33 CASPer Sample Scenarios and Answers: Free Practice Questions

CASPer Sample Questions and Answers: Let’s Start Practicing!

Not every CASPer question has an obvious answer. Some put you in tricky ethical situations where you have to decide what to do. Others ask you to weigh in on a policy or reflect on something you've experienced.

The best way to get comfortable with these questions is to try them yourself. Start with the scenario below, answer both questions, and then see how your reasoning compares with the sample answers.

CASPer Sample Scenario #1: The Food Bank Delivery

Scenario

You volunteer at a community food bank. During a busy afternoon, another volunteer, Daniel, notices that several donated food packages are past their printed best-before dates. Your supervisor, who is trying to serve a long line of families, says that the food is probably fine and tells Daniel to put the packages on the distribution table.

Daniel is uncomfortable doing so, but he worries that questioning the supervisor will make him appear disrespectful. He asks what you think he should do.

Question 1: How would you respond to Daniel, and what would you do about the food packages?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would be the safety of the families receiving the food, particularly those who may have limited access to other meals. However, I would not assume that a best-before date automatically makes a product unsafe. I would first ask Daniel and the supervisor about the food bank's policies for assessing donated food.

If the packages are safe under those guidelines, I would help distribute them. If their suitability is uncertain, I would temporarily separate them and ask the appropriate staff member to assess them. If the food is confirmed to be unsafe, I would ensure it is not distributed and help identify other available supplies.

Question 2: Suppose the supervisor becomes irritated and tells you to stop slowing down the distribution process. Would that change your response?

Sample answer:

The families' safety would remain my priority, but I would also recognize that the supervisor is under pressure to serve people efficiently. I would ask whether there is an established procedure for resolving uncertainty about donated products.

If we can verify the packages quickly, I would help complete that process while continuing to distribute approved food. If verification requires more time, I would suggest setting the questionable packages aside rather than delaying the entire operation. If the supervisor insists on distributing food that may be unsafe without following the required procedures, I would respectfully escalate the concern.

Why these answers work:

Both responses identify the vulnerable parties before considering the operational problem. They gather information relevant to food safety and distinguish between products that are safe, uncertain, and unsafe. The conditional reasoning progresses from a straightforward resolution to situations requiring further intervention, rather than immediately accusing the supervisor of misconduct.

How to Get the Most Out of These CASPer Practice Questions

Reading sample answers can be helpful, but you'll get more out of these exercises if you try answering the questions yourself first. Give yourself a time limit, consider the people involved, and work through what you would do before checking the example response.

In the standard CASPer format, you'll encounter four video-response scenarios and seven typed-response scenarios, with two questions per scenario. You have one minute to record each video answer and 3.5 minutes total to type your answers to a pair of questions. This practice bank gives you more scenarios than the actual test, so you can try a wider range of situations.

As you compare your answers with ours, focus on the reasoning rather than trying to memorize the wording. These are examples of possible responses, not official scoring keys. There's often more than one reasonable way to handle a situation.

If you're looking for a complete study plan to go along with these exercises, check out our guide on how to prepare for CASPer.

CASPer Practice Scenarios with Worked Answers

 Let's work through a few more examples. These scenarios involve situations where people have competing needs, disagreements need to be resolved, or a decision has to be made fairly.

Each example includes two questions, sample answers, and an explanation of what makes those answers effective. BeMo created these scenarios for independent practice; they are not official Acuity Insights test questions.

Before checking our answers, think about how you would handle the situation and what information you'd need to make your decision.

CASPer Sample Scenario #2: The After-School Program Waitlist 

Prompt

You help manage registration for an after-school program at a community center. The program has reached its maximum enrollment, and several children are on a waiting list.

A parent arrives and explains that their work schedule has unexpectedly changed. They now need after-school care for their nine-year-old child, beginning the following week. They ask whether you can make an exception and add their child to the program immediately.

You explain that the program has a maximum number of children it can supervise safely, but the parent insists that their child would only attend for a few hours each afternoon. They are visibly worried and ask you to reconsider.

Question 1:

How would you respond to the parent's request?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would be ensuring that the child has access to safe supervision without compromising the safety of other children already enrolled in the program. I would acknowledge the parent's situation and ask about their specific childcare needs, including the days and hours they require care. I would also review the program's enrollment rules and available resources.

If a place has recently become available, I would help the parent register according to the program's procedures. If the program allows approved temporary arrangements without exceeding supervision limits or unfairly bypassing the waiting list, I would explore those options. If the program is genuinely at capacity, I would explain that I cannot compromise the required supervision standards and help the parent find alternative programs or childcare resources.

Question 2:

Suppose the parent explains that they may lose their job if they cannot arrange childcare. Would this change your response?

Sample answer:

The possibility of losing employment would make the parent's situation more urgent, particularly because their income may support the child's basic needs. I would ask whether the parent has already explored workplace scheduling flexibility or other available childcare arrangements.

If the community center has emergency childcare referrals or financial-assistance resources, I would help the parent access them. If another qualified provider has availability, I would help facilitate a referral. If no immediate option exists, I would involve the appropriate program administrator to explore any authorized alternatives.

However, I would not enroll the child beyond the program's safe capacity. I would explain this respectfully while continuing to help the parent find another solution.

Why these answers work:

Both answers begin by identifying the vulnerable parties: the child who needs supervision and the children already participating in the program. The applicant gathers information about childcare requirements, available spaces, and authorized alternatives before deciding what to do.

The conditional reasoning progresses from an uncomplicated solution to more difficult circumstances in which outside assistance is necessary. The applicant demonstrates compassion without treating a sympathetic situation as justification for overriding safety requirements or unfairly bypassing other families.

CASPer Sample Scenario #3: The Double-Booked Community Hall 

Prompt

You volunteer at a community arts center. Two local organizations arrive to use the center’s main hall at the same time. One group has organized a documentary screening, while the other is hosting a public discussion about a proposed neighborhood development project.

Both organizers show you confirmation emails indicating that they reserved the hall. A scheduling error appears to have caused the conflict.

The organizers become frustrated and begin accusing each other of trying to take over the space. Several attendees have already arrived, and both events are scheduled to begin shortly.

Question 1:

How would you handle the disagreement between the two organizations?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would be ensuring that both organizations and their attendees are treated fairly, especially because neither group appears responsible for the scheduling error. I would try to reduce the tension and review both confirmations to understand what happened. I would also check whether another suitable space or schedule adjustment is available.

If both events can take place in separate rooms, I would help arrange that solution. If one event can be delayed or moved without significant disruption, I would discuss that possibility with its organizer and offer appropriate assistance. If neither group can reasonably adjust, I would involve the center’s manager and use the organization's booking policies to determine a fair resolution.

