Exam Performance of a Student Prepared with YKS and IMAT
Check out the IMAT scores of students who are synonymous to the YKS and IMAT preparation; success zone, section performance and score account.
Short summary
It is one of the most often wondered topics of students, whether it is possible to prepare simultaneously for IMAT and YKS exams. The main question is: How can the performance in two exams when YKS preparation is carried out in a test-specific IMAT program while maintaining?
Methodological warning: These analyses do not offer acceptance guarantee. Student profiles are educational projections prepared by acting from trial performances and past data sets.
Research summary
| Alan | Contents |
|---|---|
| Metodoloji | This study aims to review the correct, wrong and empty response distributions with IMAT scores of students who perform YKS and IMAT preparation; to review the performance indicators observed in the sample. The data was compiled from the records of the 100 IMAT Academy user who prepared the preparation for both exams in 2025. Personal information is anonymized in order to protect student privacy. |
| Data set/sample | 100 IMAT Academy user; In addition to YKS numerical preparation IMAT Academy resources, trials and preparation platform, IMAT program was conducted. |
| Basic findings | In the research sample, 65% of students were included in the range of 70 points and 25% of 60–69,99 points; 10% remained under 60 points. YKS records for sampling indicate that the group’s numerical rankings are concentrated in the first 50,000. The 50 accurate, 6 wrong and 4 gaps offered in the table correspond to the average performance profile and produce 72,6 points in the IMAT rating system. |
Introduction and purpose of work
It is one of the most often wondered topics of students, whether it is possible to prepare simultaneously for IMAT and YKS exams. The main question is: How can the performance in two exams when YKS preparation is carried out in a test-specific IMAT program while maintaining?
The student profile reviewed in this report consists of candidates who carry out the IMAT Academy’s resources, trials and preparation platform as a basic workspace.
This study aims to review the correct, wrong and empty response distributions with IMAT scores of students who perform YKS and IMAT preparation; to review the performance indicators observed in the sample. The data was compiled from the records of the 100 IMAT Academy user who prepared the preparation for both exams in 2025. Personal information is anonymized in order to protect student privacy.
cognitive and structural comparison of YKS and IMAT exam architecture
YKS and IMAT carry out the common purpose of choosing medical faculties, the test times, question types, subject scopes and scoring systems are separated from each other. Understanding these differences is important to accurately interpret the possible advantages and limitations of simultaneous preparation.
YKS requires wide range of topics, operational skills, detailed information usage and long-term mental durability. IMAT quickly understands academic English, extracted from the information given, significantly measures the skills of conceptual disability and decision-making in basic sciences. The difficulty profiles of two tests are not the same.
Scoring systems also differentiate the test strategies of candidates. The correct answer in IMAT when taking a four wrong right in YKS +1.5; the wrong answer -0,4; the empty answer is 0 points. For example, 45 accurate, 10 incorrect and 5 idle candidates take 63,5 points. Due to this structure, risk management plays an important role in IMAT performance, option screening and decision to leave the question blank when necessary.
| Exam Feature | Higher Education Institutions Exam (YKS) | International Medical Admissions Test (IMAT) |
|---|---|---|
| Sessions and Time | TYT: 135 minutes, AYT: 180 minutes (two sessions) | One session, 100 minutes |
| Number of Questions | TYT: 120 questions, AYT: 80 questions (quantitative track) | 60 questions in total |
| Question Distribution (Official Areas) | TYT (General), AYT: 40 Mathematics, 40 Science (14 Physics, 13 Chemistry, 13 Biology) | 9 Reasoning/General Knowledge, 23 Biology, 15 Chemistry, 13 Mathematics/Physics |
| Evaluation System | 4 takes 1 wrong. | Accurate: +1.5 points; wrong: -0,4 points; blank: 0 points. Total 90 points. |
| Language and Terminology | English. The test-specific directive and terminology are used. | Academic English. |
| Cognitive Focus | Wide scope of subject, calculational skill, long paragraph analysis and mental endurance. | Conceptual reasoning, exposing, decision-making and time management. |
IMAT performance of students who are simultaneously prepared to YKS and IMAT
Students in this profile have maintained the YKS numerical preparation with the work in the MEB curriculum and ÖSYM format; in addition, IMAT Academy’s content, trials and preparation platform conducted a IMAT program that is specific to the test.
