Armitage, P.Sequential analysis with more than two alternative hypotheses, and its relation to discriminant function analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1950, 12, 137-144.
2.
Cleary, T. A., Linn, R. L. , and Rock, D. A.Exploratory study of programmed tests. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1968, 28, 345-360. (a)
3.
Cleary, T. A., Linn, R. L. , and Rock, D. A.Reproduction of total test score through the use of sequential programmed tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1968, 5, 183-187.
4.
(b) College Entrance Examination Board. Score Interpretation Guide: College Level Examination Program. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1967.
5.
Cronbach, L. J.How can instruction be adapted to individual differences? In R. Gagné (Ed.), Learning and individual differences. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, 1967. Pp. 23-29.
6.
Cronbach, L. J. and Snow, R. R.Final report: Individual differences in learning ability as a function of instructional variables. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, 1969. (Available through ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED-029-001).)
7.
Ferguson, R. L.The development, implementation, and evaluation of a computer-assisted branched test for a program of individually prescribed instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1969.
8.
Glaser, R.Adapting the elementary school curriculum to individual performance. In Proceedings of the 1967 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1968. Pp. 3-36.
9.
Green, B. F.Comments on tailored testing . In W. Holtzman (Ed.), Computer assisted instruction, testing, and guidance. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.
10.
Statistical Research Group, Columbia University.Sequential analysis of statistical data, applications. New York: Columbia University Press, 1945.