Throughout the process, I would avoid blaming either group and keep both informed about what is being done.

Question 2:

Suppose the documentary screening includes guests who have travelled several hours to attend, while the public discussion is part of a weekly meeting series. How would this information affect your response?

Sample answer:

My concern would remain finding a fair resolution, but the new information would affect how I evaluate the consequences of rescheduling either event. I would ask the organizers whether the public discussion can be moved to another date and whether the documentary screening has any flexibility.

If another appropriate space can accommodate one group, I would offer that option first. If the public discussion can be rescheduled with relatively little disruption, I would ask whether its organizers would consider that arrangement, while offering help notifying attendees. If neither group can accommodate a change, I would ask the center’s manager to apply a transparent decision process that considers the impact on both groups.

The visitors' travel would be an important consideration, but I would not assume it automatically overrides the other organization's legitimate reservation.

Why these answers work:

The responses recognize that both groups have legitimate interests and that the scheduling error is not necessarily either group's fault. The applicant gathers information about reservations, available spaces, scheduling flexibility, and the consequences of cancellation.

The proposed solutions progress from accommodating both events to negotiated adjustments and, finally, management intervention if no agreement is possible. The second answer demonstrates how additional information can influence a decision without leading the applicant to dismiss the interests of another party.

CASPer Sample Scenario #4: The Community Grant Committee

Prompt

You serve on a volunteer committee that awards small grants to local community projects. The committee is reviewing five applications and will select two recipients.

During a meeting, Priya, another committee member, mentions that one of the applicants is her cousin. She says she did not mention the relationship earlier because she believes she can evaluate the application objectively. Another member agrees, arguing that Priya is trustworthy and that the committee should not make a problem out of a family connection.

The committee is preparing to vote, and the chair asks whether anyone has concerns.

Question 1:

How would you respond to the situation?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would be ensuring that all applicants receive a fair evaluation and that the committee's decision can be trusted. I would acknowledge that Priya may sincerely believe she can remain objective, but I would also recognize that her family relationship creates a potential conflict of interest.

I would ask whether the committee has an established conflict-of-interest policy and how similar situations have been handled.

If the policy requires disclosure and recusal, I would recommend following it. If the policy allows Priya to provide factual information but not vote, I would support those limits. If there is no clear procedure, I would recommend that Priya disclose the relationship formally and step aside from evaluating her cousin's application while the remaining members determine how to proceed fairly.

I would frame the concern around protecting the selection process rather than questioning Priya's character.

Question 2:

Suppose the committee has no conflict-of-interest policy, and the other members want Priya to participate because they trust her judgment. What would you do?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would remain maintaining the integrity of the grant-selection process, particularly for applicants who have no personal connection to committee members. I would first explain why a conflict can exist even when someone intends to act impartially.

If the committee agrees that Priya should not evaluate her cousin's application, I would support documenting that decision and proceeding with the remaining members. If additional evaluators are needed, I would suggest involving another qualified committee member or an independent reviewer.

If the committee insists on allowing Priya to participate fully, I would raise my concern formally with the chair and recommend seeking guidance from the organization's leadership before awarding the grants. I would also propose adopting a written conflict-of-interest policy for future selections.

Why these answers work:

The applicant identifies the interests of all grant applicants rather than treating the issue merely as a disagreement about Priya's honesty. The responses distinguish between deliberate favoritism and a potential conflict of interest that may exist even without improper intentions.

The conditional reasoning moves from following established procedures to creating a fair interim solution and seeking higher-level guidance if the committee refuses to address the concern. The applicant also identifies a longer-term procedural improvement that could prevent similar problems.

What Can You Learn from These Examples?

Although these scenarios deal with different problems, there's a common thread: strong answers identify what's at stake, consider the people involved, gather the information needed, and explain a reasonable course of action.

Remember that CASPer is not testing whether you can find the “perfect” answer. Instead, it evaluates your judgment, communication style, professionalism, empathy, and ability to navigate difficult situations under pressure.

One BeMo student described how learning to think through questions in a structured way helped them prepare:

"I had an exceptional experience working with Simon Rousset, who provided the precise guidance I needed to feel confident and prepared. Their deep understanding of the CASPer format and their ability to break down each type of question were invaluable. They didn’t just teach me to answer questions—they helped me develop the structured thinking and ethical reasoning needed to succeed. The practice sessions were tailored to my strengths and weaknesses, making each session incredibly effective and personalized." - BeMo student.

CASPer Situation and Ethical Dilemma Practice Questions 

Ready for some trickier situations? The next scenarios cover academic honesty, workplace disagreements, privacy, safety, discrimination, teamwork, and professional boundaries. You'll encounter examples from healthcare, education, work, and everyday life.

These situations don't always have an obvious right or wrong answer. Before deciding what you'd do, think about who's affected, what responsibilities are involved, and what information you might be missing.

CASPer Sample Scenario #5: The Suspected Cheating Incident

Prompt

You are studying with a friend who shows you a document containing what appear to be questions from tomorrow's university examination. Your friend says another student sent the document to a large group chat and insists that everyone will use it. You are unsure whether the questions are genuine, but your friend encourages you to look through them.

Question 1:

What would you do?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would be maintaining a fair examination process for all students, including those who may not have access to the document. I would avoid looking at the questions and ask my friend where the document came from and whether it was officially distributed as practice material.

If it is legitimate study material, I would use it appropriately. If its status is uncertain, I would contact the instructor to clarify whether students are permitted to access it, without circulating it further. If it appears to contain confidential examination questions, I would report the possible breach promptly so the instructor can protect the assessment's integrity.

Question 2:

Would your response change if your friend told you they had already used the document to prepare?

Sample answer:

My concern would remain fairness to all examinees, but I would also want my friend to have an opportunity to explain what happened. I would ask whether they knew the document might contain unauthorized examination material when they used it.

If they reasonably believed it was legitimate, I would encourage them to explain this to the instructor. If they knew it was unauthorized, I would urge them to disclose their actions and accept responsibility. If they refused to report a credible examination breach, I would provide the relevant information to the instructor myself, without speculating about their intentions or appropriate punishment.

Why these answers work:

The applicant prioritizes academic fairness while distinguishing evidence from suspicion. The responses consider legitimate access, uncertainty, and deliberate misconduct separately. They also demonstrate accountability without assuming that the applicant should determine another student's guilt or punishment.