During the preparatory process, students participated in trials at certain intervals on the IMAT Academy platform, in accordance with the English and official test format. The actual IMAT scores obtained at the end of the preparation were compiled and presented in the distribution of percentage in the table below.
YKS and IMAT require an intensive and regular work to execute its preparation simultaneously. In the research sample, 65% of students were included in the range of 70 points and 25% of 60–69,99 points; 10% remained under 60 points. YKS records for sampling indicate that the group’s numerical rankings are concentrated in the first 50,000. These results should not be automatically generalized to all students; the initial level of students, the duration of work and individual conditions should be taken into account. The average performances of students at the lower parts of IMAT are presented in the following table:
| Performance band | Points range | Student Rate | Number of students |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top-performing group | 70 points and above | %65 | 65 students |
| Middle-performing group | 60–69.99 points | 25% | 25 students |
| Sub success group | 60 points | %10 | 10 students |
| Total | %100 | 100 students |
IMAT section performance
| Location | Item | Avg. performance | Accuracy rate | Section assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biology | 23 | 19 right, 2 wrong, 2 empty | %82,6 | The biology performance in the sample is observed at high level; the study for English phen terminology may be associated with this result. |
| Chemistry, Mathematics and Physics | 28 | 25 accurate, 2 wrong, 1 blank | %89,3 | The highest correct rate in the sample is observed in this combined section. Powerful pheno-analytic infrastructure can be associated with this performance. |
| Logic, Problem Solving and General Culture | 9 | 6 accurate, 2 wrong, 1 blank | %66,7 | IMAT style has been observed strong performance according to the average of the sample, along with the practicality and text analysis. |
| Total | 60 | 50 accurate, 6 wrong, 4 blanks | %83,3 | IMAT preparation with YKS infrastructure is carried out together with the sample profile |
IMAT score account
| Score component | Calculation | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Score from the right answers | 50 × 1,5 | 75,0 |
| False response fine | 6 × 0,4 | −2,4 |
| Nihai IMAT skoru | 75,0 − 2,4 | 72,6 |
Conclusion
In the research sample, the large part of the students who carry out the preparation of YKS and IMAT is located in high IMAT points ranges. The distributions in some section suggest that phen-matematic infrastructure, as well as academic English, exam specific reasoning and time management work together.
The 50 accurate, 6 wrong and 4 gaps offered in the table correspond to the average performance profile and produce 72,6 points in the IMAT rating system. This value is a aggregated performance indicator that is not an individual success guarantee, viewed in the sample.
Limitations
- This study is based on a specific sampling consisting of 100 IMAT Academy users and can not represent all YKS or IMAT candidates.
- Students may have affected initial information levels, uptimes, English qualifications and individual conditions.
- The study is observational; therefore the YKS infrastructure or IMAT preparation can not be concluded that it causes a certain score alone.
- Results should be interpreted as relationships and performance distributions observed in sample.
Related research
How many points can IMAT be prepared for YKS?
Only YKS is one of the most frequently asked questions of candidates who are prepared and performing a separate study program specific to IMAT.
YKS and IMAT Net Equivalent Matrisi and Point Projections
The curriculum between IMAT and YKS, question structure and cognitive skills differences are the most curious topics of students prepared for both exams. This study examines the relationship between YKS numerical performance and estimated IMAT score on the basis of observational data obtained from students who use the IMAT Academy platform and carry out the preparation process with the institution.
FAQ
Is it possible to prepare YKS and IMAT simultaneously?
The student profile reviewed in this report consists of candidates who carry out the IMAT Academy’s resources, trials and preparation platform as a basic workspace. The findings indicate that simultaneous preparation may be possible; but it requires intensive, regular and exam-specific work.
Can these results be generalized to all students?
No. The study is based on a specific sampling consisting of 100 IMAT Academy users and can not represent all YKS or IMAT candidates. Students may have affected initial information levels, uptimes, English qualifications and individual conditions.
Convert analysis to your own preparation plan
The findings suggest that fen-matematic infrastructure should be evaluated together with academic English, exam-specific reasoning and time management work.