A fundamental assumption in computerized adaptive testing is that item parameters are invariant with respect to context--items surrounding the administered item. This assumption, however, may not hold in forced-choice (FC) assessments, where explicit comparisons are made between items included in the same block. We empirically examined the influence of context on item parameters by comparing parameter estimates from two FC instruments. The first instrument was composed of blocks of three items, whereas in the second, the context was manipulated by adding one item to each block, resulting in blocks of four. The item parameter estimates were highly similar. However, a small number of significant deviations were observed, confirming the importance of context when designing adaptive FC assessments. Two patterns of such deviations were identified, and methods to reduce their occurrences in an FC computerized adaptive testing setting were proposed. It was shown that with a small proportion of violations of the parameter invariance assumption, score estimation remained stable.