CASPer Sample Scenario #6: An Inappropriate Patient Photograph

Prompt

You are a volunteer at a community health center. Another volunteer shows you a photograph of a patient sitting in the waiting room. The volunteer says the photograph is funny and wants to share it in a private group chat. You do not know whether the patient consented to being photographed.

Question 1:

How would you respond?

Sample answer:

My immediate concern would be protecting the patient's privacy and dignity, especially because photographs taken in healthcare settings can reveal sensitive information. I would ask the volunteer not to share the photograph while I clarify whether the patient consented and what the health center’s privacy policies require.

If the photograph was taken and used with appropriate authorization, I would follow those terms. If consent or authorization is unclear, I would ask the volunteer not to distribute the image and seek guidance from a responsible staff member. If the photograph was taken or shared improperly, I would follow the center’s reporting procedures and avoid further distributing it myself.

Question 2:

What if the volunteer says the patient’s face is not visible?

Sample Answer:

The patient's privacy would still be my priority because people may be identifiable even when their faces are not visible. I would ask what information appears in the photograph and whether its creation and intended use were authorized.

If the image was properly authorized and contains no identifying information beyond what was permitted, I would follow the relevant policy. If its privacy implications are uncertain, I would advise against sharing it until they are reviewed. If it was obtained or shared without appropriate authorization, I would follow the reporting procedures regardless of whether the patient's face is visible.

Why these answers work:

The responses recognize that privacy depends on more than whether a person's face appears in an image. They consider authorization, identifiability, and intended use before determining the appropriate action. The applicant begins with clarification but establishes a firm boundary when confidentiality requirements have been violated.

CASPer Sample Scenario #7: A student Requests Flexibility

Prompt

You are a teaching assistant. A student asks for a short extension on an assignment because they have been experiencing significant personal difficulties. The instructor's policy normally requires documentation for extensions. The student says they are uncomfortable providing details and asks you to keep the conversation confidential.

Question 1:

What would you do?

Sample answer:

My main concern would be ensuring that the student receives appropriate support without compromising their privacy or the fairness of the course's procedures. I would ask what extension they need and whether they have already explored the university's academic-consideration process, without requesting unnecessary personal details.

If the policy allows me to approve a short extension, I would do so consistently with its requirements. If approval rests with the instructor or student-support office, I would help the student contact the appropriate person. If documentation is required, I would explain how it can be submitted through the authorized process while protecting sensitive information.

Question 2:

What if another student complains that granting an extension would be unfair?

Sample answer:

My main concern would be maintaining fairness while protecting the first student's confidential information. I would ask the complaining student what they understand about the extension policy and whether they have questions about how to request academic consideration themselves.

If they misunderstand the policy, I would explain that authorized flexibility can be available to students with different circumstances. If they believe the policy has been applied inconsistently, I would direct them to the appropriate review process. I would not disclose another student's personal situation to justify an individual decision.

Why these answers work:

The responses distinguish fair access to academic consideration from identical treatment in every circumstance. They also recognize the teaching assistant's limited authority. The conditional structure demonstrates how the appropriate response depends on the institution's procedures without requiring the student to disclose more personal information than necessary.

CASPer Sample Scenario #8: An Offensive Comment at Work

Prompt

You are working on a team project. During a meeting, one colleague makes a joke about another colleague's accent. Several people laugh, but the person targeted becomes quiet and stops participating. Afterward, the person who made the joke says it was harmless and tells you not to take it too seriously.

Question 1:

How would you respond?

Sample answer:

My immediate concern would be the dignity and inclusion of the colleague whose accent was mocked. I would calmly redirect the discussion and, afterward, check privately whether the colleague would like support. I would also ask the person who made the remark whether they recognize its potential impact.

If they acknowledge the problem and change their conduct, an initial respectful conversation may help resolve it. If the affected colleague wants formal support, I would help them access the appropriate reporting process. If the behavior continues or workplace policy requires reporting, I would escalate the concern rather than allowing the pattern to continue.

Question 2:

What if the targeted colleague asks you not to tell anyone?

Sample answer:

My priority would be protecting the colleague from further harm while respecting their wishes as much as possible. I would ask what they are worried might happen if the incident is reported and explain any limits on the confidentiality I can offer.

If the situation can appropriately remain confidential, I would respect their preference and offer support. If there are informal options they would welcome, I would help explore them without acting behind their back. If workplace policy requires disclosure or there is a serious ongoing safety concern, I would explain the necessary steps and involve them in the process as much as possible.

Why these answers work:

The response begins with the affected colleague's well-being rather than the intentions of the person who made the remark. The responses distinguish between a situation that may be resolved through acknowledgment and changed behavior, one requiring formal assistance, and one requiring escalation. They also avoid promising confidentiality that cannot necessarily be maintained.

CASPer Sample Scenario #9: Missing Medical Supplies

Prompt

You work part-time at a community clinic. A colleague tells you that several boxes of disposable masks are missing. Later, you see another employee carrying a box toward their car. The employee says the clinic has plenty of supplies and that they are taking some home for family members.

Question 1:

What would you do?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would be ensuring that the clinic has the supplies necessary to serve patients, while also treating the employee fairly. I would ask whether the employee has permission to take the masks and review the relevant inventory procedures.

If the supplies were authorized for personal use, I would have no reason to intervene further. If permission is unclear, I would encourage the employee to verify it before taking them. If the supplies are being removed without authorization, I would report the matter factually through the appropriate process rather than confront the employee with an accusation of theft.

Question 2:

Would your response change if the employee’s family could not otherwise afford masks?

Sample answer:

The family's financial difficulties would deserve compassion, but the clinic's responsibility to its patients would remain important. I would first ask whether the clinic has a policy allowing surplus supplies to be distributed to employees or community members.

If such assistance is available, I would help the employee access it. If not, I would explore other community resources that might provide masks. If the employee continues taking supplies without authorization, I would follow the appropriate reporting procedures while avoiding unnecessary disclosure of their family's circumstances.

Why these answers work:

The responses distinguish between an employee's need and their authority to use organizational resources. They begin by considering patients' needs and the employee's circumstances, then establish different responses depending on authorization. Compassion remains part of the solution without being used to justify misconduct.

CASPer Sample Scenario #10: Favoritism in Shift Assignments

Prompt

You work in a retail store where weekend shifts are generally unpopular. Your supervisor repeatedly assigns those shifts to one employee while giving more desirable hours to a close friend. The affected employee complains to you but worries that speaking up will lead to retaliation.

Question 1:

How would you help the employee?

Sample answer:

My main concern would be the affected employee's ability to work under a fair scheduling system without fear of retaliation. I would ask about the shift pattern and whether there are availability restrictions or other scheduling considerations that could explain it.

