The Complete Casper Test
Study Guide
How Casper is scored, what separates a 4th-quartile answer from a 3rd, and 48 graded example answers, video and typed, that show exactly what each quartile looks like.
The one idea to take from this guide
Most applicants know the right moves: talk privately, don't assume, consider everyone involved. What lifts an answer from the 3rd quartile to the 4th is the why: a real reason, specific to that scenario, behind each move. Every example in this guide highlights those reasons so you can see the difference.
What this guide covers
How to use this guide
- 1Learn the playbookRead sections 1–6 once, in order. They explain what raters reward.
- 2Answer before you peekIn each example, write or say your own answer first, then compare it across the quartile tabs.
- 3Rehearse at real paceUse the practice timer and the Type Racer so 1:00 and 1:40 feel normal.
- 4Review and self-gradeTick off sections as you go, and keep the cheat sheet for the week of your test.
What Casper Measures
An online situational judgment test of how you think, not what you know
Definition
Casper, Acuity Insights' situational judgment test, presents everyday scenarios (workplace, school, community and personal situations) and asks how you'd respond and why. Unlike an academic exam, it doesn't test what you know. It samples how you reason about people, fairness and responsibility, under time pressure.
Qualities Casper looks for
Acuity describes Casper as measuring social intelligence and professionalism, through qualities such as these. Each scenario tends to target a few of them, and you don't need to name them in your answers. You need to show them.
✓ Casper is
- A test of judgment and reasoning about people
- Scored by trained human raters
- Used by many medical, nursing, dental, health and professional programs
- Relative: you're compared with other test-takers
✗ Casper is not
- A medical or academic knowledge test
- A search for one "right" answer
- Graded on spelling, grammar or accent
- A length contest: more words ≠ more marks
Format & Timing (2026-27)
What test day looks like, and how to spend every second of it
Video response
- 4 scenarios, 2 questions each
- Questions shown one at a time
- Optional short reflection time before you record
- 1 minute to speak per question
- Optional 10-minute break afterwards
Typed response
- 7 scenarios, 2 questions each
- Both questions shown together
- 3.5 minutes total per scenario
- Each typed question now scored on its own
- Optional 5-minute break after the first 4 typed scenarios
Your timing plans
Video: per question
- Use the reflection time to identify the question type and pick 2–3 points, each with its reason.
- Then use the full minute to speak. About 110–140 words at a natural pace is plenty.
- Lead with your answer, not a summary of the scenario.
Typed: per scenario (3:30)
- 10 seconds: read both questions and plan both answers so they don't overlap.
- 1 min 40 sec: write answer 1.
- 1 min 40 sec: write answer 2.
Old vs. new format
| Aspect | Previous | Current (since 2025-26) |
|---|---|---|
| Total duration | 90–110 min | ~65–85 min |
| Scenarios | 14 | 11 (4 video, then 7 typed) |
| Questions per scenario | 3 typed / 2 video | 2 |
| Typed time | 5 min | 3.5 min per scenario |
| Typed scoring | Per scenario | Per question |
Scoring & Quartiles
How a response becomes a quartile, and why 4th doesn't mean perfect
From your answer to your result
You respond
Each video question and each typed question is its own response. Since 2025-26, typed answers are scored question by question.
A trained rater scores it
Human raters judge the content of what you say or write. Different responses are generally scored by different raters, so no single rater decides your result.
Scores are combined and compared
Your response scores are combined and compared with other test-takers'. You're ranked against peers, not marked against an answer key.
Results are released
You receive a quartile (1st–4th). Programs receive more detail, such as a z-score or percentile, and decide how to weigh it.
Quartiles are relative bands
A quartile tells you where you landed compared with everyone else, in four equal slices. The 4th quartile is the top 25%.
4th ≠ perfect
Everyone writes under the same clock, so the bar is "better reasoned than most peers in 1 minute or 3.5 minutes," not "flawless." A concise, imperfect answer with sound judgment and real reasons can land in the top band. Every 4th-quartile example in this guide misses something.
Length isn't quality
A tight answer with two real reasons beats a long one padded with filler. Typos and grammar aren't graded. Very thin answers do tend to score low, though, because they rarely have room for reasoning, not because they're short.
What raters reward
Based on Acuity’s published guidance, strong responses consistently:
- Answer the actual question, both of them, including any twist.
- Identify the most pressing issue instead of everything at once.
- Consider the people involved fairly, without assuming facts or motives.
- Seek missing information before judging, when information is missing.
- Propose practical, proportional steps, including what to do if the first step doesn't work.
- Explain why: the purpose and impact of each step, in this scenario.
- Show empathy and professionalism, with no red flags (unsafe, dishonest, punitive or dismissive actions).
This guide reflects how raters evaluate responses based on Acuity's published guidance and our experience. It is not Acuity's official scoring key, and Sandbox practice grades are estimates.
What Separates the Quartiles
The four bands side by side, what counts as a why, and the habits that hold 3rd-quartile answers back
The four bands at a glance
Answers it, and shows why
- ★ The key differenceExplains the WHY behind each main move: two or more real reasons specific to this scenario
- Answers the exact question, including any twist
- Weighs perspectives fairly, assumes nothing
- Proportional steps, plus a fallback
Right moves, thinner reasoning
- Solid, appropriate, empathetic
- Explains why for some points, not consistently
- Or misses one meaningful element
- No red flags
On topic, but generic
- Understands the basics
- One-sided or superficial
- Vague solutions, slogans instead of reasons
- Minor assumptions; may dodge a twist
Misses it or raises red flags
- Misses the core issue or the question
- Extremely thin, or just repeats the prompt
- Lacks empathy or professionalism
- Unsafe, dishonest or punitive actions
Side-by-side comparison
| Criterion | 4th | 3rd | 2nd | 1st |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Answers the question | Directly, including the second question and any twist | Yes | Partly, or drifts to an easier question | Misses it, or restates the prompt |
| The why | Two or more real, scenario-specific reasons | Usually one; other moves unexplained | Slogans, or none | None, or faulty reasoning |
| Perspectives | Weighs the main parties fairly, including the one others overlook | Covers the obvious stakeholder | One point of view | Ignores or dismisses others |
| Assumptions | Assumes nothing; seeks missing information | Mostly avoids assumptions | Minor assumptions or bias | Assumes guilt or motives |
| Next steps | Practical, proportional, with an "if that doesn't work…" step | Sensible; may skip the fallback | Vague ("handle it professionally") | Extreme, punitive or unsafe |
| Empathy & tone | Genuine, respectful, impartial | Respectful | Cursory | Lacking or judgmental |
| Red flags | None | None | Possibly minor | Present |
Swipe the table sideways to see all four bands →
What counts as a "why"
A why is a real reason attached to a main point the question is asking about. It explains why that move or view helps in this scenario. Nice-sounding language is not a why. Three quick tests:
The paste test
Could you paste the sentence into an answer about a completely different scenario? If so, it's a slogan.
The strip test
Delete the virtue words (important, key, crucial, empathy). Is an actual reason left? If not, it doesn't count.
The circle test
Does the "reason" just restate the action's goal? "Talk to them to resolve it" is circular.
Not a why
Communication is key.
Slogan: fits any answer.Empathy is so important in healthcare.
Slogan: no link to this scenario.I'd talk to them to resolve the issue.
Circular: restates the goal.We'd work together to find a solution.
Circular.Everything happens for a reason.
Proverb or filler.
A real why
…privately, so he can explain without feeling ambushed in front of the group.
Purpose of the move, specific to the setting.…because a lockout means missing the whole lesson, so late students fall further behind.
Impact of the policy.…since they know their own constraints better than administrators do.
Why involve them.…because if we both stayed quiet and it came out later, the manager couldn't trust either of us.
Consequence of the alternative.It showed me I fill gaps with the least generous explanation when I'm stressed.
Reflection: self-insight is the why.
“This is a really difficult situation, and I think communication is key. I'd speak to Sam privately first, so he can explain without his teammates watching. It's important to always be empathetic and professional, and I'd offer to help him catch up, because the deadline affects everyone, and blaming him won't get the work done any faster. At the end of the day, teamwork makes everything better.”
With the filler struck through, two real reasons remain. Notice that the filler took up almost half the words.
What the "why" looks like for each question type
| Question type | Your "why" is… |
|---|---|
| Dilemma / action | The purpose and impact of each move: why this step, why now, what happens if you don't |
| Stance | Reasons for your position, plus why the other side does or doesn't change it |
| Reflection / personal | What the experience revealed about you and how it changed you (not action steps) |
| Hypothetical / decision | Why this option over the alternatives, or the trade-off you're accepting |
| Conflict / communication | The perspective-taking behind your approach: what the other person might be feeling or needing |
| Policy / fairness | The fairness rationale: who benefits, who's burdened, and why your balance is right |
| Twist / follow-up | How the new information bears on your decision, whether you update or hold firm |
3rd vs 4th: the habits that matter
3rd-quartile answers are good answers. What holds them back is almost always one of these habits:
Naming the move without the reason
The most common gap. The action is right, but the rater has to guess why.
I'd talk to her privately.
I'd talk to her privately, so she can explain without an audience and fix it herself.
Slogans standing in for reasons
Virtue phrases sound like reasons but explain nothing about this scenario.
…because honesty is really important.
…because if the error surfaces later, the client stops trusting the whole team, not just her.
Escalating before understanding
Reporting is sometimes right, but not as step one when facts are unclear. (Exception: if someone's safety is at immediate risk, act now.)
I'd tell the manager.
I'd ask him what happened first; if it's what it looks like and he won't fix it, then I'd involve the manager.
Assuming facts you weren't given
Guilt, laziness, bad motives: if the scenario didn't say it, don't assume it.
Since he's obviously been cutting corners…
I don't know why the numbers are off yet. It could be a mistake or a system issue, so I'd check before acting.
Seeing only the obvious stakeholder
3rd-quartile answers often consider the main person only. 4th-quartile answers notice who else is affected.
I'd make sure my coworker is okay.
…and I'd think about the customers waiting, and the teammates who've been covering her shifts.
Skipping "what if it doesn't work?"
When the plan depends on someone cooperating, say what you'd do if they don't.
Hopefully he agrees to fix it.
If he won't, I'd bring it to the group, because submitting it knowingly makes us all responsible.
Answering an easier question
Re-read the exact wording. "Describe a time" wants a story; "do you agree" wants a position.
I think it's important to always be open to feedback.
In my first year tutoring, my coordinator told me… and I realized…
Dodging the twist
Follow-ups add new information on purpose. Platitudes that ignore it cap the answer at the 2nd quartile.
I'd still be supportive and communicate openly.
That changes things: it's now a health issue, so the priority becomes…
Restating the scenario
Summarizing burns time the rater doesn't reward. One sentence naming the core tension is enough.
So in this scenario, Marcus has copied a section and the deadline is in two days and…
The core issue is possible plagiarism that puts the whole group at risk.
Listing many shallow actions
Six steps with no reasons reads as a checklist. Two or three justified steps reads as judgment.
I'd talk to her, tell the manager, document it, follow up, and check the policy.
Two steps, each with its because, plus a fallback.
Fence-sitting
Seeing both sides is good; refusing to decide is not. Weigh, then commit.
There are pros and cons to both, so it depends.
On balance I'd do X, because… though I'd change my mind if…
Question Types
Identify the type first, then answer what that type is actually asking for
Many applicants write one all-purpose answer. Raters grade how well you answer the question asked, and each type asks for something different. Spend the first seconds of your planning time deciding which type you're facing.
Dilemma / action
- A strong answer must
- A sensible course of action, with reasons that engage the central tension. Gather information when facts are missing, and say what you'd do if the first step fails.
- Common trap
- Jumping to report or punish; assuming guilt; describing only the happy path.
Stance
- A strong answer must
- Take a clear position, genuinely weigh the strongest opposing point, and give real reasons. "Partly agree" is fine if you say exactly where you land.
- Common trap
- Fence-sitting; a one-sided answer that ignores objections the scenario raised.
Reflection / personal
- A strong answer must
- One specific, honest account, then genuine self-insight: what it revealed and how it changed you. Action steps aren't required.
- Common trap
- Speaking in generalities; a proverb as the lesson; humble-bragging.
Hypothetical / decision
- A strong answer must
- Make a clear choice, explain why it beats the alternatives, or name the trade-off you're accepting.
- Common trap
- Refusing to choose; ignoring constraints the scenario gave you.
Conflict / communication
- A strong answer must
- How you'd approach the person: curiosity first, respect, de-escalation and clear boundaries. Your why is the perspective-taking behind each move.
- Common trap
- Lecturing; labelling the other person; giving in completely or digging in completely.
Policy / fairness
- A strong answer must
- Balance competing interests: who benefits, who's burdened. Suggest practical safeguards for the people a rule would hit hardest.
- Common trap
- Considering one stakeholder only; ignoring equity.
Twist / follow-up
- A strong answer must
- Engage the specific new information. Name it, then either update your answer because of it or hold firm with a reason that addresses it. Both are fine.
- Common trap
- Retreating to platitudes ("I'd still be supportive and communicate openly") or answering an easier question. However fluent, that generally caps the answer at the 2nd quartile.
Frameworks, Applied
Each framework below is shown inside a real answer, with every step labelled
A framework is scaffolding for your planning time, not a script to recite. Raters never see the labels. They see whether the answer is organized and whether each point has a reason.
PPRDJF: for dilemmas
Problem → Perspectives → Responsibility → Decide → Justify → Future
Applied (typed, ~115 words). A classmate who missed a week with the flu asks to copy your answers for a take-home assignment due tomorrow. What would you do?
In 1:40 you rarely need all six steps. Problem → Decide → Justify carries most of the weight; add Perspectives when stakeholders are central and Future when there's time.
PPJD: the 1-minute spoken version
Problem → Perspectives → Decision → Justification (spoken in that order)
Applied (video, ~105 words spoken). In a work group chat, a coworker posts a meme mocking a customer's accent, and a few people react with laughing emojis. What would you do?
Spoken answers need a simple, linear shape. Planning these four beats during the reflection time stops you rambling.
STAR-L: for reflection and personal questions
Situation → Task → Action → Result → Lesson
Applied (typed, ~105 words). Describe a time you worked with someone whose working style was very different from yours.
For reflection questions the Lesson is your why. Keep Situation and Task to one sentence each so the insight gets the most space.
Position → Reasons → Other side → Landing: for stance questions
Say where you stand, why, what the best objection is, and where you end up
Applied (typed, ~80 words). Should high schools ban phones during the school day? Why or why not?
The "Other side" step is what separates stance answers in the 3rd and 4th quartiles. Don't just mention it; let it shape your landing.
Name → Update or hold → Reason: for twists
Name what changed, decide whether it changes your answer, and tie your reason to the new information
Applied (video, ~75 words spoken). Earlier you said you'd speak to a teammate who keeps missing deadlines. Now imagine you learn they're caring for a parent who was just diagnosed with a serious illness. Does that change your approach?
Holding firm is equally valid: "It doesn't change my decision, because…" as long as the because addresses the new facts.
The four ethics principles: turn labels into reasons
Autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice are useful for spotting the tension. Naming them isn't a why; applying them is.
As a reason:
It's her decision to make, and overriding it would make her less likely to come to us next time.
As a reason:
Pointing him to the food bank solves the actual problem, not just tonight's.
As a reason:
Running the race into a lightning storm puts children in danger for a donation.
As a reason:
A rigid rule costs working students wages that other students don't lose.
Video Examples (1 minute)
Four scenarios, each with spoken answers from the 4th down to the 1st quartile
These are spoken answers, so they sound like speech: a little informal, with plain sentences. The 4th-quartile answers are deliberately conservative and realistic, the kind a well-prepared applicant actually says in a minute (about 110–140 words), not a polished essay. Word counts and speaking times assume a natural pace of ~140 words per minute.
V1 The copied section
You're in a four-person group for a course project worth 30% of the final grade. Two days before the deadline, you notice that one member, Marcus, has submitted a section that is almost word-for-word from a website, with no citation. Marcus has been quiet in meetings lately and mentioned that his part-time job just increased his hours.
“So the core problem is that Marcus's section could count as plagiarism, and since it's a group submission, it puts all four of us at risk. But I don't know his side yet. He's been stretched thin with work, and he may not realize how closely he copied. So first I'd talk to him privately, so he doesn't feel ambushed in front of the group and has a fair chance to explain. I'd show him the specific passages and offer to help rewrite or cite them, because with two days left, fixing it together is faster than arguing about whose fault it is. If he won't change it, I'd bring it to the group and we'd ask the instructor how to handle it, because knowingly submitting it would make all of us responsible.”
- Names the core issue in one sentence, then immediately avoids assuming bad intent by raising Marcus's workload.
- Three moves, each with a reason specific to this scenario (highlighted): why privately, why help instead of blame, why escalate.
- Covers the "what if he refuses?" branch with a proportional next step instead of stopping at the happy path.
- Not perfect: it never mentions preventing this next time or fairness to other groups. It doesn't need to. A 4th-quartile answer is strong, not exhaustive.
“This is tricky, because Marcus's section looks like plagiarism, but he's been really busy with his job. I'd talk to him privately first, so he doesn't feel called out in front of everyone. Then I'd ask him to rewrite it or add citations before the deadline, and offer to help if he needs it. If he refuses, I'd tell the rest of the group and maybe go to the instructor. Academic integrity is really important, but so is being supportive of your teammates.”
- Same skeleton as the 4th-quartile answer: private talk, a fix, an escalation path. The judgment is sound.
- Only one move comes with a real reason (talking privately). Rewriting, helping and escalating are stated, not explained.
- Ends on a slogan. "Academic integrity is important" could be pasted into any answer about any group project.
To move up: Attach a reason to the refusal step, e.g. "…because if we submit it knowing, we're all responsible." That one sentence is often the 3rd→4th difference.
“I would talk to Marcus and tell him that copying is not okay and he needs to fix his section before we submit. Communication is key in group projects, so I'd make sure everyone is on the same page. Hopefully he understands and changes it so we can hand it in on time. Group projects are stressful and everyone has a lot going on, so I'd try to be understanding.”
- Relevant and safe, but opens by assuming he copied on purpose ("copying is not okay"), so it lectures instead of asking.
- Only the everything-goes-well path. Nothing about what happens if Marcus says no.
- The "why" is a slogan, and "I'd try to be understanding" isn't attached to any concrete action.
To move up: Replace the slogan with a reason, ask before you judge, and add an "if he won't…" step.
“Honestly, I'd email the instructor right away and report Marcus for plagiarism. It's not fair that the rest of us could lose marks because of him, and he should have managed his time better. I'd also ask for his name to be taken off the project so it doesn't affect our grade.”
- Jumps straight to escalation without speaking to Marcus or checking what happened.
- Assumes intent and blames him ("should have managed his time better"), ignoring what the scenario says about his job.
- Punitive (removing his name) and self-focused. Raters read this as low empathy and poor professional judgment.
To move up: Start with a conversation, assume nothing, and reserve the instructor for when the group can't fix it.
V2 The late-arrival lockout
A high school principal proposes a new rule: students who arrive more than ten minutes late must spend the rest of that class period in a supervised study room instead of joining the lesson. Teachers say late arrivals disrupt their classes. Some parents say many late students rely on unreliable transit or have family responsibilities in the morning.
“I agree with the goal, but not with this rule. Late arrivals really do disrupt class, and it's fair to protect the learning of students who show up on time. But a lockout treats every late student the same, and a student who's late because they take two buses or drop off a younger sibling would be punished for things outside their control. It also backfires: being sent out means missing the whole lesson, so the rule makes the real problem, falling behind, even worse. I'd rather let late students come in quietly and have repeated lateness trigger a private conversation, because that gets at why it's happening instead of just punishing it.”
- Takes a clear position in the first sentence, then genuinely credits the other side (disruption, fairness to on-time students).
- Three real reasons tied to this policy: who it unfairly hits, how it backfires, and why the alternative works better.
- Offers a practical middle path instead of just saying no.
“I don't agree with this policy. Being on time is important and late students can be distracting, but some students have valid reasons, like transit or family responsibilities, that they can't control. Sending them out of class seems too harsh. I think the school should talk to students who are often late and find a better solution, like letting them come in quietly at the back.”
- Clear position, acknowledges the other side, and gives one real reason.
- "Seems too harsh" is a judgment, not a reason: it never says why missing the lesson is harmful.
- The alternative is sensible but unexplained. Why would talking to students work better?
To move up: Explain the impact: "…sending them out means they miss the whole lesson, so they fall further behind."
“I agree with this policy, because being on time is important and it teaches students responsibility. In the real world, if you're late to work there are consequences, so students need to learn that now. It's only fair to everyone else who shows up on time.”
- Clear position, but one-sided. It never engages with the parents' point about transit or family duties, even though the scenario raised it.
- The reasons are general beliefs ("teaches responsibility") rather than reasons about this specific rule and these students.
To move up: Name the strongest objection and either answer it or adjust your position because of it.
“Yeah, I agree. If students can't be bothered to show up on time, that's their problem. Teachers shouldn't have to stop the class for people who don't care. They'll learn pretty quickly.”
- Assumes late students "don't care," which directly contradicts the scenario.
- Dismissive tone and no empathy for students with real barriers. That's a professionalism red flag.
- No reasoning beyond a judgment about character.
To move up: Drop the assumption, acknowledge why students might be late, and reason about the rule's effects.
V3 Covering the shift: a twist
You're a senior counsellor at a summer day camp. Another counsellor, Jordan, asks you to cover their evening shift so they can go to a friend's birthday. You've already covered for Jordan twice this month, and you're starting to feel worn out.
“That definitely changes things. Before, I was weighing fairness to me and the team, but now it's a health need, so the priority is making sure Jordan can keep going to those appointments, because skipping them could make things harder for them long-term. I'd thank them for trusting me and keep it private, since they hid it because they were worried about being judged, and sharing it would break that trust. But I still can't cover every evening without burning out, so I'd suggest we go to the director together to set up a regular schedule change, because a formal arrangement is fairer to the team than me quietly absorbing shifts.”
- Opens by saying what changed and why. It engages the specific new information (anxiety, appointments, secrecy).
- Updates the priority without abandoning the original concern. It still addresses burnout and fairness to the team.
- Each move has a reason rooted in the twist: health, confidentiality, a sustainable fix.
“Yes, that changes my response. I'd be a lot more understanding and I'd tell Jordan I'm glad they're getting help. I'd keep it confidential so they feel safe telling me things. I'd also suggest talking to the camp director about a schedule that works with their appointments. Mental health is just as important as physical health.”
- Engages the twist directly and lands on sensible actions.
- One real reason (confidentiality). Going to the director is a good move with no reason given.
- Drops the earlier tension: it says nothing about the speaker's own workload or the rest of the team.
To move up: Show you're holding both sides: "…a formal schedule change means I'm not quietly burning out covering every shift."
“I'd still be understanding, like I was before. It's important to always support your coworkers and communicate openly. Everyone goes through hard times, so I'd try to be there for them and we could work something out together.”
- Never mentions anxiety, counselling or the secrecy. It answers an easier question ("are you supportive?").
- Platitudes in place of reasoning. Dodging the twist like this generally caps an answer at the 2nd quartile, however warm it sounds.
To move up: Name the new information out loud and say exactly how it changes (or doesn't change) what you'd do, and why.
“Honestly, I'd feel lied to. They should have just told me the truth from the start instead of making up a birthday. I'd tell them I'm not covering anymore and they need to sort it out with the director themselves.”
- Responds to a mental-health disclosure with resentment and withdrawal of support. That's a clear empathy red flag.
- Focuses on the speaker's own feelings and ignores why Jordan might have hidden it.
To move up: Acknowledge why someone might hide a health issue, respond with support, and then address the workload fairly.
V4 Feedback you didn't agree with
Word-based prompt: "Feedback is hardest to hear when we believe we're already doing a good job."
“In my first year tutoring high-school math, my coordinator told me my sessions felt rushed and students weren't asking questions. Honestly, I disagreed. I thought I was being efficient. But I asked to sit in on another tutor's session, and she paused a lot and let the student struggle a bit before helping. That's when I realized I'd been measuring my sessions by how much I covered, not by how much the student actually understood. So I started ending each topic by having them explain it back to me. The bigger lesson was that my first reaction to criticism is to defend myself, and the useful part is usually in the bit I want to argue with. Now I ask for an example before I respond to feedback.”
- Specific and honest: a real situation, an admitted disagreement, and a concrete step to test the feedback.
- For a reflection question, the "why" is self-insight: what it revealed about how they think, and how it changed them (highlighted).
- No action-plan padding and no humble-brag. Action steps aren't required for reflection questions; insight is.
“When I was tutoring, my coordinator said my sessions felt rushed. I disagreed at first because I thought I was covering a lot, but I took the feedback and started slowing down and checking in with my students more. Their understanding improved and they started asking more questions. I learned that feedback is a gift and that it's important to stay open-minded.”
- Specific, honest and shows a real change. That puts it solidly above average.
- The lesson is generic. "Feedback is a gift" doesn't tell the rater anything about this person or what they discovered about themselves.
To move up: Say what the feedback revealed about you: what you'd been getting wrong and why you hadn't seen it.
“I've received a lot of feedback over the years, from teachers, coaches and employers. Sometimes I didn't agree with it at first, but I always try to listen and take it into consideration. I think it's important to be open to criticism because it helps you grow as a person and as a future professional.”
- Never describes an actual time. The question asked for one specific situation.
- Talks about values in general instead of showing them, so there's no evidence of self-awareness.
To move up: Pick one real moment, even a small one, and walk through what happened and what it taught you.
“I can't really think of a time I disagreed with feedback, because I'm usually pretty careful and get things right. When people do criticize me, it's usually because they misunderstood what I was doing, so I explain it to them.”
- Doesn't answer the question, and the reason it gives signals low self-awareness.
- Casts criticism as other people's misunderstanding. That's the opposite of what a reflection question is looking for.
To move up: Everyone has an example. Choose a low-stakes one and focus on what you learned.
What the video section rewards, and what it doesn't
✓ Raters focus on
- Whether you answer the question
- Your reasoning and your why
- Your judgment and empathy
- A clear, followable train of thought
✗ Not what's scored
- Accent or pronunciation
- Grammar or incomplete sentences
- Your appearance or background
- Using every second (finishing at 0:50 is fine)
Typed Examples (3.5 minutes)
Four scenarios with both questions answered at every quartile
With 3:30 for two questions (10 seconds to plan, then about 1:40 per answer), most applicants are composing as they type. Even fast typists rarely produce more than about 70–110 thoughtful words per answer, so that's the length of the 4th-quartile answers here. Each tab shows the Q1 and Q2 answers for that quartile, each with its own annotation.
T1 The coat at closing time
You work part-time at a grocery store. Near closing, you see a regular customer, an older man who usually pays in coins, slip a package of meat into his coat. Your coworker Dana sees it too and says, "Just let it go. It's not our problem." Store policy asks staff to tell the manager on duty about suspected theft rather than confront customers.
“I wouldn't confront him or ignore it. I don't actually know what happened or why, and he may be struggling to afford food, so I shouldn't treat him as a thief based on one glance. I'd quietly tell the manager on duty what I saw, because they're trained to handle this and it keeps me from making a judgment call I'm not equipped for. I'd also mention he's a regular who may be in need, so the manager can respond discreetly, maybe pointing him to a food bank, rather than embarrassing him. That respects the store's policy without stripping him of his dignity.”
- Balances both sides of the tension: the store's policy and the man's possible need and dignity.
- Avoids assuming guilt and explains why that matters.
- Each action has a scenario-specific reason. It's about 100 words, realistic for 1:40 of composing and typing.
“I'd stay calm and ask Dana why she feels so strongly. She may know something about him that I don't, or she may just be worried about getting pulled into it, and I'd rather understand than argue. I'd tell her I'm not trying to get him punished; I want the manager to handle it kindly. But I'd be clear that I'll still be honest about what I saw, because if it came out later that we both saw it and stayed quiet, it would damage the manager's trust in both of us. What she says is her call, and I wouldn't pressure her to back me up.”
- Conflict question, so the "why" is the perspective-taking behind the approach: why ask first, why hold firm.
- Respects Dana's autonomy without giving up its own integrity. Firm but not hostile.
- Doesn't repeat Q1. The plan made in the first 10 seconds kept the two answers distinct.
“This is a hard situation because he might be in financial need. I would let the manager know, since store policy says not to confront customers ourselves, but I'd tell them he's a regular and that he might be struggling. Hopefully the manager can handle it in a kind way, like giving him a warning or pointing him to resources.”
- Recognizes both sides and lands on the right action.
- One reason (the policy). Why mentioning his need matters, or what it changes, is left unsaid.
- Thinner than the 4th. Nothing on avoiding assumptions about what was seen.
To move up: Add the purpose behind mentioning his situation: "…so he's treated with discretion rather than embarrassed."
“I'd tell Dana I understand where she's coming from, and that I feel bad for him too. But I'd explain that I still think the manager should know, and I'd ask her to reconsider. If she doesn't want to be involved, that's her choice, and I'd still tell the manager what I saw.”
- Respectful, empathetic, and holds a clear position.
- No reasons: it never says why reporting matters or why Dana's view deserves curiosity.
To move up: Ask why she feels that way, and give one concrete reason honesty matters here.
“I would tell the manager because it's the right thing to do and stealing is wrong. Even if he is poor, the rules apply to everyone. Honesty is very important in any job.”
- Mentions his possible need only to dismiss it, so it's effectively one-sided.
- Assumes it's definitely theft, and the reasons are general moral statements rather than reasoning about this case.
To move up: Treat the man's situation as a real consideration and explain how your approach protects his dignity.
“I'd tell Dana that lying is wrong and she should be honest too. We need to work as a team and be on the same page. I'd try to convince her to come with me to the manager.”
- Lectures instead of listening, and labels Dana a liar before she has done anything.
- "Work as a team" is a slogan, and pressuring her to come along ignores her autonomy.
To move up: Lead with curiosity about her view, then state your own position calmly.
“I'd go stop him before he leaves and ask him to empty his coat. If he refuses I'd block the door and call security or the police. Letting people steal just encourages more stealing.”
- Unsafe and against store policy: physically blocking a customer could escalate quickly.
- Assumes guilt with no consideration of the man's circumstances. Clear red flags.
To move up: Never put yourself or others at risk. Use the proper channel and treat the person with dignity.
“If Dana is going to lie, then I'd report her to the manager too, because she's basically helping him steal. I wouldn't trust her anymore.”
- Punitive escalation against a coworker who hasn't actually done anything yet.
- No attempt to understand her perspective.
To move up: Separate the person from the disagreement and talk it through first.
T2 Mandatory volunteering
A university is debating whether to require every student to complete 40 hours of community volunteering in order to graduate. Supporters say it builds empathy and civic responsibility. Critics say mandatory volunteering isn't really volunteering, and that it burdens students who already work to pay for school.
“I agree with the goal, but only if it's designed flexibly. Volunteering puts students in front of people and problems they'd never meet in class, and for a lot of people that's where empathy actually starts. The critics have a real point, though: a student working 20 hours a week to pay tuition would pay for this requirement in lost wages, so a rigid rule falls hardest on the students with the least time. And forced hours can turn into box-ticking, which defeats the whole purpose. So I'd support it, but not as a one-size-fits-all rule.”
- Clear position up front, then genuinely weighs the critics' argument instead of just mentioning it.
- Three real reasons, including two that come from the opposing side and shape the final position.
- Leaves the "how" for Q2, so the two answers don't overlap.
“The fairest fix is to count time differently rather than exempt people. The university could let hours be spread across all four years, offer weekend, online or on-campus options between classes, and count relevant work, like a job at a community centre. For students in real financial need, paid community placements or a reduced requirement would make sense, because the point is connecting with the community, not testing who can afford to work for free. I'd also ask working students what would help, since they know their own constraints better than administrators do.”
- Practical, specific options, plus the principle that decides between them (highlighted).
- Includes the affected group in the solution, which shows equity and respect.
- Just over 90 words: concise because it doesn't re-argue Q1.
“I mostly agree with this requirement. Volunteering helps students build empathy and gives back to the community. However, some students work part-time jobs and might not have the time, so a strict rule could be unfair to them. Overall I think the benefits outweigh the downsides because it helps students grow.”
- Clear position and one real reason drawn from the other side.
- The supporting reasons mostly repeat the scenario's own wording ("builds empathy") instead of explaining them.
- "Benefits outweigh the downsides" is asserted, not shown.
To move up: Explain one benefit in your own words and say how the downside changes your position.
“The university could make the hours more flexible, like allowing students to complete them over several years or on weekends. They could also offer on-campus volunteering so students don't have to travel. It would also help to let students apply for an exemption if they really can't do it.”
- Solid, practical options, which is why it's above average.
- Mostly a list. Only one option has a reason, and nothing ties the options back to the fairness concern.
To move up: Pick the two best options and say why each fits students who work.
“Yes, I agree. Volunteering is a great experience and everyone should do it. It teaches you a lot of valuable skills and helps the community. Students will be better people because of it.”
- One-sided: the critics' concerns, which the scenario spelled out, are never mentioned.
- The reasons are broad claims that could be pasted into any answer about volunteering.
To move up: Engage with the strongest counter-argument before concluding.
“The university should be understanding and supportive of students who work. They should communicate with them and find a solution that works for everyone. Every student's situation is different.”
- Vague. It proposes no actual solution.
- "Find a solution that works for everyone" is circular: it restates the goal of the question.
To move up: Name concrete changes the university could make.
“No. Students already pay tuition and the school has no right to tell them how to spend their free time. Volunteering should be up to the person. It's a waste of everyone's time if people don't want to be there.”
- Wholly one-sided: it never acknowledges what the requirement is trying to achieve.
- Dismissive framing ("no right," "waste of time") with no weighing of the community's or the school's view.
To move up: Even when you disagree, show you understand why someone would support the idea.
“Students who work should just manage their time better. Lots of people work and still volunteer. If they really want to graduate, they'll find the time.”
- Dismisses the concern the question asked you to address, with no empathy for financial pressure.
- Doesn't answer the question: it offers no way for the university to help.
To move up: Answer the question asked: what could the university do?
T3 Storm on race day
You're organizing a weekend fundraising run for a local youth shelter. On the morning of the event, the forecast changes to a severe thunderstorm warning for the afternoon. About 300 people have registered, many of them families with children, and the venue booking can't be moved to another day.
“I'd change it rather than cancel or carry on as planned. If the storm is forecast for the afternoon, I'd move the start earlier and shorten the route, because the biggest risk is lightning with 300 people, many of them kids, out in the open. I'd message everyone right away and offer refunds or a virtual option, so families can make their own call about their safety. If the forecast moves earlier or becomes uncertain, I'd cancel, since no fundraising total is worth someone getting hurt.”
- Makes a clear choice and explains why it beats the two alternatives.
- Builds in a contingency ("if the forecast moves earlier…") with its reason.
- Under 90 words. Short is fine when every sentence carries a decision or a reason.
“It makes the decision harder, but it doesn't change it. The sponsor's money matters a lot to the shelter, so I'd call them right away and explain we're running a shorter, earlier event rather than cancelling. Most sponsors don't want their name tied to an event where someone gets hurt, so the safety reasoning may actually keep them on board. If they still withdraw, I'd accept that and look for other ways to close the gap, like a matching campaign, because risking 300 people's safety to protect one donation would undermine the trust the shelter relies on.”
- Engages the twist head-on: it takes the $10,000 seriously instead of waving it away.
- Holds firm, with reasons that address the new information. Holding your position is fine if you explain why the new facts don't change it.
- Plans for the sponsor saying no.
“I would change the event by starting it earlier and making the route shorter so we finish before the storm hits. I'd send an email to let everyone know about the changes and offer refunds to anyone who doesn't want to come. Safety is the most important thing, but I'd also want to still raise money for the shelter.”
- Good decision with one real reason.
- No plan if the forecast changes again, and the refunds step isn't explained.
- "Safety is the most important thing" is true but generic. It doesn't say what the specific risk is.
To move up: Name the actual risk (lightning, children, open ground) and add an "if it gets worse" step.
“No, it doesn't change my decision. Safety still comes first, even if it means losing money. I would talk to the sponsor and explain why we made the change, and hopefully they'll understand. If not, we could try other fundraising ideas.”
- Engages the twist, holds firm and covers the sponsor refusing. Above average.
- The only reason is "safety comes first," which doesn't respond to the sponsor's actual concern or the shelter's need.
To move up: Give a reason that speaks to the new information, such as why the sponsor might accept the change.
“I would probably cancel the event, because safety comes first. People will understand. We could try to reschedule it for another time.”
- A defensible choice, but it ignores constraints given in the scenario (the venue can't be moved) and the shelter's need.
- The only reason is a slogan, and "probably" undercuts the decision.
To move up: Commit to a choice and weigh it against the alternatives you're rejecting.
“This is a tough situation, because both safety and money are important. I would try to find a solution that works for everyone and communicate openly with the sponsor and the participants. In the end, I'd do what's best for the shelter.”
- Fence-sits and never answers "does this change your decision?"
- Retreats into platitudes instead of engaging the specific ultimatum. That caps it at the 2nd quartile.
To move up: Answer yes or no first, then explain how the new information does or doesn't move you.
“I'd go ahead as planned. It's just rain, and people signed up knowing it was an outdoor event. The shelter needs the money, so cancelling would let everyone down.”
- Dismisses a severe-thunderstorm warning with children present. That's an unsafe judgment.
- Misreads the scenario ("just rain").
To move up: When safety is genuinely at risk, it has to drive the decision.
“Yes, it changes my decision. $10,000 is too much to lose, so I'd run the event as originally planned and just keep an eye on the weather.”
- Trades participants' safety for money. That's a major red flag.
- "Keep an eye on the weather" is not a plan.
To move up: Engage the pressure, but don't let it override safety. Explain how you'd handle the sponsor instead.
T4 Snapping at the new volunteer
Video-based scenario (described): At a busy food bank, an experienced volunteer sharply tells a newer volunteer, in front of clients, that she's packing boxes "completely wrong." Later the coordinator discovers the newer volunteer had been following an outdated instruction sheet still posted on the wall.
“Last summer at my retail job, a coworker left fifteen minutes early almost every day, and I assumed she was slacking off while the rest of us covered for her. I was short with her for weeks. Then our supervisor mentioned she'd arranged the early finish to pick up her younger brother from school. I felt embarrassed, because she'd been juggling a lot and I'd made her days harder. It showed me that when I'm stressed, I fill gaps in information with the least generous explanation. I apologized, and now when something about a coworker bothers me, I ask before I react.”
- Specific and honest, including an unflattering detail ("I was short with her for weeks").
- The insight is personal and precise (highlighted), not a proverb.
- Shows a lasting change in behaviour. About 100 words.
“In a team, a wrong assumption doesn't just affect one person. In the food bank, the newer volunteer was following the sheet on the wall, so snapping at her blamed her for a system problem and embarrassed her in front of clients. If you ask first, you often find the real cause, like outdated instructions, and can fix it so it doesn't keep happening. It also keeps people willing to speak up, because if teammates expect to be judged, they hide mistakes and small problems grow.”
- Answers the "why" question with three distinct consequences, each tied to the scenario or to how teams work.
- Uses the scenario as evidence instead of retelling it.
- Under 90 words.
“At my retail job, I assumed a coworker who left early every day was lazy. Later I found out she had permission from our manager to pick up her brother from school. I felt bad about how I'd treated her and apologized. I learned not to judge people without knowing the full story, and to always communicate.”
- Specific, with ownership and an apology. Above average.
- The lesson is generic and could come from anyone. It doesn't say what the experience revealed about this person.
To move up: Replace the lesson with something only you could have learned from this moment.
“Checking assumptions is important because you might not have the whole picture. In the scenario, the new volunteer was following outdated instructions, so it wasn't her fault. Reacting without asking can hurt people's feelings and create tension on the team. It's better to ask questions first.”
- Connects to the scenario and gives one real reason.
- Stays at surface level: "create tension" is named but not explained.
To move up: Push one step further: what actually goes wrong for the team when people react before asking?
“I've made assumptions about people many times, like thinking someone is rude when they're actually just shy. Everyone does this sometimes. I learned that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover and that you should get to know people first.”
- No specific time. It's a general habit, not an account.
- The lesson is a proverb, so it shows no real self-insight.
To move up: Describe one concrete situation, then the specific thing it taught you.
“It's important to check your assumptions because communication is key in any team. Everyone should respect each other and work together. When people work well together, the whole team succeeds.”
- Relevant but made of slogans. Strip them out and no reason is left.
- Ignores the scenario completely.
To move up: Use the scenario to show what an assumption actually cost.
“I try not to make assumptions about people, so I can't think of a specific time. I'm usually a good judge of character, and my first impressions are usually right.”
- Doesn't answer the question.
- Claims never to make wrong assumptions, which signals low self-awareness, the very thing being assessed.
To move up: Choose any real example; small and honest beats nothing.
“The experienced volunteer was right to correct her, because clients need their boxes packed properly. Sometimes you have to be direct to get things done.”
- Misses the core issue (the instructions were outdated) and endorses a public reprimand.
- Doesn't answer the question about checking assumptions.
To move up: Re-read the question and the scenario's key fact before answering.
Mistakes & Red Flags
The patterns that cost the most, each with a quick before → better rewrite
Rewrites that move an answer up
The slogan why
A virtue phrase in place of a reason.
I'd talk to her because communication is key.
I'd talk to her first, because she may not know the schedule changed, and a quick conversation fixes that faster than a complaint.
The bare move
Right action, no purpose.
I would speak to him privately.
I would speak to him privately, so he can explain without an audience and has the chance to fix it himself.
The premature report
Escalating before understanding (when no one is in immediate danger).
I'd report her to the supervisor right away.
I'd ask her what happened first. If it's what it looks like and she won't correct it, then I'd go to the supervisor, because it affects the clients.
The assumption
Treating a guess as a fact.
He's clearly not pulling his weight.
I don't know why his part is late yet. He might be overwhelmed or unclear on the task, so I'd ask before deciding anything.
The happy path only
No plan for when the other person says no.
Hopefully she agrees and we move on.
If she disagrees, I'd suggest we bring it to our coordinator together, so it's settled fairly rather than by whoever argues longest.
The scenario summary
Spending a third of the minute retelling the prompt.
So in this scenario there's a coworker who has been leaving early and the manager doesn't know and…
The core tension is fairness to the team versus not knowing why she's leaving early.
The checklist
Many steps, zero reasons.
I'd talk to him, tell the manager, document everything, check the policy and follow up.
I'd talk to him first, so he can explain. If it continues, I'd involve the manager, since repeated errors affect patients' trust.
The fence-sit
Both sides, no decision.
There are pros and cons to both, so it really depends on the situation.
On balance I'd choose the earlier start, because it keeps most of the fundraiser while removing the main safety risk.
Red flags that can sink an answer
Any one of these can put an otherwise fluent answer in the 1st quartile, because it signals a judgment or professionalism problem:
Phrases to retire
Filler. Name the specific tension instead.
Vague. Say what you'd actually do.
Overconfident and absolute. Real situations have conditions.
Judgmental. You don't know their motives.
Prep Plan & Test Day
A practice routine built around the habits that move answers up a quartile
Grade your own practice answers
After every practice response, run through this list before you look at any model answer:
- Did I answer the exact question, and did both answers stay distinct?
- Strip test: how many real, scenario-specific whys are left? (Aim for two or more.)
- Did I consider who else is affected, fairly?
- Did I assume anything the scenario didn't say?
- If my plan depends on someone else, did I say what happens if they refuse?
- If there was a twist, did I engage the new information directly?
- Any red flags?
A 4-week plan
Learn the bands
- Read sections 3–6 of this guide
- Take one baseline practice test
- Daily: rewrite 3 old answers, adding a why to every move
Video reps
- 3–4 recorded 1-minute answers a day
- Play them back and count your whys
- Practice planning in the reflection time
Typed under the clock
- Daily timed scenarios at 3:30 (10 s plan + 1:40 + 1:40)
- Typing practice toward 80 WPM
- Mix in twist and stance questions
Full simulations
- 1–2 full-length practice tests, with the breaks
- Get feedback on your weakest question type
- Review the cheat sheet the day before
Only two weeks? Combine weeks 1–2 and 3–4, and do at least two full timed simulations.
Typing speed
With 3.5 minutes for two answers, typing speed is a real constraint. We recommend building toward 80 WPM, so your fingers keep up with your thinking and you're not cutting reasons to save time.
Practice typing speed →Video practice
- Record yourself; don't just rehearse in your head
- Look at the camera, not your own face on screen
- If you stumble, keep going. Recovering calmly is fine
- Finishing at 0:50 with your reasons said beats rushing to fill 1:00
Before
- Check your webcam, microphone, browser and internet against Acuity's requirements well ahead of time
- Have your ID ready and confirm your test details on acuityinsights.app
- Pick a quiet, well-lit room and tell others you can't be interrupted
- Sleep. Fatigue costs you more than one extra practice set
During
- Use the reflection time before each video question
- Take the optional breaks, even short ones
- Identify the question type before you answer
- Had a rough scenario? Let it go. Each response is scored separately, so the next one is a fresh start
Resources
- Official: acuityinsights.app for test dates, requirements, the official practice test and policies
- Sandbox Casper Prep: timed practice scenarios with quartile feedback
- Typing: Casper Type Racer
- Peers and mentors: swap answers and grade each other with the checklist above
Cheat Sheet
Everything that matters, on one screen
The quartile ladder
- 4th Answers it + 2 or more real whys + fair to all sides + fallback
- 3rd Right moves; why for some, not all
- 2nd On topic but generic, one-sided or sloganized
- 1st Misses the question, or red flags
Timing
- Video: reflection time to plan → full 1:00 to speak (~110–140 words)
- Typed: 0:10 plan both → 1:40 answer 1 → 1:40 answer 2
- Breaks: optional 10 min after video; optional 5 min after typed scenario 4
Before you submit or stop talking
| Type | Do this | Framework |
|---|---|---|
| Dilemma | Action + reasons + if/then fallback | PPRDJF / PPJD |
| Stance | Position + reasons + weigh the other side + landing | Position → Reasons → Other side → Landing |
| Reflection | One specific story + what it revealed about you | STAR-L |
| Hypothetical | Choose + why over alternatives / trade-off | PPJD |
| Conflict | Curiosity first, respect, boundaries | PPJD |
| Policy | Who benefits, who's burdened, safeguards | Position → Reasons → Other side → Landing |
| Twist | Name it → update or hold → reason tied to it | Name → Update/hold → Reason |
You've Got This!
Casper rewards clear, fair, well-reasoned judgment under time pressure. Practice showing your why, and the quartiles take care of themselves.
Start Practice Now→