CASPer Test Content and Question Types: An Overview
The Three-Part Question Structure
Every scenario in the CASPer test is followed by a cluster of three distinct questions. This CASPer question format is intentionally designed to push candidates beyond a simple "yes or no" response. The first question typically asks for an immediate course of action or a preliminary assessment of the situation. The second and third questions often introduce a "what if" variable or ask the candidate to justify their reasoning through the lens of a specific professional value. Because you have a total of five minutes to respond to all three questions, time management is the primary hurdle.
In the written response section, scorers are looking for evidence of construct-based responding, where the candidate addresses the underlying tension of the prompt. For example, if a scenario involves a teammate failing to contribute, the three-part structure might ask for your initial response, how you would handle a defensive reaction from the teammate, and your thoughts on the balance between individual accountability and team success. Failing to allocate enough time to the third question can be detrimental, as it often carries the most weight for demonstrating high-level critical thinking and self-reflection.
Video vs. Word-Based Scenarios
The test is divided into two distinct delivery methods: CASPer video scenarios and CASPer written scenarios. Video scenarios consist of a short clip, usually 60 to 90 seconds, depicting a realistic interpersonal conflict. You are cast as a participant in the scene—often a peer, employee, or bystander. These scenarios are immersive and require you to process visual and auditory information simultaneously. Because you cannot replay the video, you must develop a system for identifying the core conflict on the first viewing.
Word-based scenarios, on the other hand, provide a short paragraph describing a situation or a philosophical prompt. These often lack the immediate emotional weight of the videos but offer more complex technical or ethical details that must be parsed carefully. While the video scenarios test your ability to read a room and respond to social cues, the written prompts often test your ability to apply abstract principles to concrete problems. Both formats require the same three-question response structure, but the transition between them requires a mental shift from observation to reading comprehension.
Decoding Video-Based Scenario Prompts
Identifying Key Stakeholders and Conflicts
When viewing video scenarios, the first objective is to identify all stakeholders involved—not just the individuals on screen, but also those impacted by the decision-making process. For instance, in a clinical scenario, the stakeholders include the patient, their family, the medical staff, and the institution itself. Identifying the "vulnerable party" is a crucial step in the CASPer scoring logic, as it demonstrates that the candidate understands the hierarchy of responsibility.
Once the stakeholders are identified, you must isolate the primary conflict. Most CASPer videos present a clash between two competing "goods" or two difficult "bads." This is often referred to as an ethical dilemma. For example, you might see a conflict between maintaining a friend's confidentiality and ensuring the safety of a workspace. By naming this conflict explicitly in your response (e.g., "I am faced with a tension between my loyalty to my colleague and my professional obligation to patient safety"), you provide the rater with clear evidence that you have accurately diagnosed the problem before attempting to solve it.
Interpreting Non-Verbal Cues and Tone
Video scenarios provide a layer of data that written prompts cannot: affective information. The tone of a character’s voice, their body language, and their facial expressions are intentional elements of the test design. If a character appears distressed or hesitant, a high-scoring response will acknowledge this emotional state. This is part of the Social Intelligence construct that CASPer aims to measure.
Ignoring these cues leads to "robotic" answers that may be ethically sound but lack the empathy required for professional practice. For example, if a video shows a supervisor speaking sharply to an intern, a candidate should recognize the power dynamic and the potential intimidation involved. Your response should reflect an understanding of these nuances by suggesting a private, non-confrontational follow-up rather than a public intervention. Raters look for this ability to modulate communication style based on the observed emotional context of the scenario.
Written scenarios demand a high level of reading comprehension under pressure. Unlike video prompts, text-based scenarios often include specific constraints or "red herring" details that can distract an unprepared candidate. To excel, you must use a technique called active parsing, where you mentally highlight the non-negotiable facts of the case.
For example, if a prompt states you are a student on a strict scholarship with a zero-tolerance policy for academic dishonesty, and you witness a friend cheating, the "zero-tolerance" and "scholarship" details are critical constraints. They narrow your options and force you to address the personal consequences of your actions. A sophisticated response will integrate these facts into the reasoning process, demonstrating that the candidate can operate within the boundaries of specific rules and regulations. This ability to synthesize text-based information is a direct predictor of a student's performance in professional school curricula where policy and ethics frequently intersect.
Recognizing Implied Ethical Tensions
Text scenarios often present abstract prompts rather than narrative dilemmas. A prompt might ask, "Describe a time you failed," or "Is it ever acceptable to lie to a patient?" These require the candidate to generate their own context while adhering to the types of CASPer questions that evaluate integrity and self-awareness. The "implied" tension in these prompts usually revolves around the conflict between personal gain and professional standards.
To navigate these, you should apply the Principle of Charity, which involves assuming the best possible intentions of all parties involved while still addressing the unethical behavior. In a written prompt about a colleague's poor performance, you shouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that they are lazy. Instead, consider implied factors like personal crisis or lack of resources. By acknowledging these possibilities, you demonstrate perspective-taking, a core competency that raters score highly. This nuanced approach shows you can think beyond the literal text to the human complexities beneath.
The Core Question Archetypes You Must Master
"What Would You Do?" Action Questions
The "Action" question is the most common archetype in the CASPer question format. It asks for your immediate next steps. The key to high performance here is the Non-Judgmental Approach. You must gather more information before taking a definitive, irreversible action. A standard formula involves: 1) Speaking to the individual privately, 2) Using "I" statements to avoid accusation, and 3) Seeking a solution that preserves the relationship while upholding the rule.
For example, if you catch a classmate using an unapproved resource, your "Action" shouldn't be to report them immediately to the dean. Instead, a high-scoring response would involve pulling the classmate aside to confirm your observation and understanding their perspective. This "information-gathering" phase is vital. Raters look for candidates who avoid "jumping to conclusions." By demonstrating a measured, step-by-step escalation of action, you show that you possess the professional maturity to handle sensitive situations without causing unnecessary harm.
"How Would You Respond?" Communication Questions
These questions focus on the mechanics of communication. They often ask you to provide the specific words or the "vibe" of a conversation. Here, the rater is looking for evidence of conflict resolution skills and "soft skills." You must demonstrate that you can deliver difficult news or confront a peer while maintaining their dignity.
In these responses, use terms like "active listening," "empathy," and "collaborative problem-solving." If a scenario involves a disgruntled customer, your response should explain how you would listen to their concerns without interruption before offering a compromise. This shows you understand that communication is not just about the message sent, but how it is received. Scoring high on these questions requires showing that you can remain calm and professional even when the person you are interacting with is being difficult or irrational.
"What Are the Ethical Considerations?" Analysis Questions
Analysis questions are the most theoretical. They ask you to step back from the "doing" and focus on the "thinking." You might be asked to list the factors you would consider before making a decision. This is where you should use the Ethical Framework approach. Common considerations include autonomy (the person's right to choose), beneficence (doing what is best for the individual), and justice (what is fair for the group).
When answering, you should explicitly state the competing interests. For instance: "On one hand, I must consider the privacy of my peer; on the other hand, I must consider the safety of the public." By framing the answer as a balance of priorities, you demonstrate that you understand the complexity of professional life. These questions are not looking for a "right" answer, but rather for a demonstration of a robust decision-making process. The more factors you can identify and weigh against each other, the more sophisticated your response appears to the rater.
How Responses are Evaluated by Raters
Assessing Clarity and Coherence of Thought
CASPer is not a writing test, and raters are explicitly told to ignore spelling and grammar errors. However, clarity of thought is paramount. Because raters spend very little time on each response (often less than a minute), your main point must be "front-loaded." This means stating your primary stance or action in the very first sentence.
Coherence is evaluated based on the logical flow of your argument. If you decide to take a specific action, your reasoning must support that action consistently. Contradicting yourself within the three questions is a common mistake that leads to a lower score in the CASPer response evaluation. To maintain coherence, many successful candidates use "signposting" words like "First," "Furthermore," and "Consequently." This helps the rater follow your logic even if your typing is frantic or your sentences are fragmented. The goal is to make your professional reasoning as easy to digest as possible.
Scoring Based on Pre-Defined Competency Rubrics
Each scenario is scored by a different rater, which eliminates individual bias and ensures that your total score is an average of 12 different perspectives. Raters use a Likert scale (usually 1 to 9) based on how well you demonstrated the specific CASPer competencies assigned to that scenario. These competencies include things like Ethics, Resilience, Teamwork, and Reliability.
It is important to understand that you are being scored relative to your peer group. This is a norm-referenced assessment. To reach the fourth quartile (the highest scoring bracket), you must provide more than just the "obvious" answer. You must show an "exemplary" level of insight, perhaps by identifying a stakeholder that others missed or by proposing a creative solution that satisfies all parties. Understanding the rubric means knowing that you aren't just trying to be "right"—you are trying to be the most thoughtful, empathetic, and professional version of yourself in that specific context.
Tailoring Your Approach to Different Professional Fields
Medical School vs. Nursing Program Scenarios
While the CASPer question format remains the same across different versions of the test, the scenarios are often tailored to the specific professional path. For medical school applicants (CSP-10111), scenarios often lean heavily on clinical ethics and high-stakes decision-making. You might face dilemmas regarding resource allocation or end-of-life care. In these cases, your responses should reflect the Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics.
For nursing applicants (CSP-20011), the focus often shifts toward patient advocacy and intra-professional collaboration. Nursing scenarios might involve a conflict between a nurse and a physician or a nurse and a patient’s family. The "correct" professional stance here emphasizes the nurse's role as the primary safeguard for the patient’s well-being. While the underlying attributes being tested—like empathy and integrity—are identical, the "flavor" of the dilemma changes. Knowing what to expect on CASPer test day involves being prepared for these field-specific nuances so that your answers feel authentic to the profession you are trying to enter.
Teaching and Education-Focused Dilemmas
Candidates applying to teacher education programs face scenarios that center on pedagogical integrity and student welfare. These prompts often involve issues like bullying, grading fairness, or parent-teacher boundaries. The "stakeholders" in these scenarios almost always include the student, the parents, the school administration, and the broader community.
In an education context, your responses should prioritize the student's development and safety while respecting the "chain of command" within a school district. For example, if a student confides something sensitive to you, your response must balance the student's trust with your legal and ethical obligations as a mandated reporter. Demonstrating that you understand these professional boundaries is key. Regardless of the field, the CASPer test seeks to ensure that candidates possess the foundational "people skills" that cannot be taught in a classroom, making a thorough understanding of the test content the first step toward a successful professional career.