If the assignments reflect legitimate scheduling needs, I would encourage transparent communication about those requirements. If the pattern appears unfair but may be unintentional, I would suggest discussing a more balanced rotation with the supervisor. If there is evidence of persistent favoritism or retaliation, I would support using the appropriate workplace reporting procedures while documenting the relevant facts.

Question 2:

What if you personally benefit from the current schedule?

Sample answer:

My priority would still be fairness to the employees affected, even if I personally benefit from the existing schedule. I would review whether my preferred shifts reflect legitimate availability requirements or preferential treatment.

If the current arrangement is fair, I would support explaining its rationale transparently. If some adjustments could distribute undesirable shifts more equitably, I would be willing to participate. If the system is demonstrably discriminatory or retaliatory, I would support formal correction even if it meant losing shifts I prefer.

Why these answers work:

The applicant identifies the potential harm to employees without assuming that every uneven schedule is unfair. The answers show how additional information determines whether clarification, adjustment, or formal intervention is appropriate. The second response also demonstrates integrity when the applicant's own interests are involved.

CASPer Sample Scenario #11: An Assumption About Disability

Prompt

During a university club event, a volunteer tells a student who uses a wheelchair that they probably would not enjoy participating in an outdoor activity. The volunteer offers to find them something else to do without asking about their preferences or accessibility needs.

Question 1:

How would you respond?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would be ensuring that the student has an opportunity to participate without being excluded because of assumptions about their disability. I would ask the student whether they are interested in the activity and what accessibility considerations might be relevant.

If the activity is already accessible, I would support their participation. If reasonable adjustments are needed, I would work with the organizers and the student to identify them. If substantial barriers remain, I would seek appropriate accessibility support rather than independently deciding that the student cannot participate.

Question 2:

What if the activity genuinely cannot be made accessible with the available resources?

Sample answer:

The student's ability to participate meaningfully would remain the central concern. I would ask the organizers which barriers cannot currently be addressed and consult the student about their preferences and possible solutions.

If additional equipment, assistance, or adjustments can make the activity accessible, I would help arrange them. If the activity cannot be made accessible under the circumstances, I would work with the student on an alternative they consider worthwhile. I would also raise the planning issue so accessibility is considered earlier in future events.

Why these answers work:

The responses place the student's preferences and opportunities at the center of the decision. They move from direct participation to reasonable adjustments and only then to alternatives. This avoids assuming limitations while also acknowledging that meaningful accessibility may require additional resources and planning.

CASPer Sample Scenario #12: A Harmful Social Media Post

Prompt

A friend shares an online post accusing a local restaurant employee of discrimination. The post includes the employee's photograph and workplace. Your friend encourages you to repost it, saying that public pressure is necessary. You have not seen evidence beyond the original accusation.

Question 1:

Would you share the post?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would be protecting both potential victims of discrimination and the accused employee from further harm while the allegations remain unverified. I would ask my friend whether they have firsthand information and whether the person who made the allegation has reported the incident through an appropriate channel.

If the concern can be investigated through a legitimate process, I would encourage that approach. If additional evidence is needed, I would suggest preserving it without publicly spreading identifying information. If there is a credible ongoing threat, I would support prompt reporting to the appropriate authorities. I would not repost an unverified accusation simply to increase pressure.

Question 2:

What if several people independently describe similar experiences with the employee?

Sample answer:

My concern for people who may have experienced discrimination would increase if independent accounts corroborated the allegation. I would ask whether the accounts provide verifiable information and whether an appropriate investigation has begun.

If management or another responsible body is addressing the concerns fairly, I would support that process. If the complaints are being ignored, I would encourage escalation to an appropriate external body. If there is evidence of an immediate threat, I would prioritize protective action. I would still avoid encouraging harassment or distributing unnecessary personal information.

Why these answers work:

The applicant takes discrimination allegations seriously while recognizing the risks of public accusation. The responses distinguish isolated, uncertain claims from corroborated reports and immediate threats. They show how stronger evidence can justify stronger intervention without abandoning procedural fairness.

CASPer Sample Scenario #13: Disagreement on a Care Team

Prompt

You are observing a community healthcare team. Two staff members disagree about how to communicate a change in a patient's care schedule. One wants to telephone the patient immediately; the other wants to wait until a supervisor reviews the schedule. The disagreement is delaying communication.

Question 1:

What would you do as a junior team member?

Sample answer:

My most pressing concern would be preventing harm to the patient, particularly if delayed communication could affect their care. I would ask the staff members whether the schedule change is urgent and what communication procedures apply.

If there is no immediate risk and a supervisor must approve the message, I would support obtaining that approval promptly. If the change can be communicated immediately under established procedures, I would encourage the authorized staff member to do so. If the delay presents a serious patient-safety concern, I would alert the appropriate clinician or supervisor without attempting to make clinical decisions beyond my role.

Question 2:

What if one staff member dismisses your concern because you are junior?

Sample answer:

The patient's safety would remain my priority, regardless of my junior position. I would clarify whether the senior staff member understands the specific risk I am concerned about and whether an established procedure addresses it.

If they provide a reasonable explanation showing that the patient is protected, I would follow their guidance. If the concern remains unresolved, I would respectfully restate it and seek clarification from an appropriate supervisor. If the delay creates an immediate danger, I would use the urgent escalation procedure rather than remain silent because of hierarchy.

Why these answers work:

The responses demonstrate awareness of patient vulnerability, role boundaries, and the importance of timely action. They distinguish routine communication disputes from urgent safety concerns and show that respect for professional hierarchy need not prevent appropriate escalation.

CASPer Sample Scenario #14: The Unequal Workload

Prompt

You are leading a small community fundraiser. One volunteer consistently completes assignments early, while another frequently requests extra time because of family commitments. The reliable volunteer says they are tired of carrying the project and threatens to leave unless responsibilities are redistributed.

Question 1:

How would you resolve the disagreement?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would be preventing the reliable volunteer from becoming overwhelmed while treating the other volunteer's family responsibilities compassionately. I would ask both volunteers what they can realistically contribute and review which tasks are essential to the event.

If responsibilities can be redistributed fairly, I would agree on clear assignments. If the second volunteer needs flexibility, I would explore tasks that can be completed on a different schedule. If the project still lacks adequate coverage, I would recruit additional help or reduce nonessential activities rather than repeatedly place the burden on one person.

Question 2:

What if the second volunteer cannot commit to the minimum workload?

Sample answer:

My concern would be maintaining a successful event without requiring volunteers to make commitments they cannot meet. I would ask the second volunteer what level of participation is realistic and identify which project duties require dependable coverage.

