CRA (Other exams) common mistakes
CRA · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a scenario describes a proposed project with several activities, the candidate labels the whole award as 'basic research' or 'applied research' based on the investigator's field rather than on the immediate purpose of each activity, and then applies the wrong cost principles or indirect cost treatment.
Candidates memorize the basic-versus-applied distinction as a property of a discipline (e.g., 'chemistry is basic, engineering is applied'). Scenarios deliberately mix activities so that the same project contains both. The exam tests whether you classify by the purpose of the work at the time the cost is incurred, and candidates revert to field-based shortcuts under time pressure.
What to do instead
For every scenario, write one line per activity stating the immediate objective (acquiring new knowledge vs. meeting a specific practical requirement). Classify the cost at the activity level, not the project or department level, and check whether the sponsor's definition (e.g., federal basic/applied/research-and-development definitions) is quoted in the stem. If the stem gives a sponsor definition, apply that definition literally even if it conflicts with your intuition.
The candidate treats a fixed-price agreement like a cost-reimbursement award, or vice versa, when applying prior-approval, rebudgeting, and residual-balance rules, and answers questions about unspent funds or scope changes using the wrong rule set.
Many candidates learn one award type at their own institution and generalize it. Fixed-price agreements hinge on deliverables and allow residual balances to be retained under many sponsor policies, while cost-reimbursement awards require allowability and allocability of every dollar and often require prior approval for changes. Scenarios rarely announce the type in the first sentence, so candidates miss the cue.
What to do instead
Before answering, scan the stem for the award instrument (grant, cooperative agreement, contract, fixed-price, cost-reimbursement) and note it in the margin. Build a two-column mental table: for fixed-price, ask 'was the deliverable met and was the price fair at the outset?'; for cost-reimbursement, ask 'is this cost allowable, allocable, reasonable, and consistently treated?'. Answer only from the column that matches the instrument named.
Candidates compute indirect costs by multiplying the total direct cost figure shown in the stem, including equipment, tuition, subaward amounts over the threshold, or participant support costs, instead of first removing exclusions and applying the correct base and rate type.
The stem often presents a single 'total direct costs' number to make the arithmetic easy, and candidates grab it. They also confuse on-campus and off-campus rates, provisional versus final rates, and MTDC with TDC. The distractor answers are built precisely from these errors, so a plausible number appears among the choices.
What to do instead
Always reconstruct the base: start from total direct costs, subtract equipment, capital expenditures, patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward exceeding the sponsor's threshold (commonly the first $25,000), then apply the rate that matches the performance location and rate agreement status. Show the base and rate separately in your scratch work so a wrong-base distractor cannot tempt you.
The candidate identifies a compliance problem in a scenario (e.g., unreported effort, a missing IRB approval, an unapproved change in scope) but recommends the action that fixes the paperwork rather than the action the regulation or policy actually requires, such as retroactive approval, disclosure, or suspension of the activity.
Candidates know the rule exists but not the required remedy or the sequence of escalation. They default to 'document it' or 'tell the PI to submit a form,' which sounds administrative and safe. Exam items test whether you know that some activities must stop, some must be disclosed to the sponsor, and some require institutional official sign-off before any correction is filed.
What to do instead
For each major compliance area, memorize the trigger and the mandated response as a pair: human subjects without approval means stop the research and report to IRB; unreported significant financial interest means disclose and manage before proceeding; effort misstatement means correct through the institutional system and assess cost sharing implications. Practice stating the required action in one sentence, in the active voice, before reading the answer choices.
On effort and salary questions, the candidate treats 'percent effort' as a percentage of a person's total available working time in the abstract, or assumes effort is capped at the sponsor's salary cap percentage, rather than computing effort as a share of the individual's institutional base salary commitment.
Effort reporting language is dense, and candidates conflate committed effort, actual effort, salary charged, and salary cap. Scenarios frequently include a person paid above a sponsor cap, and the candidate answers as if the cap limited the person's effort rather than the reimbursable salary.
What to do instead
Separate the two calculations explicitly: committed effort is a percentage of the individual's total professional activity, independent of the cap; allowable salary charge is the lesser of actual salary or the cap, multiplied by the effort percentage. On every effort item, write 'effort % = ___; salary base = ___; cap applies? yes/no' before evaluating choices, and remember that cost sharing arises when committed effort exceeds the salary charged.
The candidate answers pre-award questions about a proposal's budget or commitments as if the award already existed, ignoring that pre-award costs, cost sharing pledges, and institutional commitments create obligations before the award and may require prior approval or documented authorization.
Pre-award and post-award content overlaps heavily, and candidates apply post-award flexibility to pre-award decisions. They forget that voluntary committed cost sharing becomes a binding commitment once proposed, and that pre-award spending generally requires sponsor or institutional approval and carries risk if the award never materializes.
What to do instead
When a stem is set before the award date, ask three questions: has the institution authorized the expenditure, has the sponsor approved it (or does the sponsor's policy permit pre-award costs within a stated window), and does the proposal create a commitment the institution must honor? Treat any cost sharing written into the proposal as a real obligation and check whether it is voluntary committed (which must be tracked) or voluntary uncommitted (which must not be used to gain review advantage).
Candidates choose the answer that is ethically admirable but not the one the scenario's facts support, or they assume that because a supervisor gave an instruction, following it satisfies the professional standard.
Ethics items are written so that the most virtuous-sounding option is often a distractor, and the correct answer requires identifying the specific conflict, the affected parties, and the appropriate reporting channel. Candidates also underweight the duty to escalate when a senior person is the source of the problem, and overweight loyalty to the project or the institution.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-step routine: identify the conflicting obligations (sponsor, institution, subject, public, profession), identify who has authority to resolve it, then select the option that uses the established channel in the correct order (supervisor, then research integrity or compliance office, then external sponsor or regulator as required). Eliminate any option that involves concealing, delaying disclosure without justification, or acting outside one's authority, no matter how well intentioned it sounds.
The candidate misreads a 'which is NOT' or 'except' item, or selects the first true statement encountered, instead of evaluating every option against the exact condition the stem names.
Under time pressure, candidates pattern-match to familiar true statements and stop reading. Item writers include one option that is true but does not answer the question asked, and one that is false only in a narrow respect. The result is a wrong answer on material the candidate actually knows.
What to do instead
Circle or mentally flag the qualifier before reading the options, and restate the task to yourself as a positive sentence ('find the option that is not allowable'). Evaluate each option to a yes/no verdict and only then compare verdicts to the qualifier. If two options seem correct, re-read the stem for a scope or timing word (pre-award, at time of proposal, after award, always, generally) that distinguishes them.
On subaward and collaboration scenarios, the candidate applies the prime recipient's policies to the subrecipient, or assumes the subrecipient's costs are allowable simply because they appear in the subaward budget, without checking the flow-down requirements and the subrecipient's own approvals.
Candidates treat the subaward as a procurement transaction or as an extension of the prime award. In practice, a subaward carries flow-down terms, and the subrecipient's compliance (IRB approval, effort documentation, cost allowability) is monitored by the prime, which retains responsibility to the sponsor. Scenarios test whether you know who monitors whom.
What to do instead
For any scenario with a collaborating organization, determine first whether the relationship is a subaward (programmatic work, subrecipient has responsibility for the scope) or a procurement contract (goods or services, vendor provides routine service). Then apply the rule that the prime remains accountable to the sponsor while the subrecipient is accountable to the prime for its own compliance, and confirm that required flow-down terms and prior approvals are in the subaward agreement before costs are incurred.
The candidate answers project-development questions by jumping straight to the budget or the submission deadline, skipping the sequencing of feasibility assessment, sponsor identification, institutional routing, and required approvals, and therefore picks an option that is efficient but out of order.
Experienced administrators work in parallel and compress steps, so their intuition conflicts with the exam's idealized sequence. Items test whether you know which step must precede another (e.g., conflict-of-interest disclosure before submission, institutional sign-off before transmission, cost-sharing approval before the commitment is made).
What to do instead
Sketch the proposal lifecycle in order on scratch paper at the start of the exam: opportunity identification and eligibility check, PI and key personnel documentation, compliance approvals (IRB, IACUC, IBC, COI), budget and cost-sharing authorization, institutional review and sign-off, submission, and sponsor response. When an item asks what should happen next, locate the scenario on that timeline and choose the option that is both required and not yet completed.