The Typing Test That Froze
Forty candidates take a 10-minute English typing test for ministerial posts. The pass standard is 30 words per minute with at least 95% accuracy. The software logs keystrokes and flags paste events. Candidate 17's computer froze at 6 minutes 12 seconds; the log shows 22 wpm and 88% accuracy at freeze, and she claims she had typed about 180 words correctly before the freeze. Candidate 23's result shows 31 wpm and 12 errors in 300 words. Candidate 31 shows 35 wpm but the log contains two paste events. Candidate 12's raw speed is 29.4 wpm, which the software displays as 29 wpm. The board must declare results the same day. The invigilator says, 'Give 17 a retest, round 12 up, and ignore 31's paste because she is fast.'
1. Evaluate each of the four candidates against the stated standard. State what is clear and what needs verification.
Read the worked answer
Candidate 23: 12 errors in 300 words = 4% error, i.e. 96% accuracy, and 31 wpm, so she passes both tests.
Candidate 12: 29.4 wpm is below 30; the display of 29 is consistent with truncation, and rounding up to 30 would change the result without a published rounding rule, so she fails unless the rule says otherwise.
Candidate 31: 35 wpm is above speed, but two paste events are a red flag; the result cannot be declared until the log is examined and the candidate is asked for an explanation under the published instructions.
Candidate 17: the test is incomplete; 22 wpm and 88% at freeze do not show what she would have scored, and her claim of 180 correct words is not established by the log. A supervised retest is the fairest option, but it must be on the same terms and before results are declared.
2. How should the board handle candidate 17's retest so that it is fair to the other 39 candidates?
Read the worked answer
The retest should use a fresh passage of the same length and difficulty, the same 10-minute duration, a checked machine, and the same supervisor. The original log, machine ID, and freeze time should be preserved.
The reason for the retest should be recorded as a technical fault, not as extra practice, and the retest should be held before the result list is finalized. Candidate 17 should not get extra time or a second attempt beyond the one retest.
If a retest cannot be arranged the same day, the board should either hold all results or give her a scheduled date and declare her result provisionally. This treats her fairly without giving her an advantage over candidates who completed the test on a working machine.
3. What data-handling steps should be taken before the results are announced, and why?
Read the worked answer
Export each candidate's log immediately, record the machine number and timestamp, compute a checksum or hash, and back up the files to two separate locations, one offline. Keep the original files read-only and do not overwrite them with edited versions.
Prepare a short audit note listing the standard, the pass/fail rule, the treatment of the freeze and the paste flags, and who approved each decision. This matters because candidates may challenge results; without an unaltered log, the board cannot prove what happened. It also protects the board if the software vendor's summary differs from the raw data.
Personal data should be shared only with authorised officials, and the final result sheet should be signed and dated.