If a smaller role would be useful, I would offer it. If their availability does not match the project's essential responsibilities, I would respectfully reassign those tasks. If the project cannot be staffed adequately, I would adjust its scope or seek additional volunteers rather than relying on commitments that are unlikely to be fulfilled.

Why these answers work:

The applicant considers the interests of both volunteers and the people who depend on the fundraiser. The responses progress from accommodation to redistribution and, when necessary, changes to the project itself. They show that compassion does not require ignoring foreseeable consequences for others.

CASPer Sample Scenario #15: A Family Obligation During an Emergency

Prompt

You agreed to supervise an evening youth program. Shortly before the session begins, a family member calls because they urgently need help getting to a medical appointment. You are the only supervisor currently present, and several children are beginning to arrive.

Question 1:

How would you respond?

Sample answer:

My immediate concern would be the safety of the children arriving at the program and my family member's access to necessary medical care. I would quickly clarify how urgently my family member needs assistance and contact the program coordinator about replacement supervision.

If another qualified supervisor can take over, I would arrange a safe handoff and assist my family member. If my family member can use another reliable transportation option, I would help organize that while maintaining my responsibilities. If their condition requires emergency medical attention, I would contact emergency services rather than delay care while searching for an ordinary ride.

Question 2:

What if no replacement supervisor can be found?

Sample answer:

The children's safety and my family member's medical needs would remain my priorities. I would ask whether the program has an emergency cancellation procedure and whether another authorized adult can temporarily assume responsibility.

If approved coverage is available, I would transfer supervision appropriately. If no coverage exists but the children can be safely collected, I would initiate the program's cancellation procedure. If my family member has an immediate medical emergency, I would call emergency services while ensuring that the program's child-safety procedures are followed. I would not abandon the children without a safe arrangement.

Why these answers work:

The responses consider two potentially vulnerable groups rather than treating one obligation as automatically overriding the other. They gather information about urgency and available support, then distinguish manageable scheduling conflicts from genuine emergencies. The proposed actions remain practical even when the ideal solution is unavailable.

CASPer Sample Scenario #16: Pressure to Change Research Results

Prompt

You are a student research assistant. A senior researcher asks you to remove several data points from a presentation because they weaken the team's main conclusion. The researcher says the data points are probably errors but has not shown you an established reason for excluding them.

Question 1:

How would you respond?

Sample answer:

My primary concern would be protecting the integrity of the research and the people who may rely on its conclusions. I would ask the researcher which methodological criteria justify removing the data and whether those criteria were established independently of the desired results.

If the points are demonstrably invalid, I would support excluding them with proper documentation. If their status is uncertain, I would recommend reviewing the analysis with the appropriate researcher or supervisor. If I am being instructed to remove valid observations solely because they weaken the conclusion, I would refuse to participate in misleading reporting and raise the concern through the appropriate research-integrity process.

Question 2:

Would your response change if removing the data could help secure funding for the project?

Sample answer:

My concern for research integrity would be unchanged, although I would recognize that funding decisions can affect the researchers, students, and other people involved in the project. I would ask whether the proposed exclusion has a legitimate methodological basis.

If the exclusion is scientifically justified, I would support it with transparent documentation. If alternative analyses can accurately explain the results, I would recommend presenting those analyses. If the only purpose is to strengthen the funding application by concealing unfavorable evidence, I would refuse and seek appropriate guidance. Funding pressure would not justify misrepresenting the findings.

Why these answers work:

The responses identify the people affected by unreliable research and distinguish legitimate methodological decisions from selective manipulation. They gather information before alleging misconduct and progress from documentation and review to refusal and escalation when ethical boundaries are crossed.

CASPer Personal Reflection and Policy Practice Questions

Not every CASPer question asks what you'd do in a hypothetical situation. Sometimes you'll be asked to talk about something you've experienced, make a difficult choice, or share your opinion on a policy.

The next exercises give you a chance to practice both types. If you'd like even more reflective prompts, you can also explore our CASPer personal questions examples.

CASPer Sample Scenario #17: Taking Initiative

Prompt

Describe a time when you noticed a problem that was not part of your assigned responsibilities and decided to help address it.

Question 1:

Describe the situation, what you did, and what motivated you to become involved.

Sample answer:

During a university orientation event, I was volunteering at the registration desk when I noticed that several new students were arriving late because the directions on the event map led them to an entrance that was temporarily closed.

Although updating signage was not part of my assigned responsibilities, I could see that the confusion was making students anxious and disrupting registration. I informed the volunteer coordinator, confirmed which entrance visitors should use, and asked whether I could help place temporary directional signs along the correct route. I also arranged for another volunteer to guide students at the main intersection.

The experience taught me that taking initiative does not necessarily mean assuming control of a situation. It can mean identifying a problem, communicating with the appropriate people, and contributing to a practical solution.

That lesson matters to my development because I want to become more attentive to problems affecting others, even when resolving them is not formally assigned to me.

Question 2:

What did you learn about taking initiative, and how has that lesson influenced your approach to working with others?

Sample answer:

Before that experience, I tended to associate initiative with independently finding and implementing solutions. However, the orientation event helped me recognize that acting without consulting others can sometimes create additional problems.

For example, I could have moved signs myself, but that might have conflicted with the organizers' plans or directed students toward an entrance that was not approved for use. By consulting the coordinator first, I was able to contribute while respecting the responsibilities of the people managing the event.

Since then, I have tried to balance initiative with communication. When I notice a problem, I consider both what I can contribute and whose knowledge or authority may be needed.

This matters to my personal and professional development because responsible initiative requires judgment, not simply a willingness to act.

Why these answers work:

The applicant describes a specific experience with enough detail to establish the problem, their motivation, and their actions. The responses develop a clear takeaway: effective initiative involves recognizing opportunities to help while understanding the importance of coordination and appropriate authority.

The second answer builds on the experience rather than merely repeating it. It explains how the applicant's understanding changed and why that change matters for future collaboration and professional responsibility.

CASPer Sample Scenario #18: Learning from a Mistake

Prompt

Describe a time when you made a mistake that negatively affected another person.

Question 1:

What happened, and how did you respond?

Sample answer:

During a student club event, I was responsible for sending volunteers the final schedule. I accidentally circulated an outdated version, causing several volunteers to arrive an hour late. The volunteers who arrived on time had to manage registration and setup with fewer people than expected.

When I discovered the mistake, I apologized, sent the correct schedule, and helped redistribute the remaining work. I also acknowledged the additional pressure my error had created rather than blaming the late volunteers.

