This is what we imagine students’ relief and euphoria look like when they finish their CASPer.
By: Savvy Pre-Med Staff
According to the creators of the CASPer, there is no way to prepare for the CASPer since situational judgment tests are supposedly immune to test prep.
So, based on their logic, your professional skills, judgment, and sense of ethics are fixed entities, which suggests that you can’t improve your performance.
If you haven’t figured it out already, this is a completely bogus claim. No one is born with situational judgment; we all learn it and can strengthen it with practice.
Besides the “you can’t prepare” fallacy that has been propagated, there is plenty of other bad advice about the CASPer that we’d like to debunk:
WRONG. Every prompt on the CASPer test is specifically non-medical in nature, so extensive knowledge about treating minors, do-not-resuscitate directives, or blood transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t help you whatsoever.
The prompts on the CASPer are far less nuanced and complex than many of these medical dilemmas that you might see during an MMI interview.
Sure, that’s what the test creators claim, but how could that be possible? The people assessing your test will naturally compare the style elements of your written responses to the rest of the candidate pool.
Let’s say you’re assessing tests. Which response would earn a higher grade?
“Sometimes a people lacks the neccessary acess to re-sources, so it’d crucial to make to sure she can find wherever she needs.”
OR
“Sometimes a person might lack the necessary access to resources, so it’s crucial to make sure that she can find whatever she needs.”
Okay, so that’s a bit extreme, but you get the point. Even if a reader can parse through your sloppy syntax to discern your meaning, you will not be awarded as many points as someone who can write coherently.
In fact, applicants are benchmarked against one another! So, the test is effectively scaled based on when you take it. You're rated against scores of other students, and the CASPer allows raters to re-rate their grades for a better curve.
Again, how can that possibly be true? Quantity is certainly not more important than quality, but the CASPer only gives you 5 minutes to respond to 3 follow-up questions for each of the prompts.
In the sample answers you’ll find later in this article, our writer produced 255 words total in the 5 minutes, equating to 51 words per minute.
The average person types 41.4 words per minute (WPM), and professional typists average between 65 and 75 WPM. So, a strong typer squeezes out 1-2 additional sentences for each minute.
When you’re trying to explain how you’d respond to an ethical dilemma, those few sentences can be the difference between a reasonable, professional action and an incomplete, or worse, alarming thought.
We think our sample responses below are fairly strong, so it seems like you’ll need to exceed average typing speed to get the best results.
Want to test your typing speed? Go for it!
Throughout the test, you’ll receive written prompts asking you about challenges, failures, difficult decisions, times of stress, etc. You might think that you need to come equipped with 5-10 stories, but that’s not necessarily true.
Each of your prompts is assessed by a different person, and they have no access to your other responses. So, it’s possible to reuse the same stories multiple times if they can be finessed to fit different scenarios. It’s pretty easy to see how a “difficult decision” could also be a challenge or time of stress.
In this way, the CASPer is quite similar to an MMI interview. Even if two candidates take the same concrete action in a response (i.e. confronting a group member who isn’t completing their work, reporting a situation to their supervisor, etc.), their responses could greatly vary in their scores based on tact, word choice, qualifying statements, etc.
So, the CASPer is not like a math test with a definitive right or wrong answer. The devil is truly in the details, and the fine points of your approach/solution will make all the difference in your score.
The constructs themselves aren’t that fancy:
If you want to maximize your score, it’s key to determine which constructs are at play in any given question. Taking notes as the prompts are presented might help you narrow these down and pinpoint the crux.
You’re not penalized if you mention constructs outside of what the example is testing for, but you won’t get points for it either.
The rest of this article will cover a specific practice scenario and analyze some sample responses.
To get the most out of our advice, you should PRACTICE THE SCENARIO yourself so you can compare your responses to ours.
Sample response:
I would advise her to talk to Steve in private. I would advise her to talk to him in an understanding and empathetic way, and ask him if he is having any financial issues. If he is, then she could offer him some resources to get back on his feet. She could also offer him the option to pay her back slowly instead of a lump-sum of money. If he just doesn't want to pay for his share of the trip for no good reason, if the amount of money is substantial enough, small claims court may be the only remaining option for my friend to get her money back.
What’s good about this response?
What could be improved in this response?
Question 2: Steve states that he is unable to pay your friend back. What advice would you offer your friend and Steve to come to a resolution?
Sample response:
I would ask about the option of a payment plan. If Steve is unable to pay the full amount, perhaps he would be able to pay small amounts at a time. If this is not able to happen, then perhaps Steven could pay back by offering some of his time to help my friend around the house or at work. Since my friend has rent due, it is imperative that Steve somehow repays her for the house rental.
What’s good about this response?
What could be improved in this response?
Question 3: What changes would you suggest the next time the group decides to rent a house together?
Sample response:
I would suggest that for each person to be able to come on the trip, they must pay before coming. If someone has not paid for their spot, I would offer that spot to someone else. If that person wants to come on the trip but has advised the group that they cannot afford it right now, perhaps the group could offer to pay for the trip.
What’s good about this response?
What could be improved in this response?
Tackling CASPer prompts is much easier when you have a set of reliable steps to draw upon that can apply to any situation.
PPRDJ stands for "problem, perspective, responsibility, decide, justify." Basically, you should identify the problem, show that you understand both perspectives of the conflict, state what your responsibility is due to your position, make a decision on what you are going to do, and justify it.
In real life, we make exceptions for people all the time (often for good reason), but you CANNOT afford to do this on the CASPer. No, it won’t make you look empathetic; it will make you look like a pushover who cannot uphold rules and responsibility.
Compromises are good, but not at the expense of breaking an established rule, law or code that’s in place for a good reason.
It’s good to use conditional statements in your CASPer answers. For example:
She should ask Steve if he is having any financial issues. If he is, then she could offer him some resources to get back on his feet.
These conditional statements are like a cheat code for ethical dilemmas, because they let you create your own criteria for answering the question, while also showing yourself as someone who can think ahead and anticipate different outcomes.
In some ethical dilemmas, you can escape or skirt the decision-making process by calling upon some higher authority. There’s a reason why we have laws as a society and why we have bosses in the workplace. We need strict rules and arbiters of the system so that we can navigate these grey ethical areas that present themselves.
Sure, you want to explore all other options first. But in some cases, you won’t be left with that many choices. Don’t use these higher authorities as a cop-out, but definitely call upon them when appropriate.
Part of what makes ethical dilemma questions tricky is their missing information. They don’t usually give you everything you need to know to make a clear decision.
In fact, it’s often more about what’s unsaid than what’s said. The prompts might be trying to lure you into the trap of the assumptions they’re operating under.
For example, our friend Steve might be going through a difficult financial situation (despite the evidence of the Beats headphones, which were perhaps a gift). Even if some possibility seems unlikely or extreme, you can’t make any assumptions. For all you know, there’s a deep, terrible root to the much smaller problem in front of you.
With this in mind, you must remain non-judgmental and non-assumptive at all times; give people the benefit of the doubt and offer them a safe, non-accusatory space to share personal struggles.
Were our samples, tips, and insights helpful for you? What questions do you still have about improving your CASPer score?
Let us know in the comments below, and we’ll respond to you personally.
.png){kind=spacer}
.png)
.png)
.png)