-
Target Test Prep 20% Off Flash Sale is on! Code: FLASH20
Redeem
Evaluating Your Practice Tests, Part 1 of 2
Practice tests are an invaluable component of any test-taker's study plan, but the most valuable thing is actually not the act of taking the practice test. Just taking a test doesn't help us to improve all that much. While taking a test, we are concentrating on doing (using everything we've learned up to that point); as a result, we're not really learning much.
The most valuable thing is actually the data that you can extract when you're done with the test; that's how you learn to get better and know what to study before you take another practice test. There are two main components to that data:
- Statistics and metrics based on timing, difficulty level, percentage correct, question category, and so on
- A thorough, analytical review of the specific questions that you saw on the test
This week, I'll take you through how I review the statistic and metrics from my own students' practice tests. I'll base my discussion on the metrics that are given in ManhattanGMAT tests, but you can extrapolate to other tests that give you similar performance data (note: you need per-question timing and difficulty level in addition to percentage correct/incorrect data). Next week, we'll take a look at how to review specific questions.
First, naturally, I look at the score. I also check whether the student did the essays (if she didn't, I assume the score is a little inflated); I also ask the student to tell me whether she used the pause button, took extra time, or did anything else that wouldn't be allowed under official testing guidelines.
Next, I look at the problem lists for the quant and verbal sections; the problem lists show each question, in order as it was given to the student, as well as various data about those questions. First, I scan down the "correct / incorrect" column to see whether the student had any strings of 4 or more answers wrong. If so, I also look at the time spent; perhaps the student was running out of time and had to rush. I also look at the difficulty levels because sometimes I'll see this: the difficulty level is high for the first problem or two, and the timing is also way too long. On the later questions, the difficulty level is lower, but the timing is also too fast. Essentially, the person had a sense that she spent too long on a couple of hard questions, so she sped up... and then she not only got the hard questions wrong but she also got the easier questions wrong because she was rushing.
I also look at the timing for the last five to ten problems in the section to see whether the person was rushing or had a lot of time left (meaning she rushed earlier in the section).
Next, I count the number of questions that fall into the "way too slow" category. Too much time is: 3+ minutes on quant or CR, and 2+ minutes on SC. RC is a bit trickier, because the timing for the first question includes the time spent to read the passage. If it's a first question, "too long" is above 5 minutes. If it's not a first question, "too long" is above 2.5 minutes. If there are more than a few, then the student has a timing problem. My next question: how significant is the problem?
For these "too slow" questions, I count how many there are, how much time was spent total, and how many were correct vs. incorrect. For quant, I also count how many were Problem Solving vs. Data Sufficiency. Finally, I see whether there are any patterns in terms of the content area (for example, perhaps three of the "too long" quant problems were geometry problems or two of the "too long" SC problems were modifier problems).
Next, I count how many "way too fast" incorrect questions there are. "Way too fast" is anything done in less than half the time it was supposed to be done (for example, "way too fast" would be less than 1 minute for a quant question). I do not, however, count incorrect "too fast" questions that are rated 700+ unless that student is scoring 700+; I assume the student (wisely) realized the problem was too hard, made a guess, and moved on. That's the only good reason to get something wrong in a "too fast" timeframe. Otherwise, these lower-level, too fast, incorrect questions represent missed opportunities - careless mistakes - and they were caused by the "too slow" questions from above.
All of the above is to quantify for the student just how bad the timing problem is. Literally just seeing the data can help students start to get over that mental hurdle ("I can get this right if I just spend some more time!") and start balancing their time better. And the stats on question type and content area will help the student to be more aware of where she tends to get sucked in.
Next, I run the assessment reports and look at the Assessment Summary. This tells me percentages correct for the five main question types, as well as average timing and difficulty levels. Problem areas are indicated by:
- Percentages correct below approximately 50%, especially when coupled with lower average difficulty levels (though I'm not worried if I see, say, 48% correct with an average difficulty level of 730 - that's a good result)
- Average timing that is 30 seconds (or more) higher or lower than it should be on average
- A big discrepancy (more than 20-30 seconds) in average time for correct vs. incorrect answers of the same type
I then go through the other reports (showing all of the problems divided into various sub-categories) while categorizing things into five buckets (though I may have to adjust my assessment if there are only one or two questions in a category):
- 50% + correct plus timing within the expected timeframe (otherwise known as strengths)
- Less than 50% correct plus timing in the expected timeframe (possible weaknesses in content area, methodology, etc, BUT check the difficulty levels; maybe this category just happened to be really hard on this test!)
- Less than 50% correct plus timing way too fast (an average more than 30 seconds faster than it should be); are these really weaknesses or was the student just going too fast (and, naturally, making more careless mistakes)? Why was the student going too fast on these?
- 50%+ correct plus timing way too slow (an average more than 30 seconds slower than it should be); these are still weaknesses even though the percentage correct is high! Figure out why the timing is higher and how you can do these more efficiently.
- Less than 50% correct plus timing way too slow (an average more than 30 seconds slower than it should be); these are the biggest weaknesses, obviously. Get them wrong faster. Seriously - you're getting them wrong anyway, so start by just taking less time to get them wrong! That will improve your performance on all those ones on which you're currently rushing and making careless mistakes!
Click here to see the second article in this series, where we'll talk about how to review the specific questions, topics, and content areas that were tested on the exam.
Read other articles in this series:
Recent Articles
Archive
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009