The experience taught me that taking responsibility means addressing both the mistake and its effects on others. This lesson has made me more attentive to the reliability of my communication when other people depend on it.

Question 2:

How would you prevent yourself from making a similar mistake in the future?

Sample answer:

The experience showed me that good intentions are not sufficient when important information must reach several people accurately. I had relied on multiple versions of the schedule and assumed everyone would know which one was current.

If I managed a similar project again, I would use one shared schedule, check it before sending announcements, and ask volunteers to confirm important changes.

This matters to my development because I want to become someone others can depend on, especially in situations where communication errors create work or uncertainty for other people. I learned that dependable teamwork requires clear systems as well as personal accountability.

Why these answers work:

The applicant describes a specific mistake, its consequences, and the actions taken to address it. Both answers develop a clear takeaway about accountability and reliable communication, then explain why that lesson matters for future collaboration and leadership.

CASPer Sample Scenario #19: Recognizing Personal Bias

Prompt

Think of a time when you made an assumption about someone and later realized your assumption was incorrect.

Question 1:

Describe the situation and what changed your perspective.

Sample answer:

During a volunteer project, I assumed that a quiet group member was uninterested because they rarely contributed during meetings. I became frustrated when others had to initiate most discussions.

When I spoke with them privately, however, I learned that they preferred to think carefully before sharing ideas and had completed substantial preparation outside our meetings. Their written contributions demonstrated that my assessment was unfair.

I realized that I had confused frequent speaking with meaningful participation. This experience helped me recognize how quickly assumptions can influence my judgment, particularly when people communicate differently from me.

Question 2:

How has the experience affected your interactions with others?

Sample answer:

Since that experience, I have tried to make fewer assumptions about people's motivation based on their communication styles. In later group work, I began sharing discussion questions in advance and inviting written contributions so people could participate in different ways.

The important lesson was that recognizing a mistaken assumption is only the first step; I also need to change how I interact with others.

This matters to my development because I want to make fair decisions about people whose perspectives and working styles differ from my own. I have become more deliberate about gathering information before evaluating someone's contribution.

Why these answers work:

The responses identify the applicant's original assumption, the information that challenged it, and the resulting change in behavior. The takeaway is supported by concrete experience rather than a general statement about respecting differences. The applicant also explains why the lesson matters for future judgment and collaboration.

CASPer Sample Scenario #20: Knowing When to Ask for Help

Prompt

Describe a situation in which you struggled with a task and had to decide whether to continue independently or ask for assistance.

Question 1:

How did you make that decision?

Sample answer:

While learning a new data-analysis program, I encountered an error that prevented me from completing a report for a team project. I initially tried resolving it independently by reviewing documentation and testing several possible solutions.

After spending considerable time without progress, I recognized that continuing alone could delay work that others needed. I contacted a more experienced colleague, explained what I had attempted, and asked for guidance. Together, we identified the problem.

The experience taught me that knowing when to ask for help is part of responsible independent work. This matters to my development because I need to balance initiative with accountability to other people who depend on my work.

Question 2:

What would you do differently if you faced the same situation again?

Sample answer:

Looking back, I would establish a clearer point at which independent troubleshooting should become collaborative. Although I eventually sought help, I waited longer than necessary because I associated asking questions with a lack of competence.

In future projects, I would consider the time available, the consequences of delay, and whether additional expertise could improve the outcome. I would still attempt reasonable solutions independently before seeking assistance.

The main lesson was that independence does not require solving every problem alone. This matters to my professional development because effective collaboration often depends on recognizing the limits of my knowledge before those limits affect others.

Why these answers work:

The applicant uses concrete details to explain an initially ineffective approach, a change in judgment, and a practical lesson. The answers also connect the takeaway to future professional responsibilities, showing that asking for help can reflect maturity and accountability rather than weakness.

CASPer Sample Scenario #21: Scarce Medication

Prompt

A regional hospital has a temporary shortage of a medication needed by several patients. Its administrators are considering two policies: distributing the remaining doses in order of arrival or prioritizing patients according to clinical urgency and expected benefit.

Question 1:

Which ethical considerations should guide the hospital's decision?

Sample answer:

A first-come, first-served policy has the advantage of being relatively straightforward and predictable. Patients may see it as impartial because everyone appears to follow the same rule. However, patients who cannot travel quickly or who face financial and logistical barriers could be disadvantaged. It may also fail to account for patients whose medical needs are especially urgent.

Prioritizing clinical urgency and expected benefit could direct scarce medication toward patients who need it most or are most likely to benefit. However, this approach requires reliable medical judgments, may involve uncertainty, and could disadvantage some patients if the criteria are poorly designed.

I would support a transparent, medically informed allocation policy developed by qualified professionals rather than relying exclusively on arrival time. To mitigate its disadvantages, the hospital should use consistent criteria, protect against discrimination, and provide appropriate review procedures.

Question 2:

How should administrators explain the policy to patients and families who disagree with it?

Sample answer:

A transparent allocation policy could help patients understand why difficult decisions are being made, but discussing shortages publicly may also increase anxiety. Patients who receive medication may value reassurance that decisions are medically justified, while those who do not receive it may fear that their needs were undervalued.

I would support explaining the policy's ethical and clinical criteria in accessible language while protecting individual medical privacy. The hospital should acknowledge uncertainty, explain available alternatives, and provide a process for raising concerns.

This approach would not eliminate disagreement, but it could reduce the harm caused by unexplained decisions and help patients understand how competing needs were considered.

Why these answers work:

The applicant evaluates the consequences of alternative allocation policies from patients' perspectives before taking a position. The responses recognize both the benefits and limitations of prioritization and propose safeguards against unfairness. They also distinguish a defensible policy from the separate challenge of communicating it compassionately.

CASPer Sample Scenario #22: Universal Deadlines or Individual Flexibility?

Prompt

A university is considering replacing individual assignment extensions with a policy that allows every student to submit one major assignment up to three days late without penalty.

Question 1:

Do you support the proposed policy?

Sample answer:

A universal three-day extension could benefit students who experience unexpected difficulties by reducing the need to disclose sensitive personal circumstances. It could also reduce administrative work for instructors and make a basic level of flexibility available to everyone.

However, instructors could face difficulties coordinating grading and providing timely feedback. Students working on group projects or assignments that build on subsequent activities might also be affected by delayed submissions.

I would support the policy with clearly defined exceptions for assignments where a universal extension would interfere with essential course requirements. Instructors should identify those exceptions in advance and explain how students can request additional academic consideration when needed. This would preserve the policy's accessibility benefits while limiting disruption.

Question 2:

Should the new policy replace disability accommodations and other forms of academic consideration?

