ISTQB CT-AuT study plan
ISTQB CT-AuT · Give each week a clear focus.
8 weeks · About 7 hours per week
Testing E/E systems in the automotive environment based on established standards (Automotive SPICE®, ISO 26262, AUTOSAR®)
Map the Automotive SPICE® V-model onto an E/E development lifecycle and label which work products are test-relevant at each level
Distinguish the purpose and scope of Automotive SPICE®, ISO 26262 and AUTOSAR® so you can state which standard governs which test decision
Explain ASIL determination from severity, exposure and controllability, and derive the required test rigor for one example item
Describe how AUTOSAR® software component and runnable concepts shape the unit and integration test boundaries
Your checkpoint
A one-page standards map: rows = test levels, columns = the three standards, cells = the concrete test obligation each standard imposes
Testing E/E systems in the automotive environment based on established standards (Automotive SPICE®, ISO 26262, AUTOSAR®)
Trace how an ISO 26262 safety requirement flows from technical safety concept down to a testable software or hardware requirement
Classify verification methods (review, analysis, test) against ASIL-dependent recommendations and justify your choice for three sample requirements
Outline the content of a test plan that satisfies Automotive SPICE® test process expectations, including entry/exit criteria and traceability
Identify the evidence artifacts a safety assessment would expect from testing
Your checkpoint
A traceability chain for one fictional safety goal: safety goal → technical safety requirement → software requirement → test case → test result, with the ASIL noted at each step
Testing in virtual environments (including XiL)
Compare MiL, SiL, PiL and HiL on what is real versus simulated and what each can and cannot detect
Select the appropriate XiL environment for four given test objectives and defend each choice
Explain how plant models, restbus simulation and I/O interfaces determine the fidelity of a virtual test
List the limitations and risks of moving a test from HiL to a purely virtual environment
Your checkpoint
A decision table with four test objectives as rows and MiL/SiL/PiL/HiL as columns, each cell rated suitable, partially suitable or unsuitable with a one-line reason
Testing in virtual environments (including XiL)
Design a virtual test setup for a closed-loop ECU function, specifying the model, the interface and the stimulation approach
Define what must be validated in the plant model before trusting results produced in a virtual environment
Describe how to achieve reproducible, automated regression runs in a virtual environment, including versioning of models and test artifacts
Explain how back-to-back testing between virtual and real environments builds confidence in simulation results
Your checkpoint
A virtual test concept for one ECU function covering environment, model validation criteria, automation approach and back-to-back comparison strategy
Automotive-specific static test techniques
Apply automotive-specific review techniques to requirements written in natural language and to model-based artifacts
Detect typical defect classes in requirements: ambiguity, non-verifiability, missing boundary values and inconsistent terminology
Perform a static analysis of source code or a model and interpret findings such as MISRA-style rule violations, dead code and complexity metrics
Explain how static techniques complement dynamic testing in a safety-related development flow
Your checkpoint
A review record for a ten-requirement sample set: defect found, defect class, severity, and the static technique that would have caught it earlier
Automotive-specific dynamic test techniques
Derive equivalence partitions and boundary values from an automotive input specification with physical ranges and plausibility limits
Construct a decision table for a multi-condition ECU function and reduce it to a minimal but complete test set
Apply condition, decision and modified condition/decision coverage and compute the coverage achievable for a given code fragment
Explain how back-to-back and fault-injection testing are used in automotive dynamic testing
Your checkpoint
A complete test case set for one ECU function: partitions, boundary values, decision table and the structural coverage measure each case contributes to
Automotive-specific dynamic test techniques & Testing in virtual environments (including XiL)
Design a fault-injection campaign for a safety function and state which faults map to which safety mechanism
Plan a dynamic test that runs in a virtual environment and specify how results would be confirmed on real hardware
Estimate test effort for a given function and justify where automation in a virtual environment pays off
Interpret test results against exit criteria and decide whether a release recommendation is defensible
Your checkpoint
A fault-injection and regression plan for one safety function, with exit criteria, environment per test group and an effort estimate
Testing E/E systems in the automotive environment based on established standards (Automotive SPICE®, ISO 26262, AUTOSAR®) & Automotive-specific static test techniques & Automotive-specific dynamic test techniques
Rehearse exam-style reasoning across all four domains under time pressure and identify your weakest domain
Consolidate the standards relationships, XiL selection rules, static technique selection and coverage measures into quick-recall notes
Review every deliverable from weeks 1 to 7 and close the gaps you flagged
State your personal exam-day strategy for question triage and time allocation
Your checkpoint
A two-page condensed recall sheet plus a written list of your three weakest areas with the specific corrective action for each
Milestones
Week 2: You can explain, without notes, how a safety goal becomes a testable requirement and which standard drives each step
Week 4: You can justify MiL, SiL, PiL or HiL for any given test objective and name the main fidelity risk of your choice
Week 6: You can derive boundary values, a decision table and a coverage target from an unfamiliar function description in under 30 minutes
Week 8: You score consistently above your target on mixed-domain practice sets and have a written remediation plan for your three weakest areas