Casper cheat sheet

Casper video scenarios are scored on observable communication behavior, not on reaching a single correct outcome; raters look for whether you acknowledge the other person's perspective before advocating your own.

Perspective-taking sequence that raters can hear: name the emotion or stake you infer ("it sounds like you're worried about being blamed"), state the evidence from the scenario, then ask a check question rather than asserting the inference as fact.

Distinguish the three standard response moves: acknowledge (validate the person's concern), clarify (ask a specific question to close an information gap), and act (state a concrete next step with who does what by when); a strong answer uses at least two.

In written-response sections, the 10-minute budget is roughly 2-3 minutes planning the structure, 5-6 minutes writing, and 1-2 minutes checking that each question part was actually answered.

Scenario prompts often embed multiple questions ("what would you do and why"); unanswered sub-questions are the most common avoidable scoring loss, so number your answers to match the prompt parts.

Emotion-labeling accuracy matters more than empathy volume: over-labeling (telling someone how they feel when the scenario gives no signal) reads as presumptuous, so tie each label to concrete scenario detail.

When two parties conflict, the social-intelligence move is to separate the people from the problem: restate each side's interest in neutral words, then propose a next step that addresses the shared interest rather than declaring a winner.

If a scenario involves a distressed person, sequence matters: immediate safety and emotional acknowledgment precede problem-solving and policy explanation; leading with policy reads as cold and is penalized.

Self-disclosure calibrates trust but must stay proportionate: a brief relevant personal reference can build rapport, while extended personal narrative shifts focus from the other person and dilutes the response.

Professionalism items test whether you protect confidentiality, follow stated policy, and escalate through the right channel; the expected pattern is contain, report, and document rather than improvise a private fix.

When a scenario presents a shortcut that benefits a friend or teammate, the professional default is transparent disclosure to a supervisor plus recusal from the decision if you have a personal stake.

Distinguish a mistake from misconduct in your answer: an honest error calls for disclosure, correction, and a prevention step; concealment, falsification, or repeated disregard of policy calls for escalation.

Policy conflict rule: when a stated rule conflicts with a person's wellbeing, do not silently break the rule; state the concern to the person with authority to grant an exception, and act within your role until then.

Competence boundaries are part of professionalism: overclaiming expertise to appear helpful is a scored failure; naming what you do not know and routing the person to the right resource is the expected move.

In written responses, commit to a specific action rather than listing options: raters reward a clear decision plus the reasoning and the safeguard, not a survey of possibilities.

Accountability language is concrete ("I would tell my supervisor today, share what happened, and ask what the next step should be"), not abstract ("I would take responsibility"), because raters score observable commitments.

Consent and privacy apply to informal contexts too: forwarding screenshots, sharing a colleague's health information, or discussing a client in a group chat are professionalism violations even when intent was benign.

Time pressure and fatigue are recognized as error drivers; a professional response names a concrete safeguard (double-check, hand off, pause before signing) rather than promising to be more careful.

Casper video scenarios are scored on observable communication behavior, not on reaching a single correct outcome; raters look for whether you acknowledge the other person's perspective before advocating your own.

Perspective-taking sequence that raters can hear: name the emotion or stake you infer ("it sounds like you're worried about being blamed"), state the evidence from the scenario, then ask a check question rather than asserting the inference as fact.

Distinguish the three standard response moves: acknowledge (validate the person's concern), clarify (ask a specific question to close an information gap), and act (state a concrete next step with who does what by when); a strong answer uses at least two.

In written-response sections, the 10-minute budget is roughly 2-3 minutes planning the structure, 5-6 minutes writing, and 1-2 minutes checking that each question part was actually answered.

Scenario prompts often embed multiple questions ("what would you do and why"); unanswered sub-questions are the most common avoidable scoring loss, so number your answers to match the prompt parts.

Emotion-labeling accuracy matters more than empathy volume: over-labeling (telling someone how they feel when the scenario gives no signal) reads as presumptuous, so tie each label to concrete scenario detail.

When two parties conflict, the social-intelligence move is to separate the people from the problem: restate each side's interest in neutral words, then propose a next step that addresses the shared interest rather than declaring a winner.

If a scenario involves a distressed person, sequence matters: immediate safety and emotional acknowledgment precede problem-solving and policy explanation; leading with policy reads as cold and is penalized.

Self-disclosure calibrates trust but must stay proportionate: a brief relevant personal reference can build rapport, while extended personal narrative shifts focus from the other person and dilutes the response.

Professionalism items test whether you protect confidentiality, follow stated policy, and escalate through the right channel; the expected pattern is contain, report, and document rather than improvise a private fix.

When a scenario presents a shortcut that benefits a friend or teammate, the professional default is transparent disclosure to a supervisor plus recusal from the decision if you have a personal stake.

Distinguish a mistake from misconduct in your answer: an honest error calls for disclosure, correction, and a prevention step; concealment, falsification, or repeated disregard of policy calls for escalation.

Policy conflict rule: when a stated rule conflicts with a person's wellbeing, do not silently break the rule; state the concern to the person with authority to grant an exception, and act within your role until then.

Competence boundaries are part of professionalism: overclaiming expertise to appear helpful is a scored failure; naming what you do not know and routing the person to the right resource is the expected move.

In written responses, commit to a specific action rather than listing options: raters reward a clear decision plus the reasoning and the safeguard, not a survey of possibilities.

Accountability language is concrete ("I would tell my supervisor today, share what happened, and ask what the next step should be"), not abstract ("I would take responsibility"), because raters score observable commitments.

Consent and privacy apply to informal contexts too: forwarding screenshots, sharing a colleague's health information, or discussing a client in a group chat are professionalism violations even when intent was benign.

Time pressure and fatigue are recognized as error drivers; a professional response names a concrete safeguard (double-check, hand off, pause before signing) rather than promising to be more careful.

Casper video scenarios are scored on observable communication behavior, not on reaching a single correct outcome; raters look for whether you acknowledge the other person's perspective before advocating your own.

Perspective-taking sequence that raters can hear: name the emotion or stake you infer ("it sounds like you're worried about being blamed"), state the evidence from the scenario, then ask a check question rather than asserting the inference as fact.

Distinguish the three standard response moves: acknowledge (validate the person's concern), clarify (ask a specific question to close an information gap), and act (state a concrete next step with who does what by when); a strong answer uses at least two.

In written-response sections, the 10-minute budget is roughly 2-3 minutes planning the structure, 5-6 minutes writing, and 1-2 minutes checking that each question part was actually answered.

Scenario prompts often embed multiple questions ("what would you do and why"); unanswered sub-questions are the most common avoidable scoring loss, so number your answers to match the prompt parts.

Emotion-labeling accuracy matters more than empathy volume: over-labeling (telling someone how they feel when the scenario gives no signal) reads as presumptuous, so tie each label to concrete scenario detail.

When two parties conflict, the social-intelligence move is to separate the people from the problem: restate each side's interest in neutral words, then propose a next step that addresses the shared interest rather than declaring a winner.

If a scenario involves a distressed person, sequence matters: immediate safety and emotional acknowledgment precede problem-solving and policy explanation; leading with policy reads as cold and is penalized.

Self-disclosure calibrates trust but must stay proportionate: a brief relevant personal reference can build rapport, while extended personal narrative shifts focus from the other person and dilutes the response.

Professionalism items test whether you protect confidentiality, follow stated policy, and escalate through the right channel; the expected pattern is contain, report, and document rather than improvise a private fix.

When a scenario presents a shortcut that benefits a friend or teammate, the professional default is transparent disclosure to a supervisor plus recusal from the decision if you have a personal stake.

Distinguish a mistake from misconduct in your answer: an honest error calls for disclosure, correction, and a prevention step; concealment, falsification, or repeated disregard of policy calls for escalation.

Policy conflict rule: when a stated rule conflicts with a person's wellbeing, do not silently break the rule; state the concern to the person with authority to grant an exception, and act within your role until then.

Competence boundaries are part of professionalism: overclaiming expertise to appear helpful is a scored failure; naming what you do not know and routing the person to the right resource is the expected move.

In written responses, commit to a specific action rather than listing options: raters reward a clear decision plus the reasoning and the safeguard, not a survey of possibilities.

Accountability language is concrete ("I would tell my supervisor today, share what happened, and ask what the next step should be"), not abstract ("I would take responsibility"), because raters score observable commitments.

Consent and privacy apply to informal contexts too: forwarding screenshots, sharing a colleague's health information, or discussing a client in a group chat are professionalism violations even when intent was benign.

Time pressure and fatigue are recognized as error drivers; a professional response names a concrete safeguard (double-check, hand off, pause before signing) rather than promising to be more careful.