Sample answer:

Replacing individualized accommodations with a universal extension could simplify procedures and reduce the burden on some students who currently have to request flexibility. However, students with disabilities or more significant personal circumstances might need adjustments beyond three days. A single extension policy could therefore create new disadvantages for people with greater needs.

I would support the universal extension as an additional option, not as a replacement for disability accommodations or other academic-consideration procedures.

To mitigate administrative complexity, the university should explain how these options interact and provide clear, accessible processes. Students should receive the flexibility appropriate to their circumstances without having to disclose unnecessary personal information to course staff.

Why these answers work:

Both responses consider the effects of the proposed policy on different groups before taking a position. The applicant recognizes the advantages of a simple universal rule but identifies limitations for students and instructors. The recommended approach preserves broad flexibility while maintaining individualized support where necessary.

CASPer Sample Scenario #23: Anonymous Reporting of Misconduct

Prompt

A student organization is considering a system that would allow members to submit anonymous reports about bullying, discrimination, or misuse of organization funds. Some members support the proposal because people may fear retaliation. Others worry about false or malicious accusations.

Question 1:

Would you support an anonymous reporting system?

Sample answer:

Anonymous reporting could benefit students who fear retaliation or are uncomfortable identifying themselves when raising concerns about misconduct. It might allow an organization to recognize problems that would otherwise remain hidden.

However, anonymity can make allegations more difficult to investigate, and people accused of misconduct may worry that they cannot respond effectively to claims whose sources are unknown.

I would support an anonymous reporting system, provided that reports trigger a fair review rather than automatic punishment. The organization should assess available evidence, protect confidentiality, and prohibit retaliation. This would preserve the accessibility of anonymous reporting while reducing the risk of unjust outcomes.

Question 2:

How would you protect someone accused through an anonymous report?

Sample answer:

An anonymous reporting policy can protect people who raise concerns, but it may create uncertainty for accused individuals who cannot directly question the source of an allegation. Automatically revealing the reporter's identity could discourage legitimate complaints, while imposing sanctions without adequate evidence could undermine fairness.

I would support procedures that protect anonymity where appropriate while ensuring that accused individuals understand the substance of the allegations and have a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Investigators should seek corroborating evidence and apply consistent standards before deciding whether misconduct occurred. This would balance the reporting system's protective purpose with the rights of those being investigated.

Why these answers work:

The applicant considers the needs of both reporters and accused individuals before supporting a qualified version of the policy. The responses show how safeguards can preserve the benefits of anonymous reporting while limiting the risk of unsupported allegations and unfair treatment.

CASPer Typed-Response Practice Set: Six Timed Scenarios

It's time to practice answering against the clock!

For each of the six scenarios below, you'll want to set a timer that gives you 3.5 minutes to type your answers to both questions, just like in the standard CASPer typed-response section. Remember, a typed-response scenario can be presented through text or video. It's how you respond that makes it a typed-response question.

Try to give both questions a meaningful answer instead of spending all your time on the first one. Each question is scored separately, so both deserve your attention.

Don't peek at the answers until you've finished! You'll find the sample answers and explanations for Scenarios #24–29 in the answer tab at the end of this section. There may be more than one reasonable way to answer each question.

You can also use these timed exercises as part of a longer practice schedule. If you're deciding how much time to set aside before your test, our guide on how long to prepare for CASPer can help you plan.

CASPer Sample Scenario #24: The Unreliable Coworker

Prompt

You work at a café with three other employees. One coworker, Jamie, has arrived late several times, leaving you to complete opening tasks alone. Your manager has not noticed the pattern. Jamie recently told you they were experiencing transportation problems and asked you not to mention the lateness.

Question 1:

How would you handle this situation?

Question 2:

What if Jamie tells you that reporting the problem could cost them their job?

CASPer Sample Scenario #25: A Confidential Recommendation

Prompt

A professor asks you, as a student assistant, to help organize files for a scholarship committee. While sorting documents, you accidentally see a confidential recommendation letter containing negative comments about a close friend. Your friend is applying for the scholarship and later asks whether you know how their application is progressing.

Question 1:

What would you tell your friend?

Question 2:

Would you tell the professor that you had accidentally viewed the letter?

CASPer Sample Scenario #26: A Disagreement About Group Leadership

Prompt

Two members of a student organization both want to lead an upcoming project. One has more experience, while the other has proposed a detailed plan that several members support. Their disagreement is delaying the project.

Question 1:

How would you help select a leader?

Question 2:

What if the candidate who is not selected threatens to leave?

CASPer Sample Scenario #27: A Possible Safety Violation

Prompt

You work at a summer recreation program. A colleague regularly skips the required equipment inspection because they believe the equipment is already safe. You have not witnessed an accident, but you know the inspection is part of the program's safety procedures.

Question 1:

What would you do?

Question 2:

What if the colleague says the inspections are slowing down the program?

CASPer Sample Scenario #28: A Friend's Unfair Advantage

Prompt

You and a friend are applying for a competitive volunteer leadership position. Your friend tells you that a family connection with the selection committee has given them advance information about the interview questions.

Question 1:

How would you respond to your friend?

Question 2:

What if your friend offers to share the questions so that you both have the same advantage?

CASPer Sample Scenario #29: An Inaccurate Public Statement

Prompt

Your university club is promoting a fundraising event. A committee member drafts a social media post stating that all donations will go directly to the charity, although a portion of the money will cover event expenses.

Question 1:

What would you do before the post is published?

Question 2:

What if the inaccurate statement has already attracted donations?

That's your six-scenario typed-response practice set! If you've answered all twelve questions, look through the answers below to see how your responses compare with our examples. For more help developing your answers, explore our CASPer preparation strategies.

CASPer Video-Response Practice Set: Four Spoken Scenarios

Now it's time to practice saying your answers out loud.

In the standard CASPer video-response section, you have one minute to record your answer to each question. The scenario itself may be presented as a video or written text, but your answer is always recorded.

For the four scenarios below, read the prompt, turn on your camera, and give yourself one minute to answer each question. Try speaking naturally and keeping your explanation clear rather than memorizing a script.

Finish recording before you check the sample answers! The answer tab at the end of this section contains examples and explanations for Scenarios #30–33.

CASPer Sample Scenario #30: The Volunteer Who Was Excluded

Prompt

You are volunteering at a charity event. During a planning discussion, Alex proposes a new way to organize the registration desk. Another volunteer, Morgan, interrupts repeatedly and dismisses the idea without explanation. Alex becomes quiet and stops contributing.

Question 1:

How would you respond during the discussion?

