Open Journal of Statistics, 2012, 2, 452-459
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2012.24057 Published Online October 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojs)
A Simple Statistical Estimation of One’s Performance in an
MCQ Examination, Based upon Mock Test Results, Using
Binomial Distribution of Probability
Sudipto Roy1, Priyadarshi Majumdar2*
1Department of Physics, St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata, India
2Jyotinagar Bidyasree Niketan Higher Secondary School, Kolkata, India
Received June 4, 2012; revised July 8, 2012; accepted July 20, 2012
ABSTRACT
A simple statistical model is proposed regarding the estimation of one’s overall performance in an MCQ examination
along with the calculation of probability of obtaining a certain percentage of marks in the same. Using the data obtained
from the results of a sufficiently large number of mock examinations, conducted prior to the main examination, certain
parameters quantifying one’s knowledge or preparation for the examination has been calculated. Based on those pa-
rameters, the probability of obtaining a certain percentage of marks has been computed using the theory of binomial
probability distribution. The dependence of this probability function on various parameters has been depicted graphi-
cally. A parameter, called the performance index, has been defined in terms of the expectation value and standard de-
viation of marks computed from probability d istribution. Using this parameter, a new parameter called the relative per-
formance index has been defined. This index estimates one’s performance with respect to the best possible performance.
The variation of relative performance index with respect to the preparation index has been shown graphically for dif-
ferent parameter values quantifying various aspects regarding the examination and the examinee.
Keywords: MCQ; Preparation Index; Knowledge Index; Application Index; Performance Index; Relative Performance;
Binomial Probability Distribution; Estimation of Examination Result
1. Introduction
Although it is widely acknowledged that the scores or
grades one makes in an examination can never be the
ultimate judge of a student’s talent or academic capabil-
ity. But for all practical purposes the importance of an
examination is universally accepted. It is a possible
method to assess students because it judges them by a
common technique (having the same set of questions)
applied to all the examinees under the same circum-
stances (at least tried to be maintained). The general ex-
amination process, with long or descriptive answer type
questions, has a major disadvantage that there exists no
unique answer to a particular question, for any discipline
whatsoever. In other words, it is impossible to prepare a
unique model answer for a descriptive type question pa-
per. Therefore, we have an obvious lack of uniformity in
the ways of manual evaluation of the answer scripts by
different examiners. It is not possible to use computers to
evaluate such answer scripts because of the absence of a
unique set of model answers. In-depth knowledge of sub-
ject and critical analysis are required to examine such
scripts. An examiner, well versed with the subject, can
only do this properly. Other shortcomings of the old ex-
amination process are that its implementation h as a lot of
difficulties and it is very much time consuming because
of its manual nature of evaluation. Despite all these dis-
advantages the old examination process is still of great
importance worldwide fo r University degrees that we are
very much concerned about.
A new examination method, quite different from the
old one, has been developed all over the world in various
branches starting from medical and nursing sciences [1,2]
to engineering and statistics [3]. It becomes increasingly
popular in comparison to the traditional examination
process with descriptive answer type questions. Here,
one faces an examination with multiple choice type ques-
tions (MCQ). The answer to any question in such a paper
is very brief and is presented in a single word or sentence
in the question paper itself along with some incorrect
answers (apparently close to the right answer) as options
at the end of the question. The examinee has to choose
the correct option(s) (sometimes it has more than one
*Corresponding a uthor.
C
opyright © 2012 SciRes. OJS

