IMAT 20190 Report

In the IMAT Academy Research Lab coding, the 2026 division of Physics shows a structure that the basic conceptual information and routine application are more visible by significantly moving from the multi-stage problem solving profile in 2025.

This is analytical profile comparison; it is not a direct measurement for candidates to find the section easy. Basic conceptual accuracy, the correct use of known physical relations, the unit discipline and conceptual reversal.

The report uses Q48–Q54 lines of 2026 Item Coding data in the workbook. Analytical difficulty, DOK, skill, format, component loads and times Research Lab is analytical encoding; an official IMAT metric criteria or not observed candidate performance.

All Physics items have passed the second internal consistency control. This process is not an independent assessment work.

Physics accounts for 7 questions and 11.7% of 60 questions. Average analytical difficulty 8.14/25, median 7/25. Four questions are low, three questions are in the medium band; there is no question in high or very-high band.

There are no DOK 3 items in the section. Direct factual recognition, conceptual distinction and short routine applications are dominant; the effect is seen only in Q50 and Q52.

Kinematics and Mechanics are two honors; Fluid Mechanics is represented by Waves with Electricity and Electromagnetism. Seven questions should not be used to predict the subject weight of the future tests.

Q52 is the highest of the section with 12/25; Q48 and Q53 are the least analytically demanding items common with 5/25. These values are not the candidate accuracy rate.

DOK 2 items are Q49, Q50 and Q52. Direct Information and Conceptual Comparison together requires two calculations of routine patterns when creating most of the section.

No single component dominates at a high level across the section. The average is 30.86 seconds and 25 seconds analyst estimate; the median is; the these are not observed candidate response times.

Seven questions include different traps based on speed–acceleration, inertial–accelerated frame, unit conversion, non-conservative work, gauge–absolute pressure, atomic charge and power/intensity distinction.

Candidate option-selection data are unavailable. These labels explain the wrong option mechanisms that are not empirical distractor activity; full line labels are maintained in the technical index.

Five questions show direct curriculum compliance. Q49, reference frame and Galilean transformations size due to the “Indirect / extended kinematics correspondent”, controversy flag value remained No.

Q52 is the question of hydrostatic pressure and has direct curriculum alignment; syllabus concern applies to Q54, not Q52.

The following notes describe the analytical role of high items that represent strength without republished the copyright text.

Within the Research Lab framework, the 2026 set shifts away from the multi-stage modelling and higher-DOK problem-solving profile seen in 2025 towards direct knowledge, conceptual distinction and shorter routine applications. Average analytical difficulty is lower by approximately 5.02 points, but this does not establish that candidates found the section easier.

• Get the basic kinematics terminology; take the combination with speed.
• Work inertial and reference-frame concepts not only with formula.
• Complete unit conversion before mechanicals accounts.
• Evaluate the non-conservative force effect together with Energy providers.
• Apply gauge pressure separation with absolute pressure.
• Protect basic electricity, atomic charge and wave terminology information.
• Do not prepare for only short 2026 profiles because more DOK 3 and multi-stage modeling in 2025.
• Do not assume that 2027 will repeat the 2026 subject distribution.

• The Analytical Difficulty is not an official IMAT metric.
• No candidate accuracy rate and actual response time data; item discrimination cannot be calculated.
• Periods are analyst estimate.
• Distractor analysis explains the structure designed; the option is not observed option-selection frequency.
• DOK contains analyst assessment of skills and format coding.
• The second control is not independent inter-rater reliability study.
• The curriculum is evaluated according to the open expressions of the curriculum given to the curriculum; the harmony mark does not invalid a question.
• 2025–2026 differences are quantitative and do not predict future tests.

7 in the workbook The basic coding areas of the physics line are presented in full. Curriculum protects the source dataset terminology for controversy flags and distractor labels.