AndersonR. C.How to construct achievement tests to assess comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 1972, 42, 145–70.
2.
Bar-HillelY.The mechanization of literature searching. In Mechanization of Thought Processes, Vol. 2, Symposium No. 10, National Physics Laboratory (England), 1959, pp. 4–8. Cited by Carroll, J. M. and Roeloffs, P., Computer selection of key words using word-frequency analysis. American Documentation, 1969, 227–233.
3.
BloomB. S.Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook I: The Cognative Domain. New York: David McKay, 1956.
4.
BormuthJ. R.On the Theory of Achievement Text Items. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
5.
BormuthJ. R.Development of standards of readability: Toward a rational criterion of passage performance. Final Report, June, 1972, University of Chicago, Project No. 9–0237, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Education Research Bureau.
6.
CarrollJ. N.RoeloffsR.Computer selection of keywords using word-frequency analysis. American Documentation, 1969, pp. 227–233.
7.
CarverR. P.Analysis of “chunked” test items as measures of reading and listening comprehension. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1970, 7, p. 141–50.
8.
DavisF. B.Educational Measurements and their Interpretation. Belmont, California:1964.
9.
EbelR. L.Must all tests be valid?American Psychologist, 1961, 16, 640–47.
10.
EbelR. L.Content standard scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1962, 22, 15–25.
11.
EdmundsonH. P.WyllysR. F.Automatic abstracting and indexing—survey and recommendations. Communications of the ACM, 1961, 4 pp. 226–234. Cited in Carroll, J. M. and Roeloffs, R. Computer selection of keywords using word-frequency analysis. American Documentation, 1969, pp. 227–233.
12.
FillmoreC. A. The case for case. In BachE.HarmsP., (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968.
13.
FinnP. J.A Question Writing Algorithm, University of Chicago, (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), 1973.
14.
HavenhandI.HavenhandJ.The Miner. Loughborough, England: Willis and Hepworth, Ltd., 1965.
15.
KuceraH.FrancisW. NelsonComputational analysis of present–day American English. Providence: Brown University Press, 1967.
16.
LeesRobert B.The grammar of English nominalizations, International Journal of American Linguistics, 263, July, 1960.
17.
LuhnH. P.The automatic derivation of information retrieval encodements from machine readable texts. Documentation and Library Science, 1959, 3, pp. 1021–1028. (a).
18.
LuhnH. P.Potentialities of auto-encoding of scientific literature, IBM Research Report RC-101. IBM Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York: May 15, 1959. (b).
19.
LuhnH. P.Auto encoding of documents for information retrieval systemsNew York: Pergamon Press, 1959, (c) Cited in Carroll and Roeloffs, Computer selection of keywords using word-frequency analysis. American Documentation, 1969, 227–233.
20.
OsburnH. G.Item sampling for achievement testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1968, 28, 95–104.
21.
ShoemakerD. M.OsburnH. G.Computer aided item sampling for achievement testing: a description of a computer implementing the universe defined test concept. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 165–172.
22.
StockwellR. P.SchachterP.ParteeB. H.Integration of transformational theories on English syntax. Contract No. AF 19(628)-6007 by the University of California, Los Angelos: UCLA, 1968.