S. ROY, P. MAJUMDAR 453
correct option). The degree of difficulty or stiffness of
the question paper becomes higher as the given options
become closer to one another in meaning. A great ad-
vantage with this MCQ type examination is that one can
maintain uniformity of questions and evaluation process
because of the availability of unique model answer.
Apart from this, computers can be programmed to evalu-
ate such answer scripts, reducing the cost and time of the
process. The shortcomings of MCQ are that an examinee
can make high scores in this kind of tests without having
in-depth knowledge of the subject. Taking recourse to
wild guess one can score moderately high marks without
having any workable knowledge in the subject.
Srinivasa and Adkoll [1] studied the application of
MCQ in medical education and suggested the necessity
of developing a MCQ bank for future purpose. In another
particular study [2] the three option and four option
MCQ tests in nursing education are compared with each
other and it was concluded that the three option tests
performs equally well in compared to the other. The ad-
ditional option(s) most often does not improve the test
reliability and validity. Costa, Olivera and Ferrao [3]
studied the psychometric properties of the three multiple
choice tests used to measure skills in Statistics in the
scope of the engineering and management courses of the
University of Minho. Steif and Dantzler [4] quantified
the learning of concepts in Statics using MCQ. Steif and
Handsen [5] analysed the results of MCQ tests that has
been uses to measure learning in statics. In a more recent
work Ventouas et al. [6] on the other hand discussed
about the relative advantage and disadvantages of MCQ
and CRQ (constructed response) based papers. In fact
they admitted the advantages of MCQ with positive and
negative marking concerning the objectivity in the grad-
ing process and s pee d of p ro duct i o n o f resu l t s .
MCQ s has a long and widespread history of use in
support of teaching and assessment across a range of
disciplines as mentioned. The increased use in the recent
years relates to the governance and resource of higher
education and changing student characteristics [7]. There
is a substantial amount of assessment literature associ-
ated with MCQ s and it supports claims of benefits aris-
ing from effective practice and also identifies significant
limitations when application is inappropriate or the need
for assessment efficiencies takes precedence over peda-
gogical concerns and considerations [7-11]. MCQs have
proved effective ways of assessing learning at the lower
levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy [12], identification and
understanding. However, MCQ s can be constructed to
be more challenging than was once believed [13] and so
application at higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy has
also been demonstrated [14].
In contrary one of the most frequent criticisms of
MCQ s is that they trivialize the learn ing process through
an over emphasis lower levels of cognitive demand [15]
and that this often fails to reflect the true intentions of
course learning objectives. According to Paxton [16] the
learners may be quite skilled on taking MCQ tests but
their ability to solve problems, exercise personal judg-
ments and to communicate their understandings may
remain underdeveloped. Other research [17,18] has
found that students perceive MCQ s as assessing at a
surface level and this consequently misdirects and other-
wise influences the way in which they prepare for ex-
aminations.
In order to overcome such difficulties, the questions
are chosen uniformly from all parts of the syllabus.
These are of different patterns, such as knowledge based,
understanding based, application based and skill ba sed in
appropriate proportions. The answers given at the end of
each question must appear to be very close to one an-
other to curb the tendency of answering without knowl-
edge of the subject as mentioned earlier. We generally
have negative markings for wrong attempts in MCQ
examinations to discourage the random guessing process
to a large extent.
In a recent work Ding and Beichner [19] discussed
about some commonly used approaches of MCQ data
analysis in physics research namely, classical test theory,
factor analysis, cluster analysis, item response theory and
model analysis.
2. Modelling
In the present article a statistical model has been devel-
oped regarding the estimation of probable performance
of a student taking a MCQ examination. Some parame-
ters, quantifying ones knowledge and understanding of
the subject, have been defined in this context. Using this
model, it would be possible to make a prediction of one’s
performance in the final examination on the basis of set
of data from a sufficiently large number of mock tests
preceding the final examination. It is possible to make an
estimate of one’s preparation by subjecting oneself to
mock tests with question papers identical in pattern to
that of the actual one. The parameters reflecting one’s
knowledge and perception, based on mock test data, are
defined in the following way.
11
number of questions attempted
total number of que stions in the papers
,
ii
ii
q
AN




(1)
11
number of questions answered correctly
total number of questions in the papers
,
ii
ii
r
CN




(2)

S. ROY, P. MAJUMDAR 454
11
number of questions answer
number of questions a
.
ii
ii
prq
CA




ed correctly
ttempted



100 %r

01q
(3)
read all the questions and had sufficient time to answer
them). Regarding the ranges of q and r one can say that
01r, .


