Practice tests are an essential element of any test-taker’s study strategy; however the most beneficial element is actually not the act of doing the practice exam. Simply doing a test doesn’t help us to get better. When doing a test, we are focusing on performing (making use of all we’ve mastered up to that stage); because of this, we’re not actually learning at all.

The most useful thing will be the information you are able to get once you’re finished with the test; that’s the way you understand how to improve and determine what to read up on prior to you taking yet another practice test. There are 2 primary parts to that information:

1. Data and metrics depending on timing, complexity level, % right, question section, etc.
2. An in depth, analysis of the exact questions that you encountered on the test this week. I’ll guide you through the way I review the statistic and metrics from my very own students’ rehearsal exams. I’ll base my presentation on the metrics which are offered in Optimus Prep’s GMAT tests, however you are able to extrapolate to further tests that offer you comparable overall performance details (note: you need per-question timing as well as complexity level along with percentage correct/incorrect data). Next week, we’ll check out ways to evaluate specific questions.

First, needless to say, I check out the score. I also look at if the student did the essays (any time she didn’t, I think the score is a bit inflated); I also ask the pupil to inform me if she utilized the pause button, used more time, or actually did other things that wouldn’t be permitted under standard testing rules.

Next, I examine the problem listings for the quant and spoken parts; the problem listings exhibits every question, in order the way it was given to the student, along with certain information concerning those questions. First, I skim through the “correct / incorrect” column to check if the student had any series of 4 or more responses incorrect. In that case, I also check out the time used; maybe the pupil was running out of time and needed to hurry. I also consider the complexity levels since occasionally I’ll observe this: the complexity level is high for the initially problem or two, and the timing can be far too long. On the final questions, the complexity level is reduced, but the timing is also too quick. Basically, the pupil felt that she used too much time on a few difficult questions, therefore she sped up… consequently she not only got the difficult questions incorrect but she additionally got the simpler questions incorrect since she was hurrying.

I also pay attention to the timing for the final 5 to 10 questions in the sector to find out if the student was hurrying or had lots of time remaining (indicating she went quickly earlier in the section).

After that, I add up the quantity of questions that belong to the “way too slow” variety. An excessive amount of time is: over 3 minutes on quant or CR, and over 2 minutes on SC. RC is a little tougher, since the timing for the initial question contains the time to read through the passage. If it’s an initial question, “too long” is over 5 minutes. If it’s not an opening question, “too long” is above 2 1/2 minutes. If the student has a timing problem if there are more than a few. My subsequent question: how big is the issue?

With the “too slow” questions, I add up the number there are, the length of time was used overall, and how much were right vs. wrong. For quant, I also add up the numbers that were Problem Solving vs. Data Sufficiency. Lastly, I observe if there are any habits regarding the content section (for instance, maybe 3 of the “too long” quant problems were geometry problems or 2 of the “too long” SC problems were modifier problems).

After that, I count the number of “way too fast” wrong responses there are. “Way too fast” is a response completed in under half the time it was expected to be completed (for instance, “way too fast” could be under 1 minute for a quant question). I do not, on the other hand, count wrong “too fast” questions which are ranked 700+ except if that student is scoring 700+; I presume the student recognized the problem was too difficult, made a guess, and moved forward. That’s the single valid reason to get a question incorrect in a “too fast” timeframe. If not, these lower-level, overly quick, wrong responses signify overlooked possibilities – sloppy errors – and they were a result of the “too slow” previous questions.

The above is to quantify for the student exactly how critical the timing issue is. Simply viewing the information will help students gradually overcome that psychological challenge (“I could possibly get this correct provided I just devote more time!”) and begin managing their time more effectively. And the figures on question type and content section will assist the student to learn exactly where she often gets sucked in.

Next, I run the analysis reports and examine the Assessment Summary. This shows me percentages right for the 5 major question categories, along with average timing and complexity levels. Problem spots are highlighted by:

• Percentages right below around 50%, particularly when combined with lower average difficulty levels (however I’m not concerned if I come across a 48% right with an average difficulty standard of 730 – that’s a good outcome)
• Normal timing which is 30 seconds (or higher) over or under what it ought to be typically
• A considerable difference (greater than 20-30 seconds) in average time for right vs. wrong responses of the identical variety. After that I examine the additional reports (displaying all of the questions split into different sub-categories) while grouping things into 5 buckets (however I might have to modify my evaluation if you have got just one or two questions in a section):

1. 50% + right plus timing within the estimated duration (otherwise called strengths)
2. Under 50% right plus timing in the estimated duration (potential weak points in content material section, methodology, and so forth, BUT verify the difficulty values; perhaps this section simply was extremely difficult for this exam!)
3. Under 50% right plus timing far too quick (an average greater than 30 seconds quicker than it ought to be); are these actually weak points or was the student simply going too quickly (and, making further sloppy errors)? Why was the student speeding on these questions?
4. 50%+ right plus timing much too slow (an average greater than 30 seconds less than it ought to be); these are yet somehow weak points although the percentage right is high! Determine the reason why the timing is higher and ways to do them more effectively.
5. Under 50% right plus timing much too slow (an average greater than 30 seconds slower than it ought to be); here are the greatest weak points, undoubtedly.

Get them incorrect quicker. Really – you’re getting them incorrect anyhow, therefore begin by simply using less time to get them incorrect! That will surely enhance your efficiency on all of those ones on which you’re presently speeding through and making sloppy errors!