Guide
Six CASPer frameworks: I3P, PPRDJ, CARE, ARC, IGT, STAR
There is no single official CASPer answer framework. These frameworks are thinking scaffolds: use I3P by default for situational judgment, PPRDJ for complex ethical dilemmas that need a justified decision, STAR by default for personal or past-experience prompts, and choose CARE, IGT, or ARC when that lens better matches the question.
You can switch your default in Profile → Coaching framework. AI critique uses that preference for situational scenarios and STAR for personal or past-experience scenarios by default.
I3P — default situational framework
I3P is our default for situational judgment questions because it helps you organize your thoughts quickly under time pressure while still covering ethics, empathy, collaboration, and role-aware reasoning. Four steps: Issues, Impact, Information, and Potential Approaches.
IIssues
Identify and verbalize the main problem or problems at play. Acknowledge the core conflict, such as boundaries, autonomy, confidentiality, fairness, safety, or trust.
Example
The main issues are patient safety and the accuracy of medical records. There is also a tension between supporting my colleague and protecting patients.
PImpact
Consider who is affected directly and indirectly. Explain how your responsibilities or position in the scenario influence what you can and should do.
Example
Patients could receive the wrong treatment, the colleague could be under serious pressure, and my role gives me responsibility to address the risk without shaming them.
PInformation
Acknowledge that you do not have the full picture. State what information is missing and how you would gather it, usually through a private, empathetic conversation.
Example
I would speak with the colleague privately to understand whether they are overloaded, facing personal issues, lacking training, or whether there is another explanation.
PPotential Approaches
Propose two to three actionable, realistic solutions using if-then statements so your response changes depending on what you learn.
Example
If they are overloaded, I would help them prioritize tasks. If the errors reflect a knowledge gap, I would encourage extra training or supervisor support. If patient safety remains at risk, I would escalate factually.
Why I3P is the default
- You think in terms of issues, impact, missing information, and conditional approaches.
- The prompt is information-light and you need to avoid assuming too much.
- You want a structure that explicitly forces if-then solutions based on what you learn.
Use it as a thinking order, not a script. Strong answers still sound specific to the scenario and explain why your action fits your role.
PPRDJ — complex ethical dilemma framework
PPRDJ is a five-step organizational strategy for ethical dilemmas: Problem, Perspectives, Responsibility, Decision, and Justification. It is strongest when the prompt requires a clear decision and ethical reasoning. It does not cover every CASPer question by itself, so add if-then statements when facts are uncertain and pros/cons when the prompt is a policy-style judgment.
PProblem
Identify the core ethical issue or conflict at the heart of the scenario. Briefly state it to show you grasp the crux of the situation.
Example
The core problem is a conflict between protecting confidentiality and preventing possible harm to the patient or team.
PPerspectives
Consider how the different people involved are affected and what their points of view may be. Avoid assuming motives until you know the facts.
Example
The patient may be vulnerable, the colleague may be under pressure, the supervisor needs accurate information, and the team depends on trust.
RResponsibility
Define your role and duties in the situation. What are you obligated to do based on professional guidelines, laws, safety protocols, confidentiality, fairness, or institutional policy?
Example
My responsibility is to protect safety, respect privacy, stay within my role, and use the least escalated channel that still addresses the risk.
DDecision
State the action you would take. Frame your decision using if-then conditional statements so the action can change when the facts change.
Example
If there is no immediate risk, I would speak privately first. If there is ongoing danger or refusal to address it, I would escalate factually.
JJustification
Explain the reasoning behind your decision. Connect your choice to ethical principles, laws, professional standards, safety, dignity, and fairness.
Example
This is justified because it gives the person a fair chance to explain while still prioritizing safety and my professional responsibility.
When to pick PPRDJ
- The scenario is a complex ethical dilemma, not just a reflection prompt.
- You need to define your responsibility before deciding what to do.
- The prompt asks you to justify a choice using fairness, safety, confidentiality, law, or professional standards.
PPRDJ is less complete for broad policy prompts unless you add pros and cons, and less flexible for missing-information prompts unless you include if-then branches.
CARE — situational scenarios
Use CARE on any “what would you do?” prompt: ethical dilemmas, everyday judgment trade-offs, workplace conflict. Public-policy style prompts are useful breadth practice, but final-days prep should emphasize realistic situations involving teammates, supervisors, patients, family, and peers.
CClarify the core problem
Identify the underlying ethical issue rather than reacting to surface facts. Name the core conflict (e.g., integrity vs loyalty) and identify the most vulnerable person involved.
Example
The core conflict here is patient safety vs collegial loyalty. The most vulnerable party is the patient who depends on accurate medication doses.
AAsk for missing information
CASPer scenarios are designed to be information-light. State what you would ask or need to know before deciding. Make questions private, nonjudgmental, relevant, specific, and action-linked.
Example
Before deciding I would ask: how long has this happened, are there other patterns of concern, and is there a policy that already addresses this?
RRecognize all perspectives
Acknowledge each stakeholder's view and feelings. Avoid casting people as strictly good or bad. Empathy here is structural, not decorative.
Example
The coworker may be under pressure I cannot see. The supervisor needs accurate information. The patient deserves consistent care. I respect each position even where I disagree.
EExplore and execute solutions
Propose balanced, proactive, conditional solutions. Use "If X is true, I will do Y; if Z is true, I will do A instead." Try to resolve locally before escalating.
Example
If the coworker is open to a private conversation, I would start there and offer to help. If the behavior continued, I would escalate to the supervisor with documentation.
ARC — reflective self-insight lens
Use ARC when the question mainly asks what you felt, what you learned, or how you would manage your own tendency. For most personal or past-experience prompts, STAR is the default because it makes the action and outcome easier to score.
AAnecdote
Open with a concrete personal story — when, where, who was involved, what your role was. Specificity is what graders look for.
Example
Last summer, working night shift at a community pharmacy, I noticed an elderly customer hesitant to ask about a generic substitute.
RReflection
Insight into what changed for you. What did you learn? What would you do differently next time? Avoid generic "I learned to communicate better."
Example
I learned that quietly offering choice is more respectful than briskly explaining policy. I now lead with a question, not an answer.
CConnection
Tie the lesson back to a CASPer competency or your future role. This is where graders see whether the story will transfer.
Example
As a future physician this means I will explicitly invite patient questions before recommending a treatment plan, especially for vulnerable patients.
IGT — behavioral-scenario framework
IGT is a three-step framework built for behavioral scenarios — the prompts that test how you would respond, not just what you would think. Identify the dilemma, Generate 2–3 options, then Take a clear action with reasoning. It is the tightest of the situational frameworks and the most time-efficient under pressure.
IIdentify the dilemma
Name the behavioral question in one sentence. Behavioral scenarios live or die on whether you correctly identify what is actually being asked of you — emotional, ethical, or interpersonal.
Example
The behavioral dilemma here is whether to escalate a peer's behavior that has not yet caused harm but is heading there. The tension is between giving them room to self-correct and protecting the people downstream.
GGenerate options
Brainstorm 2–3 distinct responses, not minor variations of the same idea. Graders score answers that surface alternatives higher than answers that lock in a single action without comparison.
Example
Option 1: talk to them privately and offer support. Option 2: do nothing and observe for a week. Option 3: skip the peer-level step and escalate directly. Each has different costs and timing.
TTake action
Commit to one option with explicit reasoning. Name what your choice gives up — the cost of rejecting the other options is what makes the answer feel adult.
Example
I would take option 1 because it preserves the relationship and addresses the issue early. Doing nothing risks harm; skipping to escalation damages trust and removes the chance for self-correction. If option 1 fails within a week, I would then escalate.
When to pick IGT over CARE or I3P
- The prompt is a tight behavioral scenario where the grader wants a decision, not a deliberation.
- You think in terms of options + trade-offs rather than stakeholders.
- You write fast and want a 3-step structure that fits comfortably in the 3.5-minute typed response window.
IGT scores high on decisiveness and option-thinking. Pair it with explicit reasoning for the chosen path — that is where weak IGT answers lose points.
STAR — default personal and past-experience framework
STAR is the clearest structure for prompts asking about your own experience. Four steps: Situation, Task, Action, Result / Reflection. It works because it shows the grader what happened, what was required of you, what you did, what changed, and what you learned.
SSituation
Anchor the story in time, place, and context. Specific enough that a grader could picture it — not so detailed that you eat the clock.
Example
Last summer, working night shift at a community pharmacy, an elderly customer hesitated at the counter while picking up a generic substitute.
TTask
State your specific role and what was being asked of you. Distinguishes what you did from what the team did — graders look for first-person accountability.
Example
My role was to process the prescription. The customer needed reassurance that the generic was equivalent, and I had two other people queued behind her.
AAction
Walk through the concrete steps you took, in first-person active verbs. Three steps is enough; ten is too many. Avoid passive language ("it was decided") — make every verb yours.
Example
I stepped around the counter, took her aside, asked what was worrying her, explained the equivalence in plain terms, and offered the brand-name option if she preferred it.
RResult / Reflection
End with the outcome — measurable if possible — and a one-sentence lesson. The lesson is what makes the story transferable; without it, STAR is just a story.
Example
She chose the generic and thanked me. I learned that for many older customers the fear is being talked down to, not the medication itself. I now lead with a question, not an explanation.
When to pick STAR
- The prompt explicitly asks for a past example with a measurable outcome (“describe a time when…” with emphasis on results).
- You have a strong concrete story you have rehearsed in advance.
- You are most comfortable thinking in narrative arc (setup → conflict → resolution) rather than in stakeholders or options.
STAR overlaps with ARC — both are story frameworks. STAR weights the actions and result / reflection; ARC weights the reflection and connection. Use STAR by default for personal and past-experience prompts; use ARC when the prompt is mostly about self-insight, feelings, or personal growth.
The ten CASPer competencies
All six frameworks ultimately surface the same competencies. Use these definitions to recognize what a prompt is asking you to demonstrate before choosing a response framework.
Collaboration
Functions interdependently by balancing mutual and individual goals; demonstrates openness to others' perspectives and input; reaches consensus in service of a larger mission.
Communication
Effectively interacts with the intent of understanding and being understood in different contexts.
Empathy
Takes the perspective of others; considers others' feelings and context in a given situation.
Equity
Acknowledges, appreciates, and respects individual and cultural values, preferences, experiences, and needs of others.
Ethics
Maintains moral principles that dictate personal and professional behaviour; prioritizes integrity, honesty, justice, and respect for personal autonomy.
Motivation
Reflects upon methods of improvement; actively and persistently applies oneself to achieving one's personal best.
Problem-solving
Recognizes and defines problems; develops a process to approach and solve problems; evaluates approaches for efficacy.
Professionalism
Demonstrates and maintains high personal standards of accountability and thoughtfulness; respectfully behaves according to regulations.
Resilience
Successfully adapts to change; learns from adversity.
Self-awareness
Actively identifies and stores information about one's self; candidly reflects upon and explores this information.
Worked safety example
Prompt: A coworker skips a required safety checklist to finish shifts faster. What would you do?
- C. The core conflict is patient safety vs collegial loyalty. The most vulnerable party is the patient.
- A. I would want to know how often this has happened, whether other patterns exist, and the relevant safety policy.
- R. The coworker may be under pressure I cannot see; the supervisor needs accurate information; the patient deserves consistent care.
- E. If the coworker is open to a private conversation I would start there. If the behavior continued, I would escalate with documentation. Patient safety overrides workplace comfort if private correction fails.
Worked feedback example
Prompt: Tell us about a time you received feedback you disagreed with.
- A. In second-year chemistry lab I was told my lab reports were too dense. My initial reaction was that detail equals rigor.
- R.I reread three of my reports beside a classmate’s higher-rated ones. The difference was structural — they used short section headings and one-sentence summaries. I learned that clarity is a courtesy to the reader, not a dilution of content.
- C. As a future clinician this matters because patient communication has the same constraint — accurate AND legible. I now draft every explanation with one sentence the listener could repeat back.
Worked safety-risk example
Prompt: A coworker confides that they have been struggling with anxiety and have started skipping safety checks at work. What do you do?
- I. The main issues are patient safety, the accuracy of safety checks, and the tension between supporting a coworker and protecting people who depend on those checks.
- P.Patients could be harmed if checks are skipped, the coworker’s mental health and career could be affected, and my responsibility is to act on the safety risk while approaching them respectfully.
- P. I do not have the full picture, so I would speak with them privately and empathetically to understand whether they are overwhelmed, facing personal issues, unclear on the process, or lacking support.
- P. If they are overloaded, I would help them prioritize and connect them with support. If they lack training, I would encourage supervisor-led retraining. If safety remains at risk, I would escalate factually while framing it as a need for support and coverage, not punishment.
Worked ethics example
Prompt: A coworker confides that they have been struggling with anxiety and have started skipping safety checks at work. What do you do?
- P. The core ethical problem is a required safety process being skipped, creating a conflict between colleague support, confidentiality, professional responsibility, and preventing avoidable patient harm.
- P. Patients are the most vulnerable because they rely on the checks, the coworker may need anxiety support rather than blame, the supervisor must maintain a safe system, and the team depends on reliable handover.
- R.My responsibility is to respect the coworker’s dignity, check whether anyone is currently at risk, share only necessary information, and act within my role to prevent ongoing harm.
- D. If no one is in immediate danger, I would speak privately and empathetically, clarify the frequency and cause, and help correct any missed checks. If risk continues, a patient may be harmed, or they refuse support, I would escalate factually.
- J. This is justified because it gives the coworker a fair chance to explain while making patient safety and professional standards stronger than avoiding an uncomfortable conversation.
Worked teamwork example
Prompt: A team member consistently shows up late to group meetings and the project deadline is in three days. How do you handle this?
- I. The dilemma is whether to address the lateness now — risking conflict at a critical moment — or absorb it for three days and salvage the deadline.
- G. Option 1: say nothing for three days, divide their work among the rest of us, address it after submission. Option 2: pull them aside today, name the impact, ask if something outside the project is affecting them, and restructure tasks together. Option 3: escalate to the instructor for an extension.
- T. I would take Option 2 because it preserves the relationship and the deadline. Option 1 builds resentment and gives them no chance to recover; Option 3 abandons our agency and risks penalizing the team. The cost of Option 2 is one uncomfortable conversation — worth it for the chance that something fixable is going on.
Worked leadership example
Prompt: Tell us about a time you led a group through a difficult decision.
- S. Last spring I co-led a five-person undergrad research team. Mid-term, we discovered an analysis flaw in our preliminary findings that would invalidate the conference abstract we had already submitted.
- T. My role was project lead. I had to decide — and bring the team with me — whether to retract the abstract, revise the analysis, or push forward and present anyway.
- A. I called a meeting that evening. I listed who would be affected by each option on a whiteboard — the conference organizers, our supervisor, the other groups citing our preprint, ourselves. I asked each team member to share their position before I gave mine. I then proposed retraction with a transparent note. We voted; it was unanimous.
- R. We submitted the retraction within 48 hours and added an erratum to the preprint. The supervisor commended the decision and asked us to write up the lesson from the error — that became our next paper. I learned that leading is mostly creating the conditions for the right call, not making it alone.
Typing response tips — pack both answers into 3.5 minutes
Typed CASPer shows two questions together and gives you 3 minutes 30 seconds total. At a measured 40 WPM you can draft roughly 140 words before planning and review time; at 60 WPM, roughly 210. A 60-70 WPM pace is comfortable, but coverage of the framework beats prose. If you are under 55 WPM, prioritize high-yield sentences, remove filler, and avoid long setup. These patterns help you fit the rubric in the time you have.
I3P typed response example — fourth-quartile practice standard
Prompt: You notice a colleague has repeatedly made errors on medical charts. What would you do, and what are the most important considerations?
The main issues are patient safety, accurate medical records, and supporting a colleague without assuming intent. The impact could be serious: patients may receive incorrect treatment, the team may lose trust in the chart, and the colleague may be overwhelmed, undertrained, or dealing with something I cannot see. I do not have the full picture, so I would speak with them privately and empathetically, ask whether they have noticed the pattern, and check whether any current patient record needs urgent correction. If the errors are isolated and they take responsibility, I would help them correct the charts and encourage a practical support plan; if there is ongoing patient risk or they dismiss the concern, I would escalate factually to the supervisor while sharing only necessary information.
Use If-Then Statements
This demonstrates you understand consequences, complexities, and differing perspectives without being judgmental.
- Best case: If I determine this was a one-off mistake and the colleague accepts responsibility, I would help them correct the record promptly, encourage them to disclose through the proper channel, and check that no patient is currently at risk.
- Middle ground or compromise: If I discuss this privately and learn they are overloaded or unsure about the charting system, I would help them prioritize immediate corrections, suggest refresher training, and agree on a short follow-up so the pattern does not continue.
- Worst case: If I determine the errors are ongoing, serious, or being ignored, I would escalate to the appropriate supervisor with objective details while keeping the focus on patient safety rather than blaming the colleague.
1. Open with the verdict, not the setup
First sentence states your position or core action. The grader knows the scenario — they don’t need a paraphrase. Save the seconds for reasoning.
Bad: “In this situation, where a coworker is skipping safety checks…”
Good: “I would speak with my coworker privately, then escalate if it continued.”
2. One framework letter per sentence
Whatever framework you pick (I3P/PPRDJ/CARE/IGT/STAR/ARC), aim for one sentence per step. Four steps → four sentences → ~80 words, leaving time for the second question.
I3P example: one sentence each for Issues, Impact, Information, and Potential Approaches. Done.
3. Use conditional “if” phrasing
“If X is true, I would do Y; if Z is true, I would do A.” Five extra words shows adaptive reasoning and covers a second perspective without writing a second paragraph.
4. Name one specific stakeholder
Don’t list everyone. Name the most vulnerable party by role (the patient, the junior teammate, the family member). Graders score specificity, not exhaustive enumeration.
5. Cut hedge words ruthlessly
Drop “just”, “maybe”, “sort of”, “a little bit”, “I think”. They cost time and signal weak conviction. Direct claims with reasoning score higher than tentative claims with hedges.
6. Skip the conclusion
No “In conclusion”, no “Overall”, no summary line. Your last framework step is the conclusion. Saves 8–12 seconds per question.
7. Use first-person active verbs
“I would speak” not “A conversation could be had.” Active voice is shorter, clearer, and forces accountability — which graders score.
8. End with one consequence or follow-up
Close with what you would do if the first action fails, or how you would check in afterwards. Signals foresight and lifts potential-approaches / question balance scores.
9. Stop at the framework, not the word count
Once every framework step is covered, stop. Padding with extra reflection costs time on the next question and rarely lifts the current score.
10. Don’t correct typos under pressure
Graders ignore typos. Stopping to fix one costs 3–5 seconds you cannot recover. Move on; the autosave keeps the rough version, and the rubric scores ideas not spelling.
Suggested 3.5-minute typed template
- 0–20s. Read both questions carefully. Identify the task, stakeholders, and constraints, then decide which answer needs more time.
- 20–95s. Answer Q1. State your verdict or open the framework (I3P: name the issues + impact. STAR: name the year/place), then cover the remaining framework steps.
- 95–180s.Answer Q2. Use the new information, personal reflection, or judgment angle directly. Conditional “if X / if Z” phrasing wins.
- 180–205s. Add one consequence, follow-up, or missing fact you would clarify if either answer needs it.
- 205–210s.Stop. Don’t edit unless a sentence is genuinely unclear.
Build typing speed first, but keep the structure loose enough to sound human — see the Typing Tutor. Then drill the templates above against real scenarios.
Test-day tactics that are actually useful
Good prep should make you calmer, not more scripted. Use these as operating habits on the real test, then let the specific prompt decide the answer.
Use a rough structure, not a script
Memorize the order of your thinking, not sentences. Your answer should still react to the facts in front of you: who is vulnerable, what you know, what you do not know, and why your next step fits your role.
Explain why every action is there
“I would speak privately” is weaker than “I would speak privately so they can explain without public embarrassment.” The grader cannot infer your values; make the reasoning visible.
Take clean notes during the test
Blank paper and a pen or pencil are allowed under Acuity rules; pre-written notes are not. During the scenario, jot names, roles, and the main conflict. Two or three words is enough.
Set up the screen before you begin
Run the official practice test and system check on the same laptop, browser, and network. Complete the Acuity Insights CASPer example questions and full practice test before your official sitting. If the video question area feels cramped, browser zoom can help. If the official interface shows captions, use them for names, but do not depend on unofficial extensions.
Have one video opening line ready
In the brief thinking time, choose your first sentence: “I would first make sure the person at risk is safe, then gather context privately.” A confident first line helps you stay clear within the strict 60-second response.
Look professional without performing
Sit upright, keep your tone calm, avoid crossed arms, and speak like you are talking to a patient, teammate, or supervisor. Hand gestures are fine if they are natural. Authentic beats theatrical.
Common mistakes
- Using the wrong lens for the question: I3P fits most situational judgment prompts, STAR fits most personal or past-experience prompts, and ARC fits self-insight prompts.
- Switching frameworks mid-attempt. Pick one before you start typing and finish in it.
- CARE: skipping the “Ask” step and acting on assumptions.
- CARE: listing actions without conditions — “If X / if Z” is what grades.
- CARE / I3P: casting people as good or bad. Empathy is structural, not decorative.
- I3P: jumping to a solution before gathering information. Use if-then approaches based on what you learn.
- PPRDJ: making a decision without defining your role, responsibility, or ethical justification.
- PPRDJ: using it for policy prompts without adding pros, cons, and conditional implementation details.
- IGT: generating “options” that are minor variations. Surface 2-3 genuinely distinct paths.
- IGT: taking action without explicit reasoning for the chosen option.
- STAR: missing the Result / Reflection. A story without an outcome or lesson is not a STAR answer.
- STAR: passive voice in the Action step. Use first-person verbs.
- ARC: generic reflections (“I learned to be a better team player”).
- ARC: no connection back to the role you are applying for.
- Absolute language across any framework: always, never, everyone, obviously.
FAQ
Which of the six frameworks should I pick?
There is no single official "right" CASPer framework. Frameworks help you analyze scenarios faster and make your reasoning easier to follow. Use I3P by default for situational judgment: Issues, Impact, Information, and Potential Approaches. Use PPRDJ for complex ethical dilemmas that require a decision and justification. Use STAR by default for personal or past-experience prompts: Situation, Task, Action, and Result / Reflection. CARE, IGT, and ARC are useful alternatives when they fit how the question is worded.
Can I switch frameworks between scenarios?
Yes. Set your default in Profile → Coaching framework. I3P is the default situational framework, and personal or past-experience scenarios use STAR by default. You can change your situational framework to I3P, PPRDJ, CARE, IGT, or STAR at any time and the AI critique grades you against the framework selected for that scenario type.
Are these frameworks officially endorsed by Acuity Insights?
No. CARE, ARC, I3P, PPRDJ, IGT, and STAR are study frameworks that map to the published CASPer competencies. Acuity does not endorse any specific prep framework.
How does the scoring system work?
CASPer does not give applicants a public mark out of 100. It reports performance in quartiles: Q1 is the lowest 25% of test takers, Q2 is roughly the 25-50% band, Q3 is roughly the 50-75% band, and Q4 is the top 25%. Our app uses a 1-9 practice score so you can see smaller changes between attempts: 1-3 maps to Q1, 4-5 maps to Q2, 6-7 maps to Q3, and 8-9 maps to Q4. Treat the /9 number as coaching feedback, not an official CASPer score. The quartile is the test-day style summary; the /9 score explains what to improve next.
How long should each response be?
Typed CASPer gives 3 minutes 30 seconds total for two questions. If your typing speed is under 55 WPM, focus on high-yield sentences: one framework step per sentence, no filler, no long setup, and no unnecessary conclusion.
Should I escalate immediately?
Try to resolve at a local, personal level first (talk to the coworker before involving the manager). Escalate when safety or policy clearly requires it.
STAR vs ARC — which one for personal prompts?
STAR is the default for personal and past-experience prompts because it forces context, responsibility, action, outcome, and reflection. ARC is a useful self-insight lens when the prompt mainly asks what you felt, what you learned, or how a tendency affects your behavior.
IGT vs I3P — both look behavioral, what is the difference?
IGT (Identify · Generate · Take action) is decisive: surface options, pick one, commit. I3P (Issues · Impact · Information · Potential Approaches) is comprehensive: identify the conflict, explain who is affected, gather missing information, then use if-then approaches. Use IGT under tight time pressure or when the grader wants a clear decision. Use I3P when the scenario is information-light or stakeholder-heavy.
What is the PPRDJ Framework?
PPRDJ is a five-step organizational strategy: Problem, Perspectives, Responsibility, Decision, and Justification. It is best suited to complex ethical dilemmas where you need to identify the core conflict, consider affected viewpoints, define your role or duty, state a decision, and justify it using ethical reasoning. It does not cover every CASPer question by itself, so add if-then reasoning for uncertain facts and pros/cons for policy-style prompts.
Try a timed scenario
AI critique grades you against the framework selected for that scenario type: I3P by default for situational judgment, PPRDJ when selected for complex ethical dilemmas, STAR by default for personal or past-experience prompts, and other frameworks when selected. The 1-9 practice score maps to the CASPer Q1-Q4 quartile band and is separate from the ten CASPer competencies.
Start practice