The parameter p as defined by Equation (3) can be
looked upon as the probability of answering a question
correctly. For a sufficiently large , this ratio
(
In the above expressions the total number of mock
tests taken is denoted by . For the ith mock test , Ci, Ai
and Ni denote the number of correct answers, questions
attempted by the candidate and the total number of ques-
tions provided in the question paper respectively.
Equation (1) defines the parameter q as a rough indi-
cation of the familiarity of the examinee with the sylla-
bus, assuming small chance of random guessing by him.
We further assume that the question paper of each mock
test is based upon the entire syllabus of the subject and
the questions are chosen from all topics belonging to all
parts of the syllabus uniformly. Hence for a sufficiently
large , the parameter q may also be regarded as a
measure of one’s knowledge according to one’s own
perception.
On the other hand Equation (2) defines the parameter r
as a quantitative measure of preparation of the candidate
for the examination. Let us call it the preparation index.
One may conclude that the candidate has acquired
knowledge of the syllabus. For a sufficien tly
large , this parameter reflects one’s true understand-
ing of the subject (we are assuming that the candidate
prq

), obtained from mock test data, can be consid-
ered as the chance of success in every attempt to be made
in the forthcoming final examination. Let us call it the
answering efficiency. Larger value of p indicates smaller
difference between one’s actual knowledge and one’s
own perception of his knowledge.
In reality, two different classes of questions, namely
knowledge based and application based, should be pre-
sent in an ideal question paper. Application based ques-
tions are mainly intended for the assessment of one’s
logical reasoning ability and also the ability of solving
numerical problems. Thus, instead of having a single
preparation index (r), we find it reasonable to define two
separate indices for these two different types of question
sets. Let us define knowledge index (k) as a measure of
one’s ability to answer knowledge or information based
questions. While for the application-based questions one
should define a new parameter related to intuition, power
of understanding and application. Let us designate it as
application index (a). These parameters can be mathe-
matically expressed as
11
number of knowledge based questions answered correctly
total number of knowlerge based questions
kk
ii
ii
kCN




, (4)
11
number of appication based questions answered correctly
total number of app lication based question s
aa
ii
ii
aCN





and
ka
NN
and
ka
CC
. (5)
Here ii are respectively the numbers of
knowledge-based and application-based questions in the
ith test. Two other quantities ii are respec-
tively the numbers of correct answers to knowledge
based and application based questions in the ith test.
Combining Equations (2), (4) and (5) we may write
To formulate a mathematical model that explores the
relationship between the preparation and performance in
any MCQ examination process, let us think of a question
paper in the final examination consistin g of full marks F,
with N number of questions with equal weight. Hence the
marks allotted for each question is
11 11
111
ka ka
ii ii
ii ii
iii
iii
CC NN
rka
NNN
 
 




 



 

ka
ii i
CCC
, (6)
where
. (7)
The bracketed parts of the right hand side of Equation
(6) are simply the numbers of questions of both types,
expressed as fractions of the total number of questions of
all types in all tests. This equation expresses the relation
among the parameters k, a and r.
F
N. The questions
are on a subject where one needs to memorise and apply
objective information only. Based on the information
obtained from a sufficiently large number of mock tests
taken before the main examination, one can reasonably
assume that the parameter called answering efficiency
(prq

) is the probability of answering a question
correctly. An answer to an y of such multiple-choice type
questions (MCQ) can be only RIGHT or WRONG. To
keep matters simple we have assumed further that the
process of attempting a question and its result is inde-
pendent of attempting any other question.
Let us define a parameter Q as the fraction of ques-
tions attempted by a candidate in the final or main ex-

S. ROY, P. MAJUMDAR 455
amination. Hence, QN is the number of questions at-
tempted by the candid ate. Using the binomial d istributio n,
the probability of having y answers RIGHT in QN at-
tempts is given by [20,21],

1
y
QN y
p p


exp
ypQN

QN
yy
PC. (8)
Now in writing the above equation we have assumed
that the difficulty level of the questions (item difficulty)
is same for all the questions under consideration and this
assumption is most crucial because our paper tries to
quantify those concepts that are difficult to quantify in
educational research.
Following (8) now the expectation or mean value of y
. (9)
While the corresponding standard deviation
12
1Npp 

SD
yQ . (10)
As the marks awarded for each correct answer is
F
N the negative marks allotted for each wrong answer
is

nF

e n is a positive fraction, which
may be called the negative marking factor.

