Thesis (M.S.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2005. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file viewed on (July 14, 2006) Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 2000. / Title from title page screen, viewed May 4, 2006. Dissertation Committee: Paul Baker (chair), Dianne Ashby, Linda Lyman, George Padavil, William Rau. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-121) and abstract. Also available in print.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1996. / Title from title page screen, viewed June 1, 2006. Dissertation Committee: Sally B. Pancrazio (chair), Dianne E. Ashby, Marrietta Castle, Carmen Chapman, Ronald Halinski, R. Kay Moss. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 137-145) and abstract. Also available in print.

Thesis (M.A. in education)--Washington State University, August 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Bowling Green State University, 2007. / Document formatted into pages; contains xi, 715 p. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Delaware, 2007. / Principal faculty advisor: Douglas A. Archbald, School of Education. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Duquesne University, 2007. / Title from document title page. Abstract included in electronic submission form. Includes bibliographical references (p. 158-166) and index.

Thesis (Ed. D.) University of Missouri-Columbia, 2006. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on August 8, 2007) Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Boise State University, 2005. / Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves159-167). Also available online via the ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.

<p>LIU, FU, Ph.D. Comparisons of Subscoring Methods in Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Simulation Study. (2015) Directed by Dr. Terry A. Ackerman. 187 pp. Given the increasing demands of subscore reports, various subscoring methods and augmentation techniques have been developed aiming to improve the subscore estimates, but few studies have been conducted to systematically compare these methods under the framework of computerized adaptive tests (CAT). This research conducts a simulation study, for the purpose of comparing five subscoring methods on score estimation under variable simulated CAT conditions. Among the five subscoring methods, the IND-UCAT scoring ignores the correlations among subtests, whereas the other four correlation-based scoring methods (SEQ-CAT, PC-MCAT, reSEQ-CAT, and AUG-CAT) capitalize on the correlation information in the scoring procedure. By manipulating the sublengths, the correlation structures, and the item selection algorithms, more comparable, pragmatic, and systematic testing scenarios are created for comparison purposes. Also, to make the best of the sources underlying the assessments, the study proposes a successive scoring procedure according to the structure of the higher-order IRT model, in which the test total score of individual examinees can be calculated after the subscore estimation procedure is conducted. Through the successive scoring procedure, the subscores and the total score of an examinee can be sequentially derived from one test. The results of the study indicate that in the low correlation structure, the original IND-CAT is suggested for subscore estimation considering the ease of implementation in practice, while the suggested total score estimation procedure is not recommended given the large divergences from the true total scores. For the mixed correlation structure with two moderate correlations and one strong correlation, the original SEQ-CAT or the combination of the SEQ-CAT item selection and the PC-MCAT scoring should be considered not only for subscore estimation but also for total score estimation. If the post-hoc estimation procedure is allowed, the original SEQ-CAT and the reSEQ-CAT scoring could be jointly conducted for the best score estimates. In the high correlation structure, the original PC-MCAT and the combination of the PC-MCAT scoring and the SEQ-CAT item selection are suggested for both the subscore estimation and the total score estimation. In terms of the post-hoc score estimation, the reSEQ-CAT scoring in conjunction with the original SEQ-CAT is strongly recommended. If the complexity of the implementation is an issue in practice, the reSEQ-CAT scoring jointly conducted with the original IND-UCAT could be considered for reasonable score estimates. Additionally, to compensate for the constrained use of item pools in PC-MCAT, the PC-MCAT with adaptively sequencing subtests (SEQ-MCAT) is proposed for future investigations. The simplifications of item and/or subtest selection criteria in a simple-structure MCAT, PC-MCAT, and SEQ-MCAT are also pointed out for the convenience of their applications in practice. Last, the limitations of the study are discussed and the directions for future studies are also provided.