based strategies to enhance the extensibility of adaptive tutoring technologies. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), Orlando, FL.Google Scholar

Grelle, D., Gutierrez, S. L., & Fetzer, M. (2010, June). Validity of CAT in Personnel Selection. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association of Computer Adaptive Testing, Arnhem, Netherlands.Google Scholar

Gutierrez, S. L. (2011, October). Perceptions of fairness and opportunity to perform on CAT in personnel selection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Associated of Computer Adaptive Testing, Pacific Grove, CA.Google Scholar

Gutierrez, S., Grelle, D., & Borneman, M. (2009, April). Computer Adaptive Measures of Cognitive Ability: Validity and Utility. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychologists, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar

Han, K. T. (2012). SimulCAT: Windows software for simulating computerized adaptive test administration. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(1), 64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Houston, J. S., Borman, W. C., Farmer, W. L., & Bearden, R. M. (2006). Development of the navy computer adaptive personality scales (NCAPS). (No. NPRST-TR-06–2). Millington, TN: Navy Personnel Research, Studies, and Technology Division, Bureau of Naval Personnel (NPRST/PERS-1).Google Scholar

Jackson, D. N., Wroblewski, V. R., & Ashton, M. C. (2000). The impact of faking on employment tests: Does forced choice offer a solution? Human Performance, 13(4), 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, C. E., Wood, R., & Blinkhorn, S. F. (1988). Spuriouser and spuriouser: The use of ipsative personality tests. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61(2), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnston, J. H., Goodwin, G., Moss, J., Sottilare, R., Ososky, S., Cruz, D. & Graesser, A. (2015). Effectiveness evaluation tools and methods for adaptive training and education in support of the US army learning model: Research outline. Retrieved from www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA621295.Google Scholar

Kantrowitz, T. M., Fetzer, M. S., & Dawson, C. R. (2011). Computer adaptive testing (CAT): A faster, smarter, and more secure approach to pre-employment testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kantrowitz, T. M. & Robie, C. (2011). Estimates of faking on computer adaptive and static personality assessments. In T. Kantrowitz (Chair) Innovations in Mitigating Faking on Personality Assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

King, D., Ryan, A. M., Kantrowitz, T. M., Grelle, D., & Dainis, A. (2015). Mobile internet testing: An analysis of equivalence, individual differences, and reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23, 382–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liu, M. T. & Yu, P. T. (2011). Aberrant learning achievement detection based on person-fit statistics in personalized e-learning systems. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 107–120.Google Scholar

Lu, Y. & Sireci, S. G. (2007). Validity issues in test speededness. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(4), 29–37. doi:10.1111/j.1745–3992.2007.00106.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maynes, D. (2010). Research in test security: The latest research in test security data analysis. Symposium presented at the 11th annual conference of the Association of Test Publishers, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar

McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf–Gc framework. In Flanagan, D. P., Genshaft, J. L. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151–179). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar

Moclaire, C., Middleton, E., Fox, B., Foster, C., & Prettyman, T. (2012). Balancing security and efficiency in limited-size computer adaptive test libraries. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Ozer, D. J. & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 2(4), 313–345. doi:10.1111/j.1745–6916.2007.00047.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sawtooth Software, Inc. ACBC technical paper [Sawtooth Software technical paper series]. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2009 [online]. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acbctech. Pdf.Google Scholar

Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schneider, R. J., McLellan, R. A., Kantrowitz, T. M., Houston, J. S., & Borman, W. C. (2009). Criterion-related validity of an innovative CAT-based personality measure. Proceedings from the GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.Google Scholar

Segall, D. O. (1996). Multidimensional adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 61(2), 331–354. doi:10.1007/BF02294343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seo, D. G. & Weiss, D. J. (2015). Best design for multidimensional computerized adaptive testing with the bifactor model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(6), 954–978. doi:10.1177/0013164415575147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

SHL. (2009–2014). Global personality inventory – adaptive: Technical manual. Surrey, UK: SHL.Google Scholar

SHL. (2016). Apta™ architecture technical manual. Surrey, UK: SHL.Google Scholar

Smittle, P. (1993). Computer adaptive testing: A new era. Journal of Development Education, 17, 8–10.Google Scholar

Snow, R. E. (1997). Individual differences. In Tennyson, R. D., Schott, F., Seel, N. M., & Dijkstra, S. (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives (vol. 1, pp. 215–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Stark, S. & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2007). Adaptive testing with the multi-unidimensional pairwise preference model. Proceedings of the 2007 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar

Stark, S. & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2011). Computerized adaptive testing with the Zinnes and Griggs pairwise preference ideal point model. International Journal of Testing, 11(3), 231–247. doi:10.1080/15305058.2011.561459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & White, L. A. (2012). Adaptive testing with multidimensional pairwise preference items: Improving the efficiency of personality and other noncognitive assessments. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 463–487. doi:10.1177/1094428112444611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., Nye, C. D., White, L. A., Heffner, T., & Farmer, W. L. (2014). From ABLE to TAPAS: A new generation of personality tests to support military selection and classification decisions. Military Psychology, 26(3), 153–164. doi:10.1037/mil0000044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sullivan, J. (2014). The power has shifted to the candidate, so current recruiting practices will stop working. Retrieved December 20, 2015, from www.eremedia.com/ere/the-power-has-shifted-to-the-candidate-so-current-recruiting-practices-will-stop-workingGoogle Scholar

Tippins, N. T. (2009). Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Training. (2016). 2016 training industry report. Retrieved from https://trainingmag.com/trgmag-article/2o16-training-industry-report.Google Scholar

van Buuren, N., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2017). Latent-class-based item selection for computerized adaptive progress tests. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 5(2), 22–43. Retrieved from http://iacat.org/jcat/index.php/jcat/article/view/62/29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Linden, W. J. (2009). Conceptual issues in response-time modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46(3), 247–272. doi:10.1111/j.1745–3984.2009.00080.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Linden, W. J., & Pashley, P. J. (2000). Item selection and ability estimation in adaptive testing. In van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, G. A. W. (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/0–306-47531–6_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.611369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Veerkamp, W. J. J. & Berger, M. P. F. (1997). Some new item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(2), 203–226. doi:10.2307/1165378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Veldkamp, B. P. (2016). On the issue of item selection in computerized adaptive testing with response times. Journal of Educational Measurement, 53(2), 212–228. doi:10.1111/jedm.12110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vogel-Walcutt, J., Ross, K. G., Phillips, J. K., & Stensrud, B. (2016). Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of adaptive training: Using developmental models as a framework and foundation for human-centred instructional design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 17(2), 127–148. doi:10.1080/1463922X.2015.1111460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiss, D. J. (1982). Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6(4), 473–492. doi:10.1177/014662168200600408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiss, D. J. & Kingsbury, G. G. (1984). Application of computerized adaptive testing to educational problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(4), 361–375. doi:10.1111/j.1745–3984.1984.tb01040.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar