Casper flashcards

32 cards. Read the term and the definition here. The deck at the top of this page is optional.

Casper scoring basis

Responses are rated by trained reviewers against behavioral rubrics covering communication, empathy, professionalism, and problem-solving. There is no single correct outcome; reviewers judge the quality of reasoning and interpersonal handling shown.

Acknowledge-clarify-act

A three-move response structure: validate the other person's stated or evident concern, ask a targeted question to close an information gap, then commit to a concrete next step with a named owner and timing.

Perspective-taking check

Stating an inferred emotion or stake together with the scenario evidence behind it, then asking the person to confirm. This avoids presuming feelings while still demonstrating that you considered their viewpoint.

Separate people from problem

In a two-party conflict, restate each side's underlying interest in neutral language and propose a step serving the shared interest, rather than deciding who is right or wrong.

Distress-first sequencing

When someone is upset, address immediate safety and emotional acknowledgment before explaining policy or solving the task. Leading with rules reads as cold and lowers communication ratings.

Over-labeling risk

Assigning emotions the scenario never signals, such as telling a calm person they are furious. Reviewers treat this as presumptuous rather than empathetic, so label only what the described behavior supports.

Embedded multi-part prompts

Scenario questions frequently ask both what you would do and why. Answering only one part is the most common avoidable loss, so map your response to each numbered part of the prompt.

Written response time split

For roughly ten minutes of writing: two to three minutes outlining, five to six minutes drafting, and one to two minutes verifying that every prompt part was answered with a concrete commitment.

Proportionate self-disclosure

A brief, relevant personal reference can build rapport in a scenario. Extended personal narrative shifts attention away from the other person and weakens the response, so keep disclosure short and purposeful.

Open question function

Questions that cannot be answered yes or no surface the other person's reasoning and priorities. In scenarios, one well-chosen open question often reveals the real obstacle faster than several closed ones.

Reflecting back

Paraphrasing the other person's message in your own words before responding. It confirms understanding, slows escalation, and gives the speaker a chance to correct a misread.

Nonverbal delivery signals

In video responses, steady eye contact with the camera, unhurried pace, and composed facial expression are scored as part of communication. Rushing, reading a script, or visible frustration detracts from content quality.

Reading the stated stake

Scenarios usually name what a person stands to lose, such as a grade, shift, or reputation. Naming that stake explicitly shows you tracked the scenario's concrete detail rather than offering generic empathy.

Team conflict neutral framing

Describe each party's position using observable behavior and stated interests, avoiding blame adjectives. Neutral framing keeps both parties engaged and lets you propose a workable next step they can accept.

Clarify before concluding

When scenario information is incomplete, ask a specific question before deciding. Reviewers reward recognizing the gap; guessing at missing facts and acting on the guess reads as poor judgment.

Empathy without agreement

You can validate someone's frustration while declining their request. Acknowledging emotion is separate from conceding the point, and combining both keeps the relationship intact while holding the boundary.

Confidentiality default

Personal, health, and client information stays within the circle of people who need it for their role. Sharing in group chats or forwarding screenshots violates this even when the intent was harmless.

Contain-report-document

The standard escalation pattern: stop further harm, notify the person with authority over the issue, and record what happened and what you did. Improvising a private fix instead of reporting is a scored weakness.

Conflict of interest recusal

When a decision affects a friend, relative, or your own interest, disclose the relationship to a supervisor and step out of the decision. Transparency plus recusal is the expected professional combination.

Mistake versus misconduct

An honest error calls for prompt disclosure, correction, and a prevention step. Concealment, falsification, or repeated disregard of known rules calls for escalation to someone with authority.

Policy-wellbeing conflict

When a rule appears to harm someone, do not silently break it. Voice the concern to whoever can grant an exception, and act within your role in the meantime while the decision is made.

Competence boundary statement

Naming what you do not know and routing the person to the right resource. Overclaiming expertise to seem helpful is a professionalism failure, while honest redirection is treated as sound judgment.

Concrete accountability language

Replace abstract phrases like taking responsibility with specific commitments: whom you will tell, what you will disclose, and by when. Reviewers score observable actions, not stated attitudes.

Decision plus safeguard

Strong responses commit to one action and add a protective step, such as a second reviewer, a written record, or a follow-up check. Listing options without choosing reads as indecisive.

Consent in informal channels

Permission to share information does not transfer to new audiences. Before forwarding a message or screenshot, confirm the original person agreed to that specific wider distribution.

Fatigue safeguards

Recognizing that long shifts and time pressure cause errors, then naming a concrete countermeasure such as a double-check, a handoff, or a pause before signing. Promising to be careful is too vague to score.

Scope of role

Acting beyond your training or authority, even helpfully, is a professionalism issue. The expected move is to do what your role permits and involve the person qualified or authorized for the rest.

Fairness across parties

Apply the same standard to everyone involved, including friends and people you dislike. Inconsistent enforcement, such as covering for a teammate, is treated as an integrity failure regardless of motive.

Whistleblower escalation path

When the direct supervisor is involved in the problem, escalate to the next level or a designated reporting channel. Skipping to silence because the usual route is compromised is not acceptable.

Documentation timing

Record incidents close to the event, while details are accurate. Delayed notes lose specificity and look like after-the-fact justification, which weakens the credibility of your account.

Apology components

An effective professional apology names the specific action, acknowledges its impact on the other person, states a remedy, and describes the change that prevents recurrence. Generic apologies without specifics score poorly.

Pressure and integrity

Scenario pressure such as a deadline or an authority figure urging a shortcut does not change the standard. Name the pressure explicitly, then hold the rule while offering a compliant way to meet the need.