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

Copyright © 2012 SciRes. OJS