N wher
Hence, for y correct answers, the marks obtained by
the candidate is given by
 
M
yFN QNynFN. (11)
The percentage of marks obtained by the candidate is
given by
 
100 100mMF y

1NnnQ 

 
. (12)
So

0.01yfmmn 1QN n






1
. (13)
An expression for the probability (Pm) of securing m%
marks can be obtained from Equations (8) and (13) as



f
mQNfm
p


QN
mfm
PCp. (14)
Equation (14) determines the probability distribution
of m. Depending upon the values of p

and Q, m
should vary over a range determined by this probability
distribution. Using Equations (9), (10) and (13) the ex-
pectation value and standard deviation of m are give n by

rq

exp exp
100
100 1
my
Qp


1
,
NnnQ
n n





(15)
 
 
12
1,
n
Qp p

m
12
100 1
100 1
SD SD
myN
nN

 (16)
SD is a measure of dispersion in the probable values
of m. Consistency in the probable values of marks per-
centage (m) is determined generally by the smallness of
the ratio

expSD
mm
m
[20,22,23]. Using the value of p
obtainable from the mock tests, one can predict the per-
formance to be made in the main examination up to a
certain extent. Generally, the performance is considered
to be reasonably good when exp is sufficiently high
and


mm

P
expSD is sufficiently low. So, as a quantita-
tive measure of the probable performance, we can define
a term called performance index in the following
manner.
2
exp exp
exp
Expectation valueconsistency
.
SD SD
P
mm
mmm



0m
(17)

when It is evident from Equation (16) that, SD
0p1p

or,

. For these two extreme cases, the func-
tion becomes infinity (using Equation (17)). To
avoid this difficulty we propose to define as
P
P

 

 
1
exp
exp exp
12
12
12
12
11
1
100 1
11001 1
100 1
100 1
SD SD
m
Pmmm m
Qpn n
nN Qp p
Qrn nq
qnNQrqr




 







 



 


N
rN
qN
(18)
The parameter r, which is calculated from the data
from a large number of mock tests, reflects one’s true
knowledge. If 1 is the total number of question s in all
mock tests, 1 is the number of questions answered
correctly. Since 1 is the total number of questions
attempted in all mock tests, we can write


11 11
where 01qNrNN rN 

 , (19)
Hence


1qr r 


0
. (20)
Here,

and 1



corresponds to the situation
where one has not attempted any question in the mock
tests beyond one’s knowledge and the situation where
one has attempted all the questions respectively. For
1r

, indicating complete knowled ge of the subject, q is
independent of

. Clearly, for , the parameter 1r

is a measure of one’s tendency for attempting questions
completely unknown to him.
Similarly, the parameter Q (fraction of questions at-
tempted in the final examination) should also depend on
one’s pr ep ar a tio n or kno w ledg e of th e s yllab u s. Sin c e r is
a measure of one’s knowledge, as obtained from mock
tests, we can write


1 where 01Qr r


 . (21)
Using Equations (20) and (21) in Equation (18) we
have

S. ROY, P. MAJUMDAR 456
 
  
12.
12
100 11
1100 11
P
rrn
rnNr
 
 


 



n
rrr










0for 1Pr
(22)
From the above equation we can calculate the maxi-
mum and minimum values of P as
and .
max 10

for 0,1r   
min
For convenience in analysis, we may define a parame-
ter, called the relative performance index (r
P), which
judges one’s relative performance with respect to the best
possible perform ance as defi n e d belo w.
100Pn
max 100
PP
P

r
P
r
P. (23)
Using Equations (22) and (23) the first four figures
(Figures 1 to 4) of this article have been drawn. These
figures depict how one’s performance index () de-
pends on one’s pr eparation index (r).
Figure 3 clearly indicates that, negative marking in an
examination, has very little effect on the probable per-
formance of an examinee having an extremely good
preparation.
We now recast Equation (14) as

 
1
f
mQNfm
r
qq

 

 
 

QN
mfm
r
PC



 (24)
where q and Q are already defined (Equations (20) and
(21))
 
( )0.0111
f
mmnr 



rNn

(25)
Using the above two equations we have drawn Fig-
ures 5 to 9. These curves depict the nature of variation of
probability (Pm) as a function of m. The peak of any of
Figure 1. The variation of the relative performance (Pr) as a
function of preparation index (r) for different values of α.
As r increases, Pr increases. For α = 0 the variation is linear
(as evident from Equation (22)). For other values of α, the
slope increases with r. At any fixed value of r, Pr decreases
as α increases.
Figure 2. The variation of the relative performance (Pr) as a
function of r for different values of β. As r increases, Pr in-
creases. At any value of r, Pr is larger for higher values of β.
These curves become closer to one another at higher values
of r.
Figure 3. Relative performance (Pr) vs r plot for different
values of n. As r increases, Pr increases. At any particular
level of preparation r, Pr becomes smaller for higher values
of n. These curves become closer to one another at higher
values of r. These curves converge in the direction of in-
creasing r. At values of r close to 1 Pr becomes independent
of n.
Figure 4. This figure shows the variation of relative per-
formance (Pr) as a function of preparation index (r) for dif-
ferent values of N. At any fixed value of r, Pr increases as N
increases. As r increases, the slope of the curve increases.
Initially at very small values of r these curves are very close
to each other. As r increases, curves diverge from one an-
other and they again become closer at values of r close to 1.

S. ROY, P. MAJUMDAR 457
Figure 5. This figure shows the variation of Pm as a function
of m for different values of α. As α decreases, the curve be-
comes narrower, indicating smaller dispersion of the prob-
able values of m. The peak of the curve, indicating the most
probable value of m, becomes higher for smaller values of α.
As α decreases the peak shifts towards higher values of m.
Figure 6. This figure shows the variation of Pm with m for
different β. As β increases, the curves become broader, in-
dicating greater dispersion of the probable values of m. The
peak of the curves, indicating the most probable value of m,
becomes higher for smaller β. With increase in β, the peak
shifts towards higher m.
Figure 7. Figure shows Pm-m variation for different n. As n
decreases, the curve becomes narrower, indicating smaller
dispersion of the probable values of m. The peaks of these
curves have the same height, although their positions are
different. As n increase, the peaks shift towards smaller
values of m, indicating smaller expectation value of m.
Figure 8. Variation of Pm as a function of m for different
values of N. The peaks of these curves appear at the same
value of m, indicating the constancy of the most probable
value of m. As N increases, the height of the curve decreases.
For greater values of N, the probability (Pm) is smaller at all
values of m.
Figure 9. The variation of Pm wi t h m for different values of r.
As r increases the peak shifts towards higher values of m.
The most probable value of m increases as r increases. The
curve becomes narrower and the peak height decreases
with rise in r-value indicating ones true measure of prepa-
ration for the examination.
these curves corresponds to the most probable value of
m.
In Figure 9 the narrowing of curves with rise in r in-
dicates smaller dispersion of the probable values of m,
implying smaller chances of deviation from the most
probable value. A candidate, having a high score of r in
the mock tests, is likely to acquire high marks in the final
examination, with smaller deviation of probable values
from the most probable m.
3. Limitations
There may be limitations and implementation difficulty
of this statistical model, caused by some assumptions,
made for the sake of simplicity of mathematical analysis.
The success of this model depends upon the largeness of
the parameter

(in a statistical sense) α has to be de-

S. ROY, P. MAJUMDAR 458
termined from the mock test data and the estimation of
performance has to be made for different values of β. The
larger the value of , greater will be the validity and
applicability of this approach where these parameters can
be used to predict one’s performance. This model shows
that one is likely to make better performance in examina-
tions having larger number of questions. This depend-
ence on N is a mathematical consequence that cannot
generally be guessed from common sense. It has also
been assumed that the process of attempting a question
and its result is independent of attempting any other
question. This assumption does not hold for linked com-
prehension questions where, the process of attempting a
question and its result depends on attempting other
linked questions. In this regard a modification of our
simple theory using the conditional probability [21] is
required. Let the events of attempting successive ques-
tions in a linked comprehension be A, B, C, etc. Then,
according to the conditional probability [21] we have

 
PBAPBA PA, (26)
 
