Ignoring Meg@cool's post, as Brett pointed out the Exam # 1G is the EK test.
EK has 3 full lengths: 1g, 2f, and 3g all of which are much harder then the AAMC and Kaplan full length tests and only slightly better then TPR tests.
At any rate, I'd take the EK test with a grain of salt, and look more closely at the AAMC scores or even Kaplan full length scores if you have Kaplan tests, for predictive value. But even more so then that, I'd follow QofQuimica's advice and try to look at the big picture rather then stressing about how you did on the practice exams. Look more at the solutions and why you got it wrong and assess where your weaknesses and what you need to do to improve upon them. Determine whether you got something wrong due to lack of time, needing review of the material, or anxiety and try and work on how you could improve those matters. Review every solution even to the ones you got right and try to understand why the answer is what it is until you truly understand the concept. Then if you notice some major weak spot keep practicing through material in that subject until you've got it down. That will truly help alot more then stressing about the numerical score.
EK tests tend to be harder then the other tests, and are not always completely reflective. Even their score conversion charts for the sciences are more skewed then they are on the actual AAMC tests. So I wouldn't worry about it too much. For me, I took 2f last year and it totally didn't reflect my performance on the real exam. I took 1G and it only partially reflected it, but was still not as good as the AAMC tests in predicting what I would end up with. I think 4941 and 4951 from TPR were also somewhat reflective of my actual score last year, but possibly because I took them towards the end rather then beginning of studying.
