A live tailored achievement testing study was conducted to compare procedures based on the one- and three-parameter logistic models. Previous studies yielded inconclusive results because of the procedures by which item calibrations were linked and because of the item selection procedures. Using improved procedures, 83 college students were tested in a test-retest design. Comparisons were based upon (1) test-retest reliability; (2) ability estimates yielded by the procedures; (3) the information yielded by the procedures; (4) the number of items the methods administered; (5) goodness of fit of the models based on mean square deviations; and (6) the correlations of estimated true scores, based on ability estimates. In addition, an attitude survey was administered after each test session to determine student attitudes toward the tailored tests. Results indicated that both tailored tests had higher reliabilities than a conventional paper-and-pencil test over the same material. The three-parameter procedure had higher test information than the one-parameter procedure and the conventional test. The attitude survey results indicated generally favorable student attitudes toward tailored testing. (Author/CP)