PCBPCB PB , (27)
and so on.
These ideas can be incorporated for theoretical inter-
ests. Calculations, based on such ideas, are likely to
make this model so complicated that it would not be very
useful to examinees preparing for competitive examina-
tions. The mathematical simplicity in its present form is
important in the sense that one can use this model suc-
cessfully with considerable ease, for an estimation of
performance, without making too much effort to grasp
the underlying concept. The present analysis reveals im-
portant and useful features, which one can’t discover just
by intuition. It enables one to make an effective self-
assessment, and thereby modify one’s plans, while pre-
paring for an important examination.
REFERENCES
[1] D. K. Srinivasa and B. V. Adkoll, “Multiple Choice
Questions: How to Construct and How to Evaluate?” In-
dian Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 56, No. 1, 1989, pp. 69-
74.
[2] M. Tarrant and J. Ware, “Impact of Item-Writing Flaws in
Multiple-Choice Questions on Student Achievement in
High-Stakes Nursing Assessments,” Medical Education,
Vol. 42, No. 2, 2008, pp. 198-206.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02957.x
[3] P. Costa, P. Olivera and M. E. Ferrao, “Equalizacãâo de
Escalas com o Modelo de Resposta as Item de Dois
Parâmetros,” In: M. Hill, et al., Eds., Estatistica-da Teo-
ria à Pratica, Actas do XV Congresso Annual da So-
ciedade Portuguesa de Estatistica, Edicões SPE, 2008, pp.
155-166.
[4] P. Steif and J. Dantzler, “Astatics Concept Inventory:
Development and Psychometric Analysis,” Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 33, 2005, pp. 363-371.
[5] P. Steif and M. A. Handsen, “Comparisons between Per-
formances in a Statics Concept Inventory and Course
Examinations,” International Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2006, pp. 1070-1076.
[6] E. Ventouas, D. Triantis, P. Tsiakas and C. Stergiopoulos,
“Comparison of Examination Methods Based on Multiple
Choice Questions,” Computers & Education, Vol. 54, No.
2, 2010, pp. 455-461.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.028
[7] D. Nicol, “E-Assessment by Design: Using Multiple-
Choice Tests to Good Effect,” Journal of Further &
Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2007, pp. 53-64.
doi:10.1080/03098770601167922
[8] L. Thompson, “The Uses and Abuses of Multiple Choice
Testing in a University Setting,” Annotated Bibliography
Prepared for the University Centre for Teaching and
Learning, University of Canterbury, Canterbury, 2005.
[9] P. Nightingale, et al., “Assessing Learning in Universi-
ties,” Professional Development Centre, University of Ne w
South Wales, 1996, pp. 151-157.
[10] J. Heywood, “Assessment in Higher Education: Student
Learning, Teaching Programmes and Institutions,” Jessica
Kingsley Publishers, London, 2000.
[11] N. Falchikov, “Improving Assessment through Student
Involvement: Practical Solutions for Aiding Learning in
Higher and Further Education,” Routledge Falmer, Lon-
don, 2005.
[12] D. Krathwohl, “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An
Overview,” Theory into Practice, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2002,
pp. 212-218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
[13] S. Brown, “Institutional Strategies for Assessment,” In: S.
Brown and A. Glasner, Eds., Assessment Matters in Higher
Education, SRHE and Open University Press, Bucking-
ham, 1999, pp. 3-13.
[14] M. Culwick, “Designing and Managing MCQs,” Univer-
sity of Leisester, The Castle Toolkit, 2002.
[15] S. Kvale, “Contradictions of Assessment for Learning in
Institutions of Higher Education,” In: D. Boud and N.
Falchikov, Eds., Rethinking Assessment in Higher Educa-
tion: Learning for the Longer Term, Routledge, London,
2007, pp. 57-71.
[16] M. Paxton, “A Linguistic Perspective on Multiple Choice
Questioning,” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Edu-
cation, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2000, pp. 109-119.
doi:10.1080/713611429
[17] G. Gibbs and C. Simpson, “Conditions under Which As-
sessment Supports Students’ Learning,” Learning and
Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2004, pp. 3-
29.
[18] K. Scouller, “The Influence of Assessment Method on
Students’ Learning Approaches: Multiple-Choice Ques-
tion Examination versus Assignment Essay,” Higher Edu-
cation, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1998, pp. 453-472.
doi:10.1023/A:1003196224280
[19] L. Ding and R. Beichner, “Approaches to Data Analysis
of Multiple Choice Questions,” Physical Review Special

S. ROY, P. MAJUMDAR 459
Topics—Physics Education Research, Vol. 5, 2009, Arti-
cle ID: 020103.
[20] N. G. Das, “Statistical Methods,” Tata McGraw-Hill Pub-
lishing Company Ltd., New Delhi, 2008.
[21] A. M. Goon, M. K. Gupta and B. Das Gupta, “Funda-
mentals of Statistics,” The World Press Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata,
1971.
[22] M. R. Spiegel, et al., “Schaum’s Outlines of Statistics,”
3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, New York, 1999.
[23] M. R. Spiegel, et al., “Schaum’s Outlines of Probability
and Statistics,” 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, New York,
2009.