Question 2:

What would you do if Morgan continued interrupting people at future meetings?

CASPer Sample Scenario #31: The Upset Customer

Prompt

You are working at the front desk of a recreation centre. A parent arrives upset because their child was removed from a swimming class after repeatedly arriving late. The parent says the instructor was unfair and demands that you immediately reinstate the child. You do not have authority to change class placements.

Question 1:

How would you respond to the parent?

Question 2:

What if the parent begins raising their voice and demanding an immediate answer?

CASPer Sample Scenario #32: A Colleague's Personal Crisis

Prompt

A coworker tells you they are experiencing a serious family problem and asks you to cover their next three shifts. You have an important commitment on one of those days and cannot cover every shift.

Question 1:

What would you say to your coworker?

Question 2:

How would you respond if the coworker said you were being selfish?

CASPer Sample Scenario #33: An Unethical Shortcut

Prompt

During a volunteer event, your team is behind schedule. A coordinator suggests skipping a required participant check-in process to save time. The check-in system is used to maintain an accurate record of who is present.

Question 1:

How would you respond to the coordinator?

Question 2:

What if the coordinator says they will take responsibility for any consequences?

You've now worked through a collection of 33 practice scenarios, compared with 11 on the standard CASPer test. Continue studying these examples. The goal is to get more comfortable thinking through unfamiliar situations and explaining your decisions clearly.

How to Evaluate Your CASPer Practice Answers

Finished a few scenarios? Before moving on, take another look at your responses. Did you answer the question directly? Did you make assumptions without enough information? Was there a better way to handle the situation?

CASPer raters focus on the substance of your answers, not small spelling or grammar mistakes. Each question is scored independently. If you're curious about how that process works, our guide to how CASPer is scored explains it in more detail.

It's also worth remembering that different questions need different approaches. Handling a conflict isn't quite the same as sharing a personal experience or giving your opinion on a policy. Our guide to CASPer question types explains the differences and walks you through strategies for each type.

Once you're familiar with those strategies, come back to these practice questions and see how well you can put them to use.

Five Questions to Ask When Reviewing Your Answers

1. Did I answer the question directly?

Make sure you've actually explained what you would do or what you think. Identifying a problem is a start, but the reader should also understand how you'd handle it.

2. Did I consider the people affected?

Think about everyone involved. Did you overlook someone who might be vulnerable? Did you consider how your decision could affect the other people in the situation?

3. Did I distinguish known facts from assumptions?

Sometimes you'll need more information before deciding what to do. But don't fall into the habit of asking more questions when the situation already calls for action. Safety concerns, privacy obligations, and urgent problems may need an immediate response.

4. Did I propose a practical, proportionate response?

Could your proposed solution realistically work? Make sure your next steps fit the situation and that you're not taking on responsibilities you don't have. Sometimes you can resolve a problem yourself; other times, you'll need to ask for help or escalate the concern.

5. Did I explain why my action was appropriate?

Don't stop at saying what you'd do. Explain why. Connect your decision to the issues that matter, such as fairness, safety, privacy, honesty, or respect for others.

Example: Comparing Two Answers

Let's revisit Scenario #16, where a senior researcher asks a student to remove data that weakens the team's findings.

Weak response:

I would tell the researcher that manipulating data is wrong and report them immediately.

This answer spots a possible ethical problem, but it jumps straight to reporting the researcher. What if there's a legitimate reason to exclude the data? The answer doesn't explore that possibility or explain what the student should do within their role.

Stronger response:

I would ask what criteria justify excluding the data and whether the decision can be documented transparently. If there is a valid methodological reason, the exclusion may be appropriate. If I am being asked to remove valid results simply because they undermine the conclusion, I would refuse to participate and seek guidance through the appropriate research-integrity process.

This answer takes a more careful approach. It recognizes that the data might be excluded for a valid reason while making it clear that hiding legitimate results would be unacceptable. It also explains what information matters and what the student would do next.

What to Work on in Your Next Practice Session

As you practice more questions, look for patterns in your answers. Maybe you're good at recognizing different perspectives but hesitate to make a decision. Or maybe you tend to escalate problems before exploring simpler solutions.

Once you know what needs work, you can focus on those skills in your next practice session.

If you'd like a broader understanding of these kinds of assessments, our guide to situational judgment tests explains how they work, including assessments such as CASPer.

One BeMo student shared how practice sessions and personalized feedback helped them prepare:

"BeMo Casper prep. Review for Dr. Joseph Narusis. I found the Casper Prep review sessions that I had with Dr. Joseph Narusis extremely helpful, as he explained the ways that I can progress and improve for my Casper test. He also provided great resources for me to work on as homework in my review session with him: after taking my simulations through my BeMo account, which I found to be the key for me through my progress journey." - BeMo student.

Official CASPer Practice Resources and BeMo Videos

Want to take your practice a step further? The examples in this article help you work through a variety of situations, but it's also worth trying the official CASPer practice test to get comfortable with the actual testing interface.

Try the Official CASPer Practice Test

Acuity Insights offers a free, full-length practice test with 11 scenarios through your registered account. It follows the format and timing of the standard CASPer test, and you can complete it more than once.

The practice test is designed to help you get comfortable with the test experience. Your answers won't be saved or sent for review, and you won't receive individualized scores or feedback.

You can also explore Acuity Insights' official CASPer sample scenarios to see examples from the test administrator. These complement the original practice scenarios in this article.

To get started, visit the official CASPer preparation resources or sign in to your Acuity Insights account.

If you're still organizing your testing schedule, be sure to check the CASPer test dates for your application cycle and programs.

CASPer Written-Response Demonstration

Want to see how to approach a written CASPer answer? In this BeMo video, we share strategies for organizing your thoughts and responding to written questions.

CASPer Video-Response Demonstration

Speaking to a camera can feel different from typing an answer. This BeMo video shares strategies to help you get more comfortable explaining your reasoning aloud.

Want More CASPer Practice and Feedback?

Working through sample questions on your own is a useful way to prepare. But if you'd like more structured practice and feedback on your answers, BeMo's CASPer preparation program includes simulated assessments and personalized feedback from BeMo's consultants.

If you're comparing different ways to prepare, you can also read our guide to the best CASPer prep options to see how different services compare.

FAQs

To your success,

Your friends at BeMo

BeMo Academic Consulting 

Disclaimer: CASPer stands for computer-based assessment for sampling personal characteristics and is claimed to be a trademark of McMaster & Altus. BeMo does not recommend, endorse nor affiliate with CASPer, Altus or McMaster and vice versa. BeMo only provides preparation services and practice tests. To take CASPer, contact Altus directly.