Monte Carlo simulation procedures were used to study the psychometric characteristics of two two-stage adaptive tests and a conventional "peaked" ability test. Results showed that scores yielded by both two-stage tests better reflected the normal distribution of underlying ability. Ability estimates yielded by one of the two stage tests were more reliable and had a slightly higher relationship to underlying ability than did the conventional test scores. One of the two-stage tests yielded an approximately horizontal information function, indicating more constant precision of measurement for individuals at all levels of ability. The conventional test and the second two-stage test yielded information functions peaked at the mean ability level but dropping off at more extreme levels of ability; however, the second two-stage test provided more information than the conventional test at all levels of ability. The findings of the study were interpreted as indicating the potential superiority of two-stage tests in comparison to conventional tests. Several improvements in the construction of two-stage tests are suggested for use in further research. (Author)