PSHRA-CP common mistakes
PSHRA-CP · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a scenario mentions a medical absence, the candidate analyzes it only under FMLA and picks the answer that satisfies FMLA alone, ignoring the ADA accommodation analysis, workers' compensation, or the employer's own leave policy that the same facts trigger.
Candidates study one statute at a time and rehearse each law in isolation, so the first law they recognize in the stem captures the whole analysis and they stop scanning for overlapping obligations.
What to do instead
Before evaluating options, write a three-letter checklist on scratch paper (FMLA / ADA / FLSA / COBRA / ERISA / Title VII) and mark every law the facts touch; only then compare options. Reject any option that satisfies one law by violating another.
Selecting an answer that applies a coverage threshold to the wrong law, such as imposing the 50-employee/75-mile standard on an ADA or Title VII question, or requiring 15 employees for FMLA.
The numeric thresholds (15, 20, 50, 100 employees; 20 or more calendar weeks; 75 miles) are memorized as a list rather than attached to their statutes, and under time pressure the nearest number gets used.
What to do instead
Build a one-page threshold table during study (law, employer size, time period, distance rule, employee eligibility) and re-derive it from memory weekly. On exam day, confirm the threshold in the answer choice belongs to the law named in the stem before selecting it.
Answering a policy question with a statement of purpose or intent ('the organization is committed to fair treatment') instead of naming the structural elements an auditable policy requires: scope, definitions, approval authority, effective date, review cycle, responsible office, distribution and acknowledgment method, and consequences.
Candidates write from a communications mindset, where a policy is judged by how clearly it expresses values, rather than from a governance mindset, where a policy is judged by whether it can be administered and defended.
What to do instead
Memorize a policy anatomy checklist and answer by ticking components. If an option describes intent without an accountable owner, an approval path, or a review date, treat it as incomplete unless the stem explicitly asks for a philosophy statement.
Misreading whether the stem asks for the minimum legal requirement or for recommended best practice, and then choosing the 'more thorough' option on a legal-minimum question or the 'cheaper' option on a best-practice question.
Stems often embed the qualifier in a subordinate clause ('at a minimum,' 'to reduce legal risk,' 'is required to'), and candidates pattern-match on the topical keyword instead of the operative phrase.
What to do instead
Circle the operative phrase before reading the options, and after choosing, re-read the option against that phrase. When two options are both defensible, the one that matches the question's verb (must / should / is required to / is best) is correct.
In adverse-impact items, computing or identifying the selection rate of the wrong group, or concluding 'no adverse impact' because the protected group was still hired in numbers, without comparing the lowest-rate group to the highest-rate group at the 80 percent threshold.
Candidates conflate adverse impact (a statistical comparison of rates) with disparate treatment (intentional difference in treatment) and with simple headcount representation.
What to do instead
For every selection-rate item, do the arithmetic explicitly: highest group rate as the denominator, lowest group rate as the numerator, compare to 0.80. Write the two percentages down before looking at the options.
Choosing a job evaluation method by the industry it 'sounds like' rather than by the mechanics described, for example labeling a process 'point factor' when the stem describes whole-job ranking, or calling a market-pricing approach 'job evaluation.'
Method names are learned as vocabulary with one-sentence definitions, so distinctive cues (compensable factors and weights vs. paired comparison vs. predetermined grade descriptions vs. factor-by-factor market comparison) are not attached to the terms.
What to do instead
Learn each method by its signature mechanic: ranking = whole jobs ordered; classification = jobs slotted into pre-written grade definitions; point factor = compensable factors with assigned points and weights; factor comparison = each factor ranked and priced separately against a market key job. Match the mechanic, not the vibe.
Treating 'paid on a salary basis' as sufficient for FLSA exempt status, or accepting an exemption answer without checking both the salary-level/salary-basis test and the duties test for the specific exemption claimed.
Salary and exemption are learned together in practice, and the duties test (executive, administrative, professional, computer, outside sales) is the harder half to recall, so it gets skipped.
What to do instead
Answer every exemption item in two steps out loud: (1) salary basis and salary level met? (2) primary duty matches a named exemption? An option is correct only if both are satisfied; a title alone never establishes exemption.
In progressive discipline scenarios, jumping to the harshest option on a first minor offense, skipping documented coaching and the written warning step, or applying discipline without the investigation and documentation sequence the stem implies.
Candidates reason from the outcome they think the employee deserves rather than from where the employee sits on the discipline continuum, and they overlook that most items are testing process fairness, not severity.
What to do instead
On every discipline item, ask three questions in order: was there a fair investigation, was the policy and prior notice clear, and is the penalty consistent with the documented step for this offense and with how similar cases were handled? Choose the option that completes the missing step.
Mixing up benefit-related clocks and notices, such as applying the COBRA 60-day election window to the premium payment period, using FMLA's 30-day notice for a COBRA event, or confusing ERISA summary plan description timing with the 5500 filing deadline.
All the benefit regimes are deadline-dense and studied in the same week, so the numbers blend into a single pool of '30 days, 60 days, 90 days' with no anchor.
What to do instead
Build a deadline matrix with columns for event, who owes the action, clock length, and clock start date, and drill it in both directions (given the law, name the deadline; given the deadline, name the law). Anchor each number to its triggering event rather than to the statute name.
On HR metrics items, computing turnover or cost-per-hire with the wrong denominator (using ending headcount or total applicants where average headcount or hires are required), or drawing a causal conclusion from a metric that only shows correlation.
Candidates focus on the numerator because it is the visible number in the stem and treat the denominator as obvious, and dashboards train people to read movement in a trend line as proof of cause.
What to do instead
Before calculating, write the formula in words ('separations divided by average headcount for the period') and confirm the denominator exists in the stem. If an option asserts that X caused Y, check whether the stem supports only an association; if so, the causal option is wrong regardless of the arithmetic.