Every CASPer response is evaluated across 9 core competencies. Understanding what each competency means, what raters are looking for, and how strong responses differ from weak ones is essential to scoring well. This guide breaks down each competency in detail so you can practice with purpose.
Note that a single response is typically evaluated on multiple competencies at once. You do not need to explicitly name the competency in your answer. Instead, focus on demonstrating the underlying skill naturally through how you think and communicate.
The ability to work effectively with others toward a shared goal, even when you disagree or face conflicting priorities. Collaboration on CASPer is not just about being a team player. It is about navigating disagreement, delegating appropriately, and valuing the contributions of others.
Raters look for responses that show you can put group goals above personal preferences, that you seek input from others before acting unilaterally, and that you can negotiate compromise without being passive or domineering.
When describing a group project conflict, you explain how you called a team meeting to hear everyone's perspective, acknowledged valid points from the dissenting member, and proposed a modified plan that incorporated elements of both approaches.
You describe taking over the project yourself because the team was not performing well, framing it as leadership when it actually demonstrates an inability to collaborate or trust others.
Always mention seeking input from others before describing your own action. The order matters: listen first, then act.
The ability to express ideas clearly and listen actively. On CASPer, communication is evaluated both through the content of your response and the way you structure it. For video sections, your tone, pacing, and eye contact also contribute to this competency.
Raters look for responses that are well-organized, direct, and easy to follow. They also assess whether you demonstrate active listening skills when describing interactions with others, such as paraphrasing what someone said or checking for understanding.
When asked what you would say to a struggling colleague, you write out the actual words: 'I might say something like: I have noticed you seem overwhelmed lately. I want you to know I am here if you want to talk about it, and there is no pressure either way.'
You write 'I would communicate with them about the situation and make sure they understand my perspective.' This is vague and tells the rater nothing about your actual communication ability.
Whenever a question asks what you would say, write the actual dialogue. This is the single fastest way to improve your communication score.
The ability to understand and share the feelings of another person by seeing a situation from their perspective. Empathy on CASPer goes beyond feeling sorry for someone. It requires demonstrating that you can step into their shoes and articulate what they might be experiencing.
Raters look for language that reflects genuine perspective-taking: 'I can understand why they might feel...' or 'From their point of view, this situation could feel like...' They distinguish between empathy (understanding) and sympathy (pity).
When responding to a scenario about a patient who is angry about a long wait time, you write: 'I can understand their frustration. They may have taken time off work, arranged childcare, or been anxious about their health, and the long wait could feel dismissive of all that effort.'
You write: 'I would tell them that the wait is not that long and that the doctor is very busy with other patients.' This dismisses the person's feelings rather than acknowledging them.
Before offering any solution or opinion, dedicate at least one or two sentences to explicitly naming the emotions or perspective of the other person in the scenario.
The ability to treat people equitably and make decisions that are just, even when doing so is inconvenient or unpopular. Fairness on CASPer involves recognizing bias, applying consistent standards, and considering the impact of decisions on all parties involved.
Raters look for evidence that you consider the needs of all stakeholders, that you apply rules and standards consistently rather than making exceptions based on personal relationships, and that you can recognize when a situation involves systemic unfairness.
When asked about a scenario where a friend asks you to bend the rules for them, you acknowledge the friendship but explain that applying the rule inconsistently would be unfair to everyone else who followed it. You then describe how you would help your friend find an alternative path within the rules.
You immediately agree to help your friend bypass the rule because 'loyalty is important,' without considering how this affects others or the integrity of the system.
When a scenario involves a rule or policy, always ask yourself: what happens if everyone gets this exception? If the answer is chaos, the exception is probably not fair.
The ability to recognize ethical dimensions of a situation and reason through moral dilemmas thoughtfully. CASPer does not expect you to memorize ethical frameworks, but it does expect you to identify when values conflict, consider multiple perspectives, and arrive at a reasoned position.
Raters look for nuanced reasoning that acknowledges competing values rather than oversimplified right-or-wrong thinking. They want to see that you can identify the ethical tension in a scenario, consider the consequences of different actions, and explain your reasoning clearly.
When faced with a scenario where a colleague is cutting corners on patient safety to save time, you identify the competing values (efficiency vs. safety, loyalty to a colleague vs. duty to patients), explain why patient safety must take priority, and describe a respectful way to address the issue.
You immediately say you would report the colleague to the highest authority without first trying to understand the situation or address it directly. This shows rigidity rather than ethical reasoning.
Name the competing values out loud in your response. Saying 'On one hand there is X, and on the other hand there is Y' signals to the rater that you see the complexity.
The depth of your commitment to your chosen field and your understanding of what the profession demands. Motivation on CASPer is not about enthusiasm or passion statements. It is about demonstrating that you have a realistic, thoughtful understanding of why you are pursuing this path.
Raters look for specificity and realism. They want to see that your motivation is grounded in actual experiences, that you understand the challenges of the profession (not just the rewards), and that your reasons go beyond surface-level answers like 'I want to help people.'
When asked why you want to enter medicine, you describe a specific experience that shaped your understanding of the field, acknowledge the challenges you have observed (long hours, emotional toll, systemic barriers), and explain why the meaningful aspects outweigh those challenges for you personally.
You write a generic statement about wanting to help people and how you have always been passionate about science. This tells the rater nothing specific about your actual motivation or understanding of the profession.
Connect your motivation to a specific, concrete experience. 'After volunteering at X, I realized Y' is always stronger than 'I have always wanted to...'
The ability to analyze complex situations, consider multiple approaches, and arrive at practical solutions. CASPer problem solving is not about finding the one correct answer. It is about demonstrating a thoughtful, systematic approach to situations that have no perfect solution.
Raters look for structured thinking: gathering information before acting, considering multiple options, weighing pros and cons, and selecting an approach with clear reasoning. They also value creative thinking and the ability to adapt when initial approaches do not work.
When presented with a conflict between two team members, you describe gathering information from both parties separately, identifying the root cause of the disagreement, proposing two or three potential solutions, and explaining which one you would recommend and why.
You jump straight to a single solution without considering alternatives or gathering information. 'I would just tell them to work it out themselves' shows an unwillingness to engage with the complexity of the problem.
Use a simple framework: identify the problem, gather information, consider two or three options, choose one and explain why. This structure alone puts you ahead of most responses.
The ability to cope with adversity, learn from setbacks, and maintain your well-being under stress. Resilience on CASPer is not about pretending that difficult things do not affect you. It is about showing that you process challenges constructively and grow from them.
Raters look for honest acknowledgment of difficulty combined with a constructive response. They want to see that you have healthy coping strategies, that you can ask for help when needed, and that you view setbacks as learning opportunities rather than failures.
When asked about a time you failed, you describe the situation honestly, explain what you felt in the moment, identify what you learned from the experience, and describe how you changed your approach going forward. You mention seeking support from a mentor or peer.
You claim you have never really failed at anything significant, or you describe a 'failure' that is actually a disguised success ('My weakness is that I work too hard'). Raters see through this immediately.
Genuine vulnerability scores higher than fake perfection. Describing a real struggle and how you worked through it demonstrates far more resilience than pretending you never struggle.
The ability to accurately assess your own strengths, weaknesses, biases, and emotional responses. Self-awareness on CASPer means recognizing how your own perspective, background, and assumptions influence the way you interpret situations and interact with others.
Raters look for evidence that you can reflect critically on your own behavior, acknowledge your limitations without being self-deprecating, recognize when your personal biases might affect your judgment, and take responsibility for your actions without deflecting blame.
When responding to a scenario where you made a mistake that affected others, you take full responsibility, describe what you would do to address the impact on others, and identify the specific blind spot or assumption that led to the mistake in the first place.
You blame external circumstances or other people for the outcome, or you minimize your role in the situation. 'It was not really my fault because the instructions were unclear' shows a lack of accountability.
Include one sentence in your response that explicitly names your own bias or assumption. 'I recognize that my initial reaction might be influenced by...' signals a high level of self-awareness to raters.
CasperCoach evaluates every response across all 9 competencies and shows you exactly where you are strong and where you need work. Get AI feedback and percentile rankings on real CASPer-style scenarios.
Start Practicing Free