CASPer Collaboration Practice Scenario: Team Member Not Contributing

This is a collaboration scenario — one of the nine core aspects assessed in CASPer. Collaboration questions explore how you work with others, particularly when the group dynamic is under strain. In this case, the strain is a team member who has gone missing, and a group that wants to escalate immediately.

Programs use scenarios like this because teamwork is fundamental to every professional environment you will enter. Whether you are working with colleagues on a project, in a team setting, or across an organisation, you will need to navigate situations where people are not pulling their weight — and how you handle those situations reveals a great deal about your character and professional judgement.

What evaluators are looking for here is not whether you take the group's side or Alex's side. They want to see whether you can hold the complexity — the group's frustration is legitimate, and Alex's silence could mean anything — and respond in a way that is fair, constructive, and thoughtful.

CASPer scenarios always include two questions, and they are usually different question types. Understanding the difference matters because each requires a different approach.

Question 1 is situational — it asks what you would do. The focus is on action and decision-making. A strong answer acknowledges the perspectives of everyone involved before explaining what steps you would take and why your approach matters.

Question 2 is a judgment question — it asks you to weigh two options against each other. The focus is on analysis and reasoning. A strong answer doesn't just list pros and cons; it reaches a considered position on which approach is fairest and explains why.

Evaluators score each response on how well you engage with the scenario, whether you consider multiple perspectives, and how thoroughly you address the core issues. Here is what separates low, medium, and high responses on this scenario.

Collaboration scenarios look simple on the surface — someone isn't doing their share, so you deal with it. But the real test is in how you deal with it. The group wants to escalate, and that pressure can make escalation feel like the obvious answer. Many students go along with the group's instinct without pausing to think.

What makes this scenario harder is the ambiguity around Alex. Four days of silence could mean anything — a personal crisis, a family emergency, or genuine disengagement. A high-scoring response recognises that you don't actually know which it is, and that this uncertainty should shape how you act. Assuming the worst about Alex without trying to understand the situation is a low-scoring move, even if it feels decisive.

The second question is also trickier than it appears. Students often list pros and cons without committing to a position. But the question is implicitly asking you to think about what fairness actually looks like here — and fairness to Alex and fairness to the group may point in different directions. A strong response holds that tension and still reaches a conclusion.

CASPer is scored by trained evaluators who assess each response independently. There is no single right answer. What evaluators are looking for is evidence that you can engage thoughtfully with complexity — that you understand the scenario, consider the people involved, reason carefully, and communicate clearly.

For collaboration scenarios, high scores come from responses that show you understand the difference between solving a problem and addressing a situation. Solving the problem might mean going straight to the professor. Addressing the situation means recognising that Alex is a person, that the group dynamic matters, and that how you handle this reflects the kind of colleague and professional you will be.

Practising a wide range of scenario types — collaboration, ethics, empathy, fairness — is the most effective preparation strategy. Consistency across the full test matters more than any single response.

There is no word count requirement in CASPer. Evaluators are not counting words — they are reading for quality of thinking.

Very short responses almost always score lower because they don't give the evaluator enough to work with. Equally, padding a response with repetition doesn't help. The most practical approach is to aim for responses that fully address what the question is asking — no more, no less. If you've acknowledged the perspectives involved, explained your actions, and connected them to why they matter